Understanding Superior Limits and Their Definition in Real Numbers - Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
8
So, my book says that the real number L is a superior limit of the sequence (an) iff the following holds:

a) [itex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/itex], [itex]a_{n} < L + \epsilon[/itex] holds, for almost all terms of the sequence,
b) [itex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/itex], [itex]L - \epsilon < a_{n}[/itex] holds, for an infinite number of terms of the sequence.

OK, the two facts confuse me. I know that "almost all terms of the sequence" means "all terms, except a finite number of terms". If L is a superior limit, then it is the supremum (by definition) of the set A of all real numbers [itex]a \in \textbf{R}[/itex] for which there exists a subsequence (bn) of the sequence (an) such that [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} b_{n} = a[/itex]. Hence, for every [itex]\epsilon' > 0[/itex], there exists an element x of A such that [itex]L - \epsilon' < x[/itex]. Because x belongs to A, for some [itex]\epsilon'' > 0[/itex], the interval [itex]<x - \epsilon'', x+ \epsilon''>[/itex] contains almost all elements of a subsequence of the sequence (an). This is where I'm stuck and highly confused.
 
Are you confused by the concept, or are you trying to prove something?
 
NateTG said:
Are you confused by the concept, or are you trying to prove something?

The concept (eg definition) is clear to me, I just don't understand how one arrives at a) and b).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K