Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I got a trouble in proving the iff statement of lim sup.

The following is what I got from my homework.
Let $X\subseteq \Bbb R^m$, $f:X\to\Bbb R$ be a function, and $y$ be a limit point of $X$.
It is said that $L$ is the limit superior of $f$ at $y$, defined by
$\overline \lim_{x\to y}f(x)=\lim_{\delta \to 0^+} (\sup \{f(x):x\in E \cap B(y,\delta)-\{y\}\})$.

The problem I need to work is to verify the following assertions:
1) For all $L \in \Bbb R, \overline \lim_{x\to y}f(x)\le L \iff \forall \varepsilon\gt0\ \exists \delta \gt0\ \forall x\in X\cap B(y,\delta)-\{y\},\ f(x)\le L+\varepsilon$.
2)For all $L \in \Bbb R, \overline \lim_{x\to y}f(x)\ge L \iff \forall \varepsilon\gt0\ \forall \delta \gt0\ \exists x\in X\cap B(y,\delta)-\{y\},\ f(x)\ge L-\varepsilon$.

The following was what I tried on the first assertion:
Suppose $\lim_{x \to y}f(x)=l\le L$. Then, by the definition of limit, I will have:
$\forall \varepsilon \gt0\ \exists \delta\gt0\ \forall x \in X\cap B(y,\delta)-\{a\}, \ |\sup f(x)-l|\lt \varepsilon$. That is, $\sup f(x) \lt l+\varepsilon$.
Since $\forall x \in X\cap B(y,\delta)-\{y\}$, I will have $f(x)\le\sup f(x)$, then $f(x)\le\sup f(x)\lt l+\varepsilon \le L+\varepsilon$.
I do not whether this attempt is on the right track since, strictly speaking, I can only get $f(x)\lt L+\varepsilon$.
And I have no idea about the second assertion.

share|cite|improve this question
Wait, have you stated the definition here? If that's the case, then there's nothing to prove. – user108903 Jan 8 '13 at 20:46
@anonymous I'm pretty sure he means $\limsup\limits_{x\to y} f(x)$. But I agree that it is unclear what OP is asking. – nullUser Jan 8 '13 at 20:46
@anonymous hope the new version can be better for you to help. Thx! – Scorpio19891119 Jan 8 '13 at 23:54
@nullUser hope the new version can be better for you to help. Thx! – Scorpio19891119 Jan 8 '13 at 23:54
@anonymous Sorry for my typos. It is $y$ but not $a$. Now I think everything is clear. – Scorpio19891119 Jan 9 '13 at 2:05
up vote 1 down vote accepted

For convenience, let's call $X_\delta = E \cap B(y,\delta)\setminus \{y\}$.

1) Suppose $\overline\lim_{x\to y}f(x) = l \leq L$, and let $\varepsilon> 0$. Then there exists $h_\varepsilon > 0$ such that if $0 < \delta < h_\varepsilon$, then $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\}-l < \varepsilon$. We don't need absolute value here: as $\delta \to 0^+$ $\sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}$ is decreasing, so $l \leq \sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}$ and therefore $|\sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}-l| = \sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}-l$. Then for all $x \in X_\delta$, we have $f(x) \leq \sup \{f(x):x\in X_\delta\} < l+\varepsilon \leq L+\varepsilon$. So our desired "$\delta$" is $h_\varepsilon$. The fact that I got $<$ instead of $\leq$ is because I insisted on $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\}-l < \varepsilon$; of course it's completely equivalent to have $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\}-l \leq \varepsilon$.

For the reverse direction, suppose the RHS holds. We want to show that $\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\} = l \leq L$. Suppose not. Then $l > L$. Since $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\}$ decreases as $\delta \to 0^+$, we must have $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\}\geq l > L$ for all $\delta > 0$. Take $\varepsilon = l -L$. For all $\delta > 0$, we have $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\} - L \geq l - L > \varepsilon$, i.e. $\sup\{f(x): x\in X_\delta\} > L+\varepsilon$. Then there must exist $x \in X_\delta$ such that $f(x) > L+\varepsilon$. (If the supremum is larger than something, then there must be something in the set between that thing and the supremum.) In summary: $(\exists \varepsilon > 0)(\forall \delta > 0)(\exists x \in X_\delta) f(x)>L+\varepsilon$. This contradicts the RHS, and the proof is complete.

2) Suppose $\overline\lim_{x\to y}f(x) \geq L$. Since $\sup \{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}$ is decreasing as $\delta \to 0^+$, we must have $\sup\{f(x):x \in X_\delta\} \geq L$ for all $\delta > 0$. Let $\varepsilon > 0$ and $\delta > 0$. Then $\sup\{f(x):x \in X_\delta\} \geq L > L - \varepsilon$. Then there exists $x \in X_\delta$ such that $\sup\{f(x):x \in X_\delta\} > f(x) \geq L-\varepsilon$, and we are done.

For the reverse direction, assume the RHS and suppose (aiming for contradiction) $\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}\sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\} < L$. Take $\varepsilon < L-\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}\sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\}$. Then $\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}\sup\{f(x):x\in X_\delta\} < L-\varepsilon$. Then for some $\delta > 0$, we have $\sup\{f(x):x \in X_\delta\} < L-\varepsilon$. So for all $x \in X_\delta$, $f(x) < L-\varepsilon$. Thus $(\exists \varepsilon > 0)(\exists \delta > 0)(\forall x\in X_\delta) f(x)<L-\varepsilon$, contradicting the RHS.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.