0
$\begingroup$

Is it mathematically correct to define the following:

  • $[0, \infty] \equiv \displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty}{[0, n]}$
  • $[0, \infty) \equiv \displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty}{[0, n)}$

More generally, I'm concerned with the "boundary" between the arbitrarily large and the notion of infinity. Is there some good philosophical treatment of this sort of conundrum?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Even if it were correct, why would you? The first one makes no sense and the second one is just $\{x: x\ge 0\}$. $\endgroup$ – John Douma Oct 17 '18 at 20:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can define stuff as you best see fit. The important part is that, then, you don't expect the first one to be consistent with $\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty} A_n=\bigcap\limits_{n\in\Bbb N}\bigcup\limits_{k\ge n} A_k$ and $\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty} A_n=\bigcup\limits_{n\in\Bbb N}\bigcap\limits_{k\ge n} A_k$. $\endgroup$ – Saucy O'Path Oct 17 '18 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ For [0,oo], look up extended reals. $\endgroup$ – William Elliot Oct 18 '18 at 2:33

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.