Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have recently started my studies in university (mathematics), and we're now studying sequences. I was surprised when the professor wrote that:

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n=\lim_{n \to \infty}(-3)^n=\infty$$

It was stated $\infty$ means "the sequence takes larger and larger values in absolute value", while $+\infty$ means "the sequence takes larger and larger positive values".

I think that it is not really appropriate to say the sequence has limit infinity but that it has no limit, and rather diverges.

Similarily, I was thinking that the notation

$$\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n$$

is rather an abuse of notation, since as discussed in other questions, $\infty \notin \mathbb N$, and it'd be better to write

$$\lim_{n \in \mathbb N}a_n$$

and to read it as "limit of $a_n$ over $\mathbb N$".

Why would we insist on this auxiliary notion? Do you have any other example where it is taught like this?

share|improve this question
3  
The notation is intuitive, even if it is an abuse. Also, when you say that the limit of a sequence is $(+)\infty$, you convey information about how the sequence fails to converge, which is more than just saying that the sequence diverges. –  Brett Frankel Apr 17 '12 at 21:14
3  
@Andre: Even in a one-point compactification of $\mathbb R$? –  Asaf Karagila Apr 17 '12 at 21:16
3  
@AsafKaragila: I am sure that was not the context! –  André Nicolas Apr 17 '12 at 21:18
3  
@Andre One should not be so sure that the one point compactification is not intended. For example, my high school calculus teacher introduced me to analogous ideas (in simpler language). –  Bill Dubuque Apr 17 '12 at 21:51
2  
Since your teacher clearly explained what was intended by the notation, I don't see what the problem is. Also I find the seemingly derisive ad hominem tone of this question a bit off-putting. –  Grumpy Parsnip Apr 18 '12 at 1:18
show 8 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

I have never encountered that convention; in my experience $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n=\infty$ is synonymous with $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n=+\infty$. I don’t think that it’s a particularly useful convention, either. I am much more likely to want to know that the sequence diverges to $(+)\infty$ or to $-\infty$ than to know that the corresponding sequence of absolute value diverges to $\infty$. Moreover, in the extended real numbers the statements $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n=(+)\infty$ and $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n=-\infty$ are meaningful statements of convergence, but $\langle (-3)^n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ still doesn’t converge.

There is no abuse of notation in $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n$: it’s defined to have the usual meaning. And it’s a nice, intuitive notation that even makes sense when $\Bbb N\cup\{\infty\}$ is viewed as the one-point compactification of $\Bbb N$ and the limit of a sequence as the value that can be assigned to $\infty$ to make the extended sequence a continuous function on $\Bbb N\cup\{\infty\}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Can you tell me a little more about the one point campactification of $\mathbb N$? –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 17 '12 at 21:28
    
@Peter: The points of $\Bbb N$ are isolated, and nbhds of $\infty$ are sets of the form $\{\infty\}\cup(\Bbb N\setminus F)$, where $F$ is any finite subset of $\Bbb N$. It’s compact, and $\infty$ is the limit of the sequence $\langle n:n\in \Bbb N\rangle$. –  Brian M. Scott Apr 17 '12 at 21:31
    
What does "nbhds" stand for? –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 17 '12 at 21:32
    
@Peter: Neighborhoods; the open sets that contain the point $\infty$. –  Brian M. Scott Apr 17 '12 at 21:33
    
Do you have any reference or link on that theory? I guess it concerns me. –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 17 '12 at 21:34
show 1 more comment

The notion of "unsigned infinity" is very common when dealing with complex numbers, since they lack such an obvious notion of sign. This idea has a famous name attached. There is no inherent reason why you couldn't adopt a similar convention for real numbers, just that it isn't usually done.

This is a special case of the idea of a one point compactification.

share|improve this answer
    
I can't relate this to what I'm asking. Could you explain a little more what you're saying? I'm not very educated in topology so I could use some pedagogy in your answer. Sorry! –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 18 '12 at 0:14
    
The one point compactification is defined by adding a single extra point called $\infty$ to your space, and every sequence that eventually leaves every bounded set is defined to have limit $\infty$. In the case of the real numbers, the two ends, positive and negative join in a single point at $\infty$. For the complex numbers, the plane curls up to a sphere with a point at the north pole added. –  Grumpy Parsnip Apr 18 '12 at 1:13
    
@Jim Thanks. I get it now. –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 18 '12 at 1:31
add comment

Regarding the limit: You are correct and I would say that it is your professors that are mistaken.

The limit of $|a_n|$ exist and equal to infinity but the limit of $a_n$ does not exist as it changes from very large numbers to their negation thus approaches 'nothing' (not a real number not +infinity nor -infinity)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.