5
$\begingroup$

I have the following problem:

Let $s$ be a real number and $(s_n)$ be a sequence of real numbers. Suppose that for any subsequence $(s_{n_{k}})$ of $(s_n)$, $(s_{n_{k}})$ has a subsequence $(s_{n_{k_{l}}}$) satisfying $$ \lim_{l \to \infty} s_{n_{k_{l}}}=s. \qquad (1)$$ Please show that $\lim\sup s_n = \lim \inf s_n = s$

I don't know if my proof is right. I have the following:

Let $S$ be the set of subsequential limits of $(s_n)$. Then, $S$ contains $s$ since it is the limit of some subsequence of $(s_n)$, namely $(s_{n_{k_{l}}})$, which is a subsequence of $(s_n)$. Now, I claim $S$ only contains $s$. Suppose, as a contradiction, that $S$ contains some other element $t$. That implies, that there exists a subsequence $(s_{n_{t}})$ with limit $t$. This implies that any subsequence of $(s_{n_{t}})$, namely $(s_{n_{t_{p}}})$ converges to $t$. But, that is a contradiction to the supposition that any subsequence of $(s_n)$ has a subsequence that converges to $s$. Hence, $S$ has only the element $s$. Therefore, $\lim\sup s_n=\sup S =s $ and $\lim\inf s_n=\inf S=s$, so $\lim\sup s_n = \lim \inf s_n = s$.

Would this be a complete valid proof?

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes it is. Minor point: you don't have to say you're arguing by contradiction. What you show is: for any $t \in S$, in fact $t = s$. [For such a $t$, there's a subsequence $(s_{n_{k}}) \to t$, so any subsequence of that converges to $t$. But by hypothesis, some subsequence $(s_{n_{k_l}}) \to s$. As limits are unique, $s = t$.] Clearly, $s \in S$; so $S = \{s\}$. $\endgroup$ – BrianO Oct 28 '15 at 6:21
0
$\begingroup$

Your idea is correct. But at the beginning of contradiction you should assume $t\neq s$. Then you should stated that that by assumption there exist $(s_{n_{t_{p}}}) \rightarrow s$ and therefore $s=t$ and this is the contradiction.

But maybe I am just too picky, good job!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's not necessary to assume $t \neq s$. Just, let $t$ be any element of $S$; then it turns out that $t = s$. Since $s \in S$, conclude $S = \{s\}$. $\endgroup$ – BrianO Oct 28 '15 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yes but then you do not have contradiction - as I said I had been picky, but my professors usually wanted to clearly stands, where the contradiction is. In your case you just proved, that for any element $t \in S$, $t=s$. That is completely correct, but then I would not use word contradiction in proof. $\endgroup$ – iiivooo Oct 28 '15 at 6:19
  • $\begingroup$ Well, sure: if you say you promise a contradiction, best to make clear what it is when you produce it :) I sketched my non-reductio ad absurdum idea in a comment to the original question. $\endgroup$ – BrianO Oct 28 '15 at 6:26
0
$\begingroup$

Here is another way.

First show that $s_n \to s$:

Let $\epsilon>0$, and let $A = \{ n | |s_n-s| \ge \epsilon \}$. Then $A$ must be finite, otherwise we could find a subsequence satisfying $|s_{n_k}-s| \ge \epsilon$ for all $k$, which would contradict (1) immediately. Hence we see that $s_n \to s$.

Then show that if $s_n \to s$ that $\liminf_n s_n = \limsup_n s_n = s$:

Let $\epsilon>0$ and choose $N$ such that for $n \ge N$ we have $|s_n-s| < \epsilon$. In particular, we have $s-\epsilon < s_n < s+ \epsilon$ for $n \ge N$. Hence we have $s-\epsilon \le \inf_{n \ge N} s_n \le \sup_{n \ge N} s_n \le s+ \epsilon$ and hence $s-\epsilon \le \liminf_n s_n \le \limsup_n s_n \le s+ \epsilon$. Since $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we have the desired result.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.