0
$\begingroup$

Given two non-increasing sequences of sets $$C_k=\{x:2-\frac{1}{k} \lt x\ \leq 2\}$$ $$C_k=\{x:2 \lt x\ \leq 2+\frac{1}{k}\}$$

And defining $$\lim_{k \to \infty} C_k = \bigcap_{k}^{\infty}C_k$$

why is the limit of the first sequence $\{2\}$ and the second $\emptyset$?

I found this answer which explains why the limit of the first sequence is $\{2\}$, The Limit of Nonincreasing Sets: Understanding the Author's Solution, but it does not explain why the second sequence would not work the same way, meaning that both come out to $\{2\}$, as was my first thought.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Consider the first sequence.

Clearly $\{2\} \subset \cap_1^{\infty} C_k$ since $2-\frac{1}{k} < 2 \leq 2$ for all $k$.

Now suppose $x \in \cap_1^{\infty} C_k$. Then $x \in C_k$ for all $k$, so $2 - \frac{1}{k} < x \leq 2$ for all $k$. If $x < 2$, then there exists a $k$ so big that $2-\frac{1}{k} \geq x$, so $x$ would not be in $\cap_1^{\infty} C_k$. Thus we must have $x \geq 2$. If $x > 2$, then it violates the condition of any $C_k$, so then $x$ wouldn't be in $\cap_1^{\infty} C_k$. Thus $x = 2$. It follows that \begin{align*} \cap_1^{\infty} C_k \subset \{2\} \end{align*}

Thus, \begin{align*} \cap_1^{\infty} C_k = \{2\} \end{align*}

In the second sequence, suppose that the intersection $\cap_1^{\infty} C_k$ is not empty. Then there exists an $x \in \cap_1^{\infty}C_k$. Thus $x \in C_k$ for all $k$. This implies that the following statement holds for all $k$, \begin{align*} 2< x \leq 2 + \frac{1}{k} \end{align*} But if $x > 2$, then there exists a $k$ so large that $x > 2+ \frac{1}{k}$. For this particular $k$, we have $x \notin C_k$. Thus $x \notin \cap_1^{\infty} C_k$, a contradiction.

It follows that $\cap_1^{\infty} C_k = \varnothing$ in this case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not the OP, but in your first paragraph, don't you have to show first that $\cap_{1}^{\infty}C_k$ is non-empty to be able to conclude that $x = 2$? $\endgroup$ – Pel de Pinda Jun 28 '17 at 18:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\{2\}$ is a subset of the intersection, so it can't be empty. see my edits - i just rearranged some of the sentences $\endgroup$ – Daniel Xiang Jun 28 '17 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ Can you explain further the bit about the contradiction? In particular "then there exists a $k$ so large that $x > 2 + \frac{1}{k}$" is confusing me, as I can't visualize why this must be true. $\endgroup$ – rocksNwaves Jun 28 '17 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ If $x > 2$, then there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that $x > 2 + \epsilon$. Choose $k$ so large that $\epsilon > \frac{1}{k}$. Then $x > 2 + \frac{1}{k}$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Xiang Jun 28 '17 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielXiang so essentially, no matter what $x$ you pick, you can always find a $k$ large enough to put that $x$ outside of the bounds? $\endgroup$ – rocksNwaves Jun 29 '17 at 13:31
0
$\begingroup$

In the first case, $2 \in C_k$ for all $k$, hence also to $\bigcap C_k$. And there are no other $x$ which belongs to all $C_k$, hence $\bigcap C_k=\{2\}$.

In the second case, there is no $x$ such that $x \in C_k$ for all $k$. Hence $\bigcap C_k=\emptyset$.

$\endgroup$

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.