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.

Let $x_n$ be a sequence of real numbers.

Definition: $x \in \mathbb R \cup \{-\infty,\infty\}$ is a limit point of a sequence $x_n$ if there is a subsequence $x_{n_k}$ of our sequence such that $x_{n_k} \to x$.

If $A= \{x \in \mathbb R \cup \{-\infty,\infty\} \mid x \text { is a limit point of }x_n\}$, prove that $A$ is not empty.

share|improve this question
1  
This is "essentially" (but not the same as) the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. Do you know this theorem? What results are you allowed to use? –  Srivatsan Dec 1 '11 at 19:08
    
Have you considered proving $\mathbb{R} \cup \{ - \infty, + \infty\}$ is compact? –  Isaac Solomon Dec 1 '11 at 19:10
    
Isn't Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem for bounded sequences? Well, I am allowed to use pretty much everything I know. I am only starting to learn topology. –  Mihai Bogdan Dec 1 '11 at 19:12
    
Could you please expand that ideea, Isaac S.? I don't really understand that notion. –  Mihai Bogdan Dec 1 '11 at 19:16
3  
@MihaiBogdan So, if Bolzano-Weierstraß works for bounded sequences, maybe you can treat unbounded sequences separately. –  Phira Dec 1 '11 at 19:18

4 Answers 4

up vote 7 down vote accepted

If the sequence is bounded, then you can invoke Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem.

So we can assume it is unbounded. Let us assume it is not bounded from above. (The symmetric case is similar.)

Thus for every $C$ there exists $n$ such that $x_n>C$.

Start with $C_1=1$ and choose $n_1$ such that $x_{n_1}>C_1=1$.

Now choose $C_2=2+\max\{x_j\; : \; j\le n_1\}$. Obviously $C_2\ge 2$ and you can choose $n_2$ such that $n_2>n_1$ and $x_{n_2}>C_2$.

You continue by induction. In the $k$-th step you choose $C_k=k+\max\{x_j \; : \; j\le n_k\}$. This means that $C_k\ge k$ and you there exists $n_{k+1}>n_k$ with $x_{n_k}>C_k$.

In this way you obtain a subsequence $n_k$ such that $x_{n_k} \ge k$. This implies that this subsequence converges to $+\infty$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thank you Martin Sleziak, I understand this proof. Thanks, everyone. –  Mihai Bogdan Dec 1 '11 at 19:28

A proof sketch assuming Bolzano-Weierstrass.

  1. Show that $x_n$ is bounded above if and only if $\infty$ is not a limit point of $x_n$.

  2. Reversing the above argument, show that $x_n$ is bounded from below if and only if $- \infty$ is not a limit point.

  3. From (1.) and (2.), conclude that if neither $\infty$ nor $-\infty$ is a limit point of $x_n$, then $x_n$ is bounded. Further, using Bolzano-Weierstrass, conclude that if neither $\infty$ nor $-\infty$ is a limit point of $x_n$, then $x_n$ has a subsequence converging to some limit $x \in \mathbb R$.

To summarize the argument, the key idea is that the sequence is

  • either unbounded, in which case one of $+\infty$ and $-\infty$ is a limit point;
  • or it's bounded, in which case Bolzano-Weierstrass shows the existence of a limit point in $\mathbb R$.

Note: Martin's answer explains the idea behind (1.). :-)

share|improve this answer

$\arctan : [-\infty,\infty] \rightarrow [-\pi/2,\pi/2]$. The sequence $\{x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ has a limit point in $[-\infty,\infty]$ if and only if the sequence $\{\arctan x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subseteq [-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ has a limit point in $[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$. Bolzano-Weierstrass takes care of that.

share|improve this answer

Define $y_n = \sup \{ x_n, x_{n+1}, x_{n+2}, \cdots \} .$ Then $y_n$ is a monotone decreasing sequence and hence $ Y = \displaystyle \lim_{n\to\infty} y_n$ exists (possibly $-\infty$).

The claim is that $ Y \in A .$ If $Y$ is finite, then argue as follow: For any $\epsilon > 0 $, by the definition of supremum for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$ we can find $ n_k \geq n $ such that $ |y_n - x_{n_k} | < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.$ By definition of limit, for some $n_0 \in\mathbb{N}$ we have $ |Y - y_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{2} $ for all $ n > n_0.$ Thus for all $n> n_0$, $$ |Y - x_{n_k}| \leq |Y-y_n| + |y_n - x_{n_k}| < \epsilon.$$ Thus, $ x_{n_k} \to Y.$

I leave the case where $ Y= -\infty$ to you.

share|improve this answer
    
Note that it is possible that all $y_n$'s are equal to $+\infty$. (E.g. the sequence $x_n=n$.) So perhaps you should deal with the case $Y=\infty$ too. (Or at least you should write that this case is also left to the reader.) –  Martin Sleziak Dec 1 '11 at 20:05

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.