I want to prove that a sequence of real numbers $\{s_n\}$ converges to $s$ if and only if $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n = \liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n = s$.

Here are my definitions:

For any sequence of real numbers $\{s_n\}$, let $E$ be the set of all subsequential limits of $\{s_n\}$, including possibly $+\infty$ and/or $-\infty$ if any subsequence of $\{s_n\}$ diverges to infinity. Then $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n = \sup E$, and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n = \inf E$.

I know the theorem that a sequence converges to a point if and only if every one of its subsequences converge to that same point, so one direction of this proof is easy:

If $\{s_n\}$ converges to some point $s \in \mathbb{R}$, then every subsequence of $\{s_n\}$ converges to $s$. So the set $E$ of every subsequential limit of $\{s_n\}$ consists of the single point $s$, so $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n = \sup \{s\} = s = \inf \{s\} = \liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n$$

But the other direction seems more tricky...

If $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n = \liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n = s$, then every convergent subsequence converges to the same point $s$. Also, there can be no subsequences which diverge to infinity (otherwise $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n$ would be $+\infty$, or $\liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n$ would be $-\infty$).

But can't there be subsequences which diverge otherwise? And wouldn't that throw off the convergence of $\{s_n\}$?


I'd also be willing to accept a solution which makes use of the "Pinching Theorem" (if $a_n \leq s_n \leq b_n$ for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and if $a_n \to s$ and $b_n \to s$, then $s_n \to s$).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are a few ways to reason this but one way can proceed by contradiction: suppose that $s_n$ does not converge to $s$, then there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that... $\endgroup$ – Alex R. Mar 21 '12 at 1:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Wish I could upvote this more... oh well. Kudos for including the definitions, showing your work, using LaTex, etc. $\endgroup$ – The Chaz 2.0 Mar 21 '12 at 2:01

Useful facts that you should verify:

  1. Any unbounded sequence has a subsequence diverging to $\infty$ or to $-\infty$.

  2. Any bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.

You correctly point out that the hypothesis that $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n$ and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} s_n$ are both finite implies that $(s_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ has no subsequences that diverge to infinity. But (1) implies that more is true: the sequence $(s_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ must be bounded.

Fix any $\epsilon > 0$.

  • There cannot be infinitely many $n$ for which $s_n \geq s + \epsilon$, because you could select out of them a subsequence $y_k = s_{n_k}$ satisfying $y_k \geq s + \epsilon$ for all $k$.

    • Since the sequence $(s_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is bounded, so is the sequence $(y_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$. So by (2) it has a subsequence convergent to some limit $L$; and by basic facts about limits, since $y_k \geq s + \epsilon$ for all $k$, one must have $L \geq s + \epsilon$.
    • But $L$ is clearly also a subsequential limit of $s$, allowing us to deduce that $\limsup_{n \to \infty} s_n \geq s + \epsilon$, a contradiction.
  • Similarly, there cannot be infinitely many $n$ for which $s_n \leq s - \epsilon$.

So there is a positive integer $N$ with the property that whenever $n \geq N$ one has $$ s - \epsilon < s_n < s + \epsilon, $$ and since $\epsilon > 0$ was arbitrary, $(s_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $s$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi! I've read your proof and I have a question, does it change something if the series $s_n \in \mathbb{C}$? $\endgroup$ – Bman72 Mar 14 '14 at 16:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ale "Useful fact 2" of my answer holds true for complex sequences without change. It is unclear how to make sense of "diverging to $\infty$ or $-\infty$" so that "useful fact 1" remains both meaningful, useful, and true. And since $\mathbb{C}$ is not an ordered field, it's not immediately clear how to make sense of the original problem (as it's not clear how to define $\limsup$ and $\liminf$ for complex sequences --- and however you do try to define them, it may be difficult to prove that e.g. a bounded sequence of complex numbers has a subsequence converging to its $\limsup$...) $\endgroup$ – leslie townes Mar 15 '14 at 6:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ale But if $(s_n)$ is a complex sequence, and $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are the real sequences defined by $s_n = x_n + i y_n$ for all $n$, then it's true that $(s_n)$ converges in $\mathbb{C}$ to a complex number $s = a + bi$ (with $a, b$ real) if and only if $\limsup x_n = \liminf x_n = a$ and $\limsup y_n = \liminf y_n = b$. (The key is the general fact that $(s_n)$ converges in $\mathbb{C}$ if and only if both $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ converge in $\mathbb{R}$: this should be easy to prove from whatever your definition of convergence in $\mathbb{C}$ is. Then apply the result of this problem, twice.) $\endgroup$ – leslie townes Mar 15 '14 at 6:14

