What is the definition of supremum for a sequence of real numbers?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Supremum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the supremum for a sequence of real numbers, exploring whether a specific formulation involving limits and maxima is equivalent to the traditional definition of supremum. The scope includes theoretical considerations and definitions within mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the supremum of a sequence can be expressed as the limit of the maximum of the first n terms of the sequence.
  • Another participant asserts that this formulation is indeed the same as the supremum and encourages others to prove the equality based on definitions.
  • A different participant notes that the supremum is applicable to any set, not just countably infinite sequences.
  • Some participants discuss the relevance of definitions in the context of countably versus uncountably infinite sets, suggesting that the proposed definition may not hold for uncountably infinite sets.
  • There is a clarification that the discussion is specifically about sequences of real numbers, which may limit the applicability of certain definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proposed definition of supremum, with some agreeing on its applicability to sequences while others raise concerns about its relevance to uncountably infinite sets. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the equivalence of the proposed definition and the traditional definition of supremum.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the applicability of the proposed definition to different types of sets, particularly distinguishing between countable and uncountable sets.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
If you're given a sequence [itex]\{x_n\}[/itex], do you have

[tex] \sup_n x_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} \left( \max\limits_{1 \leq k \leq n} x_k \right)[/tex]

I've never seen this definition before, but it makes sense.

...and if it's NOT the same as the supremum...what *is* it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the same as the supremum. But you should try to prove they're equal for yourself; it follows somewhat easily from the definitions, where sup is the least upper bound.
 
Last edited:
Notice that this gives the supremum for a sequence- a countably infinite set. The supremum is defined for any set (assuming [itex]+\infty[/itex] is a valid supremum), countable or not.
 
@HallsofIvy: I don't really see the relevance of your remark, but if you want to generalize: the supremum is defined for any partially ordered set.
 
Landau said:
@HallsofIvy: I don't really see the relevance of your remark, but if you want to generalize: the supremum is defined for any partially ordered set.

I think the relevance of his remark is this: It's not possible for the condition I listed to be the definition of the supremum of a set of real numbers because it doesn't even make sense for an uncountably infinite set; e.g., [itex][0,1][/itex]. But I think it works just fine for any countably infinite set.
 
Sure it is not valid for subsets of R, in the same way it is not valid for arbitrary posets. But you were explicitly talking about sequences of reals, so...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K