Prove that the liminf of a sequence is equal to its smallest subsequential limit
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$ a:= liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$
$a$ $in$ $R$
I am trying to show this by using cases and assuming the equality doesn't hold- to come to a contradiction showing neither side is greater. To imply that they are equal.
In Case 1 I assumed $liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = L > $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$ = l
$=>$ -C < l < L < ... < C where C $in$ $R$
And used a weak (I think) argument that $a_n$ is bounded:
$=>$ L = $inf${subsequantial limit set}.
$=>$ L $leq$ $a_n$ for any n.
Then implied that since $a_k$ is a subset of $a_n$ every element of $a_k$ should be greater or equal to L leading to a contradiction..
L $leq$ l
Is this approach at all valid? Should I use a similar argument for Case 2?
real-analysis sequences-and-series limsup-and-liminf
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$ a:= liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$
$a$ $in$ $R$
I am trying to show this by using cases and assuming the equality doesn't hold- to come to a contradiction showing neither side is greater. To imply that they are equal.
In Case 1 I assumed $liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = L > $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$ = l
$=>$ -C < l < L < ... < C where C $in$ $R$
And used a weak (I think) argument that $a_n$ is bounded:
$=>$ L = $inf${subsequantial limit set}.
$=>$ L $leq$ $a_n$ for any n.
Then implied that since $a_k$ is a subset of $a_n$ every element of $a_k$ should be greater or equal to L leading to a contradiction..
L $leq$ l
Is this approach at all valid? Should I use a similar argument for Case 2?
real-analysis sequences-and-series limsup-and-liminf
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$ a:= liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$
$a$ $in$ $R$
I am trying to show this by using cases and assuming the equality doesn't hold- to come to a contradiction showing neither side is greater. To imply that they are equal.
In Case 1 I assumed $liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = L > $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$ = l
$=>$ -C < l < L < ... < C where C $in$ $R$
And used a weak (I think) argument that $a_n$ is bounded:
$=>$ L = $inf${subsequantial limit set}.
$=>$ L $leq$ $a_n$ for any n.
Then implied that since $a_k$ is a subset of $a_n$ every element of $a_k$ should be greater or equal to L leading to a contradiction..
L $leq$ l
Is this approach at all valid? Should I use a similar argument for Case 2?
real-analysis sequences-and-series limsup-and-liminf
$ a:= liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$
$a$ $in$ $R$
I am trying to show this by using cases and assuming the equality doesn't hold- to come to a contradiction showing neither side is greater. To imply that they are equal.
In Case 1 I assumed $liminf_{nto infty}$ $a_n$ = L > $lim_{nto infty}$ $inf_{kgeq n}$ $a_k$ = l
$=>$ -C < l < L < ... < C where C $in$ $R$
And used a weak (I think) argument that $a_n$ is bounded:
$=>$ L = $inf${subsequantial limit set}.
$=>$ L $leq$ $a_n$ for any n.
Then implied that since $a_k$ is a subset of $a_n$ every element of $a_k$ should be greater or equal to L leading to a contradiction..
L $leq$ l
Is this approach at all valid? Should I use a similar argument for Case 2?
real-analysis sequences-and-series limsup-and-liminf
real-analysis sequences-and-series limsup-and-liminf
edited Nov 14 at 3:33
asked Nov 14 at 3:27
Zeckdo
64
64
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The part about boundedness is not correct : $L leq a_n$ for all $n$ is not true either. The rest of the argument is somewhat fuzzy, not clear.
You want to show that $liminf a_n$ is equal to the infimum of the set of limit points of $a_n$.
Suppose that $a_n$ is bounded, first. Then, the set of limit points $S$ is non-empty by Bolzano Weierstrass. Let $|a_n| leq M$ for all $n$. It follows that $|inf S| leq M$ as well. Let $K = inf S$. Note that $S$ is closed, so $K in S$.
Now, we want to show that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k$ converges to $K$. For this, first we need to show that the limit exists, but this is clear, since $inf_{k geq n} a_k leq M$ for all $M$, and a bounded increasing sequence converges. Let the limit be $L$.
First, take $s in S$. Let $a_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of $a$ converging to $s$. Then, note that $inf_{l geq n_k} a_{l} leq a_{n_k}$ for all $k$. Taking the limit as $k to infty$ gives $L leq s$, and since $s$ is arbitrary, $L leq K$.
For the other direction, suppose that $L < K$ is true. Let $2epsilon = K-L > 0$. Then, since $L$ is the limit of an increasing sequence, it follows that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k < K - epsilon$ also happens for all $n$. Contradict $K in S$ with this inequality.
Handling the unbounded case is similar, but you will have to be careful of infinities. I leave it to you.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The part about boundedness is not correct : $L leq a_n$ for all $n$ is not true either. The rest of the argument is somewhat fuzzy, not clear.
You want to show that $liminf a_n$ is equal to the infimum of the set of limit points of $a_n$.
Suppose that $a_n$ is bounded, first. Then, the set of limit points $S$ is non-empty by Bolzano Weierstrass. Let $|a_n| leq M$ for all $n$. It follows that $|inf S| leq M$ as well. Let $K = inf S$. Note that $S$ is closed, so $K in S$.
