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.

Prove: If $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n = L$ and $a_n > a$ for all $n$ then $L \geq a$

Proof: We know from the definition of the limit that $\forall_{\epsilon > 0} \exists_n s.t. \forall_{n>N} |a_n - L| < \epsilon$. Now since $a_n > a$ for all $n$...

I am not really sure where to go from here. Is it the case that all sequences defined by this statement are monotone non-increasing? Then intuitively we could say $a_n = L$ for sufficiently large $n$. Thus, by transitivity $L > a$

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Suppose that $L<a$. We put $\varepsilon=a-L>0$. Since $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=L$, there exists $N_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$ |a_n-L|<\varepsilon \quad\forall n\geq N_0. $$ Then $a_n-L<a-L$ for all $n\geq N_0$, or $a_n<L$ for all $n\geq N_0$. This is contradict to the assumption $a_n>a$ for all $n$. Hence $L\geq a$. In the above argument, we have seen that we only need $a_n>L$ for sufficiently large $n$.

Moreover, in the general case we do not have $L>a$. Indeed, we observe that although $\displaystyle a_n=\frac{1}{n}>0$ for all $n$ but $\displaystyle L=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}=0$.

share|improve this answer
    
@CodeKingPlusPlus: Please see the solution and extended disscusion on your question. –  blindman Oct 5 '12 at 4:56
    
Where and what is the extended discussion? –  CodeKingPlusPlus Oct 5 '12 at 14:10
add comment

Hint: To show that $L\geqslant a$, it is enough to show that $a\leqslant L+\varepsilon$, for every $\varepsilon\gt0$. Now, $a_n\to L$ hence, for every $\varepsilon\gt0$, there exists $n_\varepsilon$ such that for every $n\geqslant n_\varepsilon$, $a_n$ is such that...

share|improve this answer
    
Why is it enough to show that $a \leq L +\epsilon,$ for every $\epsilon > 0$? If it is, that is what I have. –  CodeKingPlusPlus Sep 29 '12 at 20:05
    
Suppose by contradiction that $L<a\leq L+\epsilon \ \forall \epsilon$... –  Marco Sep 29 '12 at 20:30
    
@PlusPlus If $a\leqslant L+\varepsilon$ for every $\varepsilon\gt0$, then $a\leqslant\inf\{L+\varepsilon\mid\varepsilon\gt0\}=\ldots$ –  Did Sep 29 '12 at 20:54
    
Does that mean we take $\epsilon$ to be practically zero? Where did you get that implication $a \leq inf\{L+\epsilon|\epsilon >0\}$ –  CodeKingPlusPlus Oct 1 '12 at 0:03
1  
For any set $S$, [$a\leqslant s$ for every $s$ in $S$] is logically equivalent to [$a\leqslant\inf S$]. Is this your question? –  Did Oct 1 '12 at 5:32
add comment

The sequence need not be monotone. But, here's a hint for one approach towards a proof:

Try arguing by contradiction: Assume $L<a$. Now choose an $\epsilon>0$ so that $L+\epsilon<a$. What can you say about the terms $a_n$ of the sequence for large $n$?

share|improve this answer
    
my intuition tells me that for large values of $n$ that I can say: $L = a$ and then $a + \epsilon$ is not less than $a$ –  CodeKingPlusPlus Sep 29 '12 at 22:19
    
@CodeKingPlusPlus For large $n$, you would know $|a_n-L|<\epsilon$; and this would imply $a_n<L+\epsilon$. But $L+\epsilon<a$, so... –  David Mitra Sep 29 '12 at 23:20
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.