http://sites.google.com/site/asdfasdf23135/ra4.JPG

[note: also under discussion in s.o.s. math board]

Printable View

- January 16th 2010, 07:35 PMkingwinnerReal analysis: Limit superior proof
http://sites.google.com/site/asdfasdf23135/ra4.JPG

[note: also under discussion in s.o.s. math board] - January 16th 2010, 09:08 PMDrexel28
- January 16th 2010, 09:31 PMkingwinner
Sorry, I don't understand your meaning of b_n. (otherwise the proof makes sense to me)

Let (a_n) be a sequence of real numbers.

We have sup{a_n: n≥k} = sup{a_k,a_k+1,a_k+2,...} = b_k

and

lim sup{a_n: n≥k} = lim sup a_n

k->infinity

So you mean b_n = sup{a_n: n≥n} ?? - January 16th 2010, 09:34 PMDrexel28
- January 16th 2010, 10:10 PMkingwinner
OK, then I think I understand your proof. Thank you!

But now I have a general question about the way lim sup is usually defined.

Let (a_n) be a sequence of real numbers. Then we define lim sup to be

lim [sup{a_n: n≥k}] = lim sup a_n = b_k

k->∞

Here, my understanding is that the indices n and k are*independent*.

But I have seen some textbooks doing the following:

Let (a_n) be a sequence of real numbers. Then they define lim sup to be

lim [sup{a_m: m≥n}] = lim sup a_n = b_n

n->∞

i.e. they are using the same subscript "n", but "n" is the subscript in the original sequence (a_n), so they can't be independent.

Is it correct to do this?

If we use the latter definition, would this ruin our proof? (becuase at the end, I don't think we'll get the same conclusion...) - January 16th 2010, 10:14 PMDrexel28
That would make no sense if I understand what you're saying.

Supremum Limit -- from Wolfram MathWorld

This is the exact way you defined it, except they have n and k switched.