1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

Hi! This is from Rudin's RCA about $\limsup$. I would like to check some moments.

$1)$ Since $b_k\to \beta$ as $k\to \infty$. For $\varepsilon>0$ $\exists N=N_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that for any $k\geqslant N_{\varepsilon}$ we have $|b_k-\beta|<\varepsilon$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $b_k\in (\beta-\varepsilon,\beta+\varepsilon)$. But by definition $b_k=\sup \limits_{m\geqslant k} a_m$.

Then for $\varepsilon_1=\dfrac{1}{2}\min\{\beta+\varepsilon-b_N, b_N-\beta+\varepsilon\}>0$ exists $a_{n_1}$ such that $a_{n_1}\in (\beta-\varepsilon,\beta+\varepsilon).$

Then making analogous reasoning for $b_n$ for $n>\max\{n_1,N\}$ we find $a_{n_2} $ such that $a_{n_2}\in (\beta-\varepsilon,\beta+\varepsilon)$.

Proceeding this procees we get increasing sequence $\{n_i\}_{i\geqslant 1}$ such that $a_{n_i}\to \beta$ as $i\to \infty$.

$2)$ Also $\beta$ is the largest number with this property. Suppose that exists some subsequence $\{a_{n_i}\}$ such that $a_{n_i}\to \gamma$ as $i\to \infty$ where $\gamma>\beta$.

Taking $\varepsilon=\frac{\gamma-\beta}{2}>0$ then exists $N$ such that $\forall n_i>N$ we have $|a_{n_i}-\gamma|<\varepsilon$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $a_{n_i}>\frac{\beta+\gamma}{2}.$ But since $\beta=\inf \limits_{m\geqslant 1}b_m$ then for $\varepsilon_1=\frac{\gamma-\beta}{2}$ exists $b_k$ such that $b_k<\beta+\varepsilon_1=\frac{\beta+\gamma}{2}$. In other words, $\sup \{a_k, a_{k+1},\dots\}<\frac{\beta+\gamma}{2}$. And we get contradiction.

Are my reasoning right? Can anyone check them please.

Any comment/remark will be appreciated!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\beta$ may be $\infty$ or $-\infty$. $\endgroup$ – Bungo May 19 '16 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Bungo, I posted an answer for cases $\pm \infty$. Can you take a look? $\endgroup$ – ZFR May 22 '16 at 6:54
0
$\begingroup$

Case $\beta=\infty$. Then by definition $\inf \{b_1,b_2,b_3,\dots\}=\infty$ $\Rightarrow$$b_k=\infty$ for any $k\in \mathbb{N}$ $\Rightarrow$ $\sup \{a_k, a_{k+1}, a_{k+2},\dots\}=\infty$. Then property $1)$ is obvious. For $2)$ there is $a_{n_1}>1$, $a_{n_2}>2, \dots, a_{n_i}>i,\dots$ Hence $a_{n_i}\to \infty$ as $i\to \infty$.

Case $\beta=-\infty$.

$1^o$. Let $\exists j\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $b_j=-\infty$. Then $\sup \{a_j, a_{j+1}, a_{j+2},\dots\}=-\infty$ $\Rightarrow$ $a_j=a_{j+1}=\dots=-\infty$. In this case $\beta=-\infty$ is the largest number with this property (obvious).

$2^o$. Suppose that for any $j$ we have $b_j>-\infty$. Since sequence $\{b_1, b_2, \dots\}$ is not bounded below then exists subsequence $\{b_{n_i}\}$ such that $b_{n_i}<-i$. And we can find subsequence $\{a_{n_{i_1}}, a_{n_{i_2}},a_{n_{i_3}},\dots\}$ such that $a_{n_{i_j}}\to -\infty$ as $j\to \infty$. Also it's easy to prove that $\beta=-\infty$ is the largest number with this property.

$\endgroup$

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.