Taking the lim operation on both sides

  • Thread starter Thread starter transgalactic
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the legality of taking limits on both sides of an inequality involving supremums, specifically questioning whether limsup can be applied similarly to the supremum of sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conditions under which limits can be taken, referencing properties of limits and providing counterexamples to challenge assumptions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing examples and counterexamples to clarify the original poster's question. Some guidance has been offered regarding properties of limits, but differing interpretations of the conditions are being examined.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the definitions of supremum and limsup, with some participants questioning the assumptions made about the sequences involved. The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings regarding the application of limits to supremums.

transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
is it legal to take the limit on both sides of an expression

i particular

when i have

sup x_n <=sup y_n

is it ok to do

limsup x_n <=limsup y_n

is the limit of the supremums group of subsequences is the limsup on the sequence
??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One of the properties of the limit is that if a_n\le b_n for all n, then \lim_{n\to\infty}a_n\le\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n provided that these limits exist.
Does this answer your question?
 
This isn't quite that case yyat.

Counterexample: xn = 1 if n=1, 0 otherwise
yn = 1/2 for all n

supxn = 1
supyn = 1/2

limsup xn = 0
limsup yn = 1/2
 
Office_Shredder said:
This isn't quite that case yyat.

Counterexample: xn = 1 if n=1, 0 otherwise
yn = 1/2 for all n

supxn = 1
supyn = 1/2

limsup xn = 0
limsup yn = 1/2

I don't see how this contradicts anything I wrote.

But you are right, if transgalactic means that sup x_n=sup{x_n,n>=0}, then the statement is wrong by the counterexample you gave (with x_n, y_n switched). I assumed it meant sup{x_n,n>m}<=sup{y_n,n>m} for all m.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K