Another possible solution (for bounded case only), just use these facts:

  1. $\inf A=\sup A \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad A=\{\text{single element}\}.$ (A bounded and nonempty) -Proof

  2. $(x_n)\text{ bounded and every convergent subsequence of } x_n\text{ converges to } a \quad\Rightarrow \quad\lim(x_n)=x$$ -Proof


Here's my proof based on more basic observations.

Setup: For a sequence $(s_n), n \in \mathbb{N}$, if we define $s^+_n = \sup_{j\geq n}(s_j)$ and $s^-_n = \inf_{j\geq n}(s_j)$, then we can equivalently define $\lim \sup_{n\to \infty} s_n := \inf_n s^+_n$ and $\lim \inf_{n\to \infty} s_n := \sup_n s^-_n$ (this is actually how my analysis book by Terence Tao defined them; also see this discussion). I'll use $L^+=\lim \sup_{n\to \infty} s_n$ and $L^-=\lim \inf_{n\to \infty} s_n$ for convenience.

Now on to the proof:

  1. If a sequence $(s_n)$ converges to $s\in\mathbb{R}$, then $\lim \sup_{n\to\infty} s_n=\lim \inf_{n\to\infty} s_n =s$.

Proof: Let's just prove $\lim \sup_{n\to\infty} s_n=s$; then $\lim \inf_{n\to\infty} s_n =s$ can be proved similarly. Since $(s_n)$ converges, $(s_n^+)$ must also converge (because it's also bounded, and is also monotonically decreasing), then it's not hard to show $\lim \sup_{n\to\infty} s_n = \inf_n s^+_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} s^+_n = L^+ $. Note that $\forall n \in \mathbb{N}, s_n \leq s^+_n$, therefore $\lim_{n\to\infty} s_n \leq \lim_{n\to \infty} s^+_n $, i.e., $s \leq L^+$. Now we just need to show it's not the case that $s < L^+$. For contradiction, suppose $s < L^+$. Since $(s_n)$ converges to $s$, there exists $N$ s.t. $\forall k\geq N$, $|s_n-s| \leq \frac{2(L^+-s)}{3}$, and thus $\forall k\geq N$, $s_k \leq s+\frac{2(L^+-s)}{3} <L^+ - \frac{L^+-s}{3}$, which means $s^+_N = \sup_{k\geq N} (s_k) \leq L^+- \frac{L^+-s}{3}$. But $L^+:= \inf_n s^+_n$, so $L^+ \leq s^+_N$, then $L^+ \leq L^+- \frac{L^+-s}{3}$, a contradiction.

  1. If $\lim \sup_{n\to\infty} s_n=\lim \inf_{n\to\infty} s_n =s\in\mathbb{R}$, then the sequence $(s_n)$ converges to $s$.

Proof: Again we observe that we also have $L^+=\lim_{n\to\infty}(s^+_n)=s$ and $L^-=\lim_{n\to\infty}(s^-_n)=s$. Let arbitrary $\epsilon > 0$. Then $\exists N_1 \in \mathbb{N}$, .s.t. $\forall k \geq N_1, s^+_k -s \leq \epsilon$; similarly $\exists N_2 \in \mathbb{N}$, .s.t. $\forall k \geq N_2, s-s^-_k \leq \epsilon$. Let $N=\max(N_1,N_2$). Then $\forall k \geq N$, $s-\epsilon \leq s^-_k \leq s_k \leq s^+_k \leq s+\epsilon$, hence $|s_k - s| \leq \epsilon$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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