Now, we want to show that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k$ converges to $K$. For this, first we need to show that the limit exists, but this is clear, since $inf_{k geq n} a_k leq M$ for all $M$, and a bounded increasing sequence converges. Let the limit be $L$.
First, take $s in S$. Let $a_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of $a$ converging to $s$. Then, note that $inf_{l geq n_k} a_{l} leq a_{n_k}$ for all $k$. Taking the limit as $k to infty$ gives $L leq s$, and since $s$ is arbitrary, $L leq K$.
For the other direction, suppose that $L < K$ is true. Let $2epsilon = K-L > 0$. Then, since $L$ is the limit of an increasing sequence, it follows that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k < K - epsilon$ also happens for all $n$. Contradict $K in S$ with this inequality.
Handling the unbounded case is similar, but you will have to be careful of infinities. I leave it to you.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The part about boundedness is not correct : $L leq a_n$ for all $n$ is not true either. The rest of the argument is somewhat fuzzy, not clear.
You want to show that $liminf a_n$ is equal to the infimum of the set of limit points of $a_n$.
Suppose that $a_n$ is bounded, first. Then, the set of limit points $S$ is non-empty by Bolzano Weierstrass. Let $|a_n| leq M$ for all $n$. It follows that $|inf S| leq M$ as well. Let $K = inf S$. Note that $S$ is closed, so $K in S$.
Now, we want to show that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k$ converges to $K$. For this, first we need to show that the limit exists, but this is clear, since $inf_{k geq n} a_k leq M$ for all $M$, and a bounded increasing sequence converges. Let the limit be $L$.
First, take $s in S$. Let $a_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of $a$ converging to $s$. Then, note that $inf_{l geq n_k} a_{l} leq a_{n_k}$ for all $k$. Taking the limit as $k to infty$ gives $L leq s$, and since $s$ is arbitrary, $L leq K$.
For the other direction, suppose that $L < K$ is true. Let $2epsilon = K-L > 0$. Then, since $L$ is the limit of an increasing sequence, it follows that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k < K - epsilon$ also happens for all $n$. Contradict $K in S$ with this inequality.
Handling the unbounded case is similar, but you will have to be careful of infinities. I leave it to you.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The part about boundedness is not correct : $L leq a_n$ for all $n$ is not true either. The rest of the argument is somewhat fuzzy, not clear.
You want to show that $liminf a_n$ is equal to the infimum of the set of limit points of $a_n$.
Suppose that $a_n$ is bounded, first. Then, the set of limit points $S$ is non-empty by Bolzano Weierstrass. Let $|a_n| leq M$ for all $n$. It follows that $|inf S| leq M$ as well. Let $K = inf S$. Note that $S$ is closed, so $K in S$.
Now, we want to show that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k$ converges to $K$. For this, first we need to show that the limit exists, but this is clear, since $inf_{k geq n} a_k leq M$ for all $M$, and a bounded increasing sequence converges. Let the limit be $L$.
First, take $s in S$. Let $a_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of $a$ converging to $s$. Then, note that $inf_{l geq n_k} a_{l} leq a_{n_k}$ for all $k$. Taking the limit as $k to infty$ gives $L leq s$, and since $s$ is arbitrary, $L leq K$.
For the other direction, suppose that $L < K$ is true. Let $2epsilon = K-L > 0$. Then, since $L$ is the limit of an increasing sequence, it follows that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k < K - epsilon$ also happens for all $n$. Contradict $K in S$ with this inequality.
Handling the unbounded case is similar, but you will have to be careful of infinities. I leave it to you.
The part about boundedness is not correct : $L leq a_n$ for all $n$ is not true either. The rest of the argument is somewhat fuzzy, not clear.
You want to show that $liminf a_n$ is equal to the infimum of the set of limit points of $a_n$.
Suppose that $a_n$ is bounded, first. Then, the set of limit points $S$ is non-empty by Bolzano Weierstrass. Let $|a_n| leq M$ for all $n$. It follows that $|inf S| leq M$ as well. Let $K = inf S$. Note that $S$ is closed, so $K in S$.
Now, we want to show that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k$ converges to $K$. For this, first we need to show that the limit exists, but this is clear, since $inf_{k geq n} a_k leq M$ for all $M$, and a bounded increasing sequence converges. Let the limit be $L$.
First, take $s in S$. Let $a_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of $a$ converging to $s$. Then, note that $inf_{l geq n_k} a_{l} leq a_{n_k}$ for all $k$. Taking the limit as $k to infty$ gives $L leq s$, and since $s$ is arbitrary, $L leq K$.
For the other direction, suppose that $L < K$ is true. Let $2epsilon = K-L > 0$. Then, since $L$ is the limit of an increasing sequence, it follows that the sequence $inf_{k geq n} a_k < K - epsilon$ also happens for all $n$. Contradict $K in S$ with this inequality.
Handling the unbounded case is similar, but you will have to be careful of infinities. I leave it to you.
answered Nov 14 at 3:59
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
36.4k33375
36.4k33375
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997734%2fprove-that-the-liminf-of-a-sequence-is-equal-to-its-smallest-subsequential-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown