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 can't find any faults with the logic, but still I am not a 100% sure. Is the following correct:

Let $a_n$ and $b_l$ be two sequences such that, $\exists \; L(n)\; \forall\; n$ for which $a_n \leq b_l, \;\; \forall\; l\geq L(n)$. Thus, we have, \begin{align} a_n \leq \lim_{l\rightarrow \infty} b_l \;\;\forall n \\ \implies \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} a_n \leq \lim_{l\rightarrow \infty} b_l \end{align}

share|cite|improve this question
If the limits exist, then this is correct. – David Mitra Jan 17 '13 at 13:26
No. Counterexample: Let $a_n=1$ for all $n$ and $b_1=10$, $b_n=0$ for n>1 – Amr Jan 17 '13 at 13:26
@Amr Maybe I'm reading the question wrong, but it seems the given condition is that for every $n$ we have $a_n\le b_l$ for all sufficiently large $l$. – David Mitra Jan 17 '13 at 13:29
Your order of quantors according to natural language instead of logical structure is somewhat confusing/misleading. What you mean is $\forall n\exists L\forall l\ge L\colon a_n\le b_l$. – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 17 '13 at 14:25
@HagenvonEitzen. Yes. that's what I mean – UnadulteratedImagination Jan 17 '13 at 16:13
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Let $(a_n),(b_n):\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{R}$ so that $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$ $$\exists L_n\in \mathbb{R}\text{ so that }\forall l\in \mathbb{N}\ l\ge L_n\implies a_n\le b_l$$ Then for fixed $n\in \mathbb{N}$ $\exists L_n\in \mathbb{R}$ so that $$\forall l\in \mathbb{N}\ l\ge L_n\implies a_n\le b_l$$ If $(b_m)$ converges to $b\in \mathbb{R}$ then indeed $$a_n\le b$$ As this holds $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$, if $(a_m)$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$ then $$a\le b$$

The convergence of the two sequences is required for all this to hold

As a counterexample consider $a_n=(-1)^n$ and $b_n=(-1)^n+2013$ and $b'_n=\frac 1n+2013$

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.