In order to avoid any possible confusion I recast the previous question in more general terms...
The possibilities that the expression
does have any sense are two...
a) given a sequence
at it is asociated one and only one
and we are interested to the
. In this case we need to have an acceptable definition of
...
b) given a sequence
it is said to have a 'lower bound'
if it doesn't exist any
for which is
and , given a
, it exist at least one
, for which is
. In this case however the expression
is a nonsense...
The question : which is true?... a) or b)?... or something else?...
Kind regards