This is an interesting observation made by one of my friends. After thinking for a bit, I think I was able to find the solution which I will write as an answer. I feel this is worth posting, both because it's interesting and perhaps pedagogically useful. For simplicitly, we will work with $\limsup$ but $\liminf$ is basically the same thing.

For any non-empty, bounded $A,B \subset \mathbb{R}$, we define $P = \{x + y : x \in A, y \in B\}$. It's easy to see that $\sup P = \sup A + \sup B$. Therefore, \begin{align}\lim \sup a_n + \lim \sup b_n &= \lim_{m \to \infty} \sup_{n \geq m} a_n + \lim_{m \to \infty} \sup_{n \geq m}b_n = \lim_{m \to \infty} \left(\sup_{n \geq m} a_n + \sup_{n \geq m}b_n\right) \\[0.3cm]&= \lim_{m \to \infty} \left(\sup_{n \geq m} \left(a_n + b_n\right)\right) = \lim \sup \ (a_n + b_n)\end{align}

This is wrong, however. The relationship between the left-most expression and the right-most is $\geq$. Where is the mistake?


For sequences, it does not hold that $$\sup_{n \geq m} a_n + \sup_{n \geq m}b_n = \sup_{n \geq m} \left(a_n + b_n\right) \ \ \ (1)$$

For example, fix $m$ and consider the sequence $a_n = \sin(\frac{\pi n}{2})$ and $b_n = -a_n$. Considering the above equation, the right hand side is $0$ and the left hand side is $2$.

Well, why does it hold for sets and not sequences? Well, for sets, there is no order.

In the question, the set $P$ is defined as $\{x + y : x \in A, y \in B\}$. This set encompasses all of the possible ways one can add elements of $A$ to elements of $B$. However, for sequences there is the "restriction" that you can only add $a_i$ to $b_i$. Hence the "large" values in one sequence may not be paired up with the "large" values of the other sequence.

Let's go back to the above example $a_n = \sin(\frac{\pi n}{2})$, $b_n = -a_n$. With a set, we would consider all $6$ ways we could add two elements from the set $\{0, 1, -1 \}$ and take the $\sup$ of that. On the other hand, with sequences, we may not be able to consider all $6$ ways we could add two elements from the above set because they don't all occur in the sequence $a_n + b_n$; in fact, only one does, namely $0 + 0$.

Thus, what we can say is that $$\sup_{n \geq m} a_n + \sup_{n \geq m}b_n = \sup \{a_k + b_j : j,k \in \mathbb{N} \ \text{and} \ k,j \geq m \} \geq \sup_{n \geq m} \left(a_n + b_n\right)$$

since $$\{a_n + b_n : n \geq m\} \subset \{a_k + b_j : j,k \in \mathbb{N} \ \text{and} \ k,j \geq m \}$$

It's not hard to show that $(1)$ holds if $a_n$ and $b_n$ are monotone increasing. This is a sufficient condition. I'm not sure of a necessary and sufficient condition.

  • $\begingroup$ There's no such thing as the supremum of a sequence, it's always about sets one way or another. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 14 '16 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud A sequence is a function $f:\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}$. Its supremum can be defined as the supremum of its image. I couldn't think of anything better to call it in this context. $\endgroup$ – MathematicsStudent1122 Oct 14 '16 at 8:16
  • $\begingroup$ On that we agree. But I disagree with the use of terminology in "Well, why does it hold for sets and not sequences?". $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 14 '16 at 8:18

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.