MHB What are the best definitions for limsup and liminf in sequences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poirot1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions of limsup and liminf for sequences in R, comparing Walter Rudin's definition as the supremum and infimum of subsequential limits with Wikipedia's definition as the smallest number that serves as an eventual upper bound. Questions arise regarding how the Wikipedia definition addresses infinity and which definition is more practical. Rudin's approach includes a proof that if a number x exceeds the limsup, it must be an eventual upper bound, but the reasoning behind finding a subsequential limit y greater than x is unclear to some. The consensus leans towards the Wikipedia definition for its clarity, especially in cases of unbounded sequences.
Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
I am trying to learn about limsup and liminf for sequences in R. Walter rudin in his book defines them to be the sup and inf of the set of subsequential limits (possibly including + and - infinity). Wikipedia defines limsup to be the smallest number such that any greater number is an eventual upper bound of the sequence.A few questions:1)How does the wikipedia definition cope with infinity and - infinity?2) Which definition is best to work with?

3) In his book Rudin states the result that if x is bigger than limsup, then it is an eventual upper bound of sequence. Bearing in mind he uses the first definition, he goes for a contradiction and says that if x is less than the sequence for infinitely many n, there exists a subsequential limit y exceeding x, contary to x being an upper bound. How he comes up with this y is mystery to me. Wonderful book but sometimes leaves out 'obvious steps'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Poirot said:
I am trying to learn about limsup and liminf for sequences in R. Walter rudin in his book defines them to be the sup and inf of the set of subsequential limits (possibly including + and - infinity). Wikipedia defines limsup to be the smallest number such that any greater number is an eventual upper bound of the sequence.A few questions:1)How does the wikipedia definition cope with infinity and - infinity?2) Which definition is best to work with?

3) In his book Rudin states the result that if x is bigger than limsup, then it is an eventual upper bound of sequence. Bearing in mind he uses the first definition, he goes for a contradiction and says that if x is less than the sequence for infinitely many n, there exists a subsequential limit y exceeding x, contary to x being an upper bound. How he comes up with this y is mystery to me. Wonderful book but sometimes leaves out 'obvious steps'.

In my opinion Wikipedia definition is clear and not ambigous so that I suggest to adopt it... if the sequence is umbounded on the upper part then the upper limit simply doesn't exist and if the sequence is umbounded on the lower part then the lower limit simply doesn't exist...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K