Prove that the liminf of a sequence is equal to its smallest subsequential limit











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1












$ 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?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    $ 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?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      $ 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?










      share|cite|improve this question















      $ 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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 14 at 3:33

























      asked Nov 14 at 3:27









      Zeckdo

      64




      64






















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            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

























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 14 at 3:59









                астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг

                36.4k33375




                36.4k33375






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to send String Array data to Server using php in android

                    Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                    Is anime1.com a legal site for watching anime?