1
$\begingroup$

I am pretty new here...first of all, how do I center text? I couldn't center the mathematical steps, I am willing to edit this!

Now to the point, theorem 3.37 of Rudin's PMA states:

3.37 Theorem For any sequence {$c_{n}$} of positive numbers,

$$\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n} \leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n} \\ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n} \leq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}.$$

Proof We shall prove the second inequality; the proof of the first is quite similar. Put

$$\alpha = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}.$$

If $\alpha=+\infty$, there is nothing to prove. If $\alpha$ is finite, choose $\beta>\alpha$. There is an integer $N$ such that

$$\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n} \leq \beta$$

for $n≥N$. In particular, for any $p>0$,

$$c_{N+k+1} \leq \beta c_{N+k} \;(k=0,1,...,p-1).$$

Multiplying these inequalities, we obtain

$$c_{N+p} \leq \beta^p c_N,$$

or

$$c_n \leq c_N \beta^{-N} \cdot \beta^n \quad (n \geq N).$$

Hence

$$\sqrt[n]{c_n} \leq \sqrt[n]{c_N \beta^{-N}} \cdot \beta,$$

so that

$$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n} \leq \beta, \quad \quad (18)$$

by Theorem 3.20(b). Since (18) is true for every $\beta>\alpha$, we have

$$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n} \leq \alpha.$$

All the steps are clear to me except the very last one: if $\beta>\alpha$ and $\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n}=\gamma \leq \beta$ why is it always $\gamma\leq\alpha$? Even if $\beta=\alpha+d$ with d infinitesimally small, if $\gamma=\beta\leq\beta$ it results in $\gamma > \alpha$ right?

To me the problem is indeed the "$\leq$" instead of "$<$" in $\gamma\leq\beta$: if it was $\gamma<\beta$ then I can always choose $\beta=\alpha+d$ so that $\gamma<\beta$ results in $\gamma\leq\alpha$ (since $\alpha<\beta$). This is the only way I could think of it intuitively even if using the "infinitesimally small" argument in such a rough way could be formally wrong.

This said I proceeded and looked back where "$\leq$" appears for the first time and it is at the second step of the proof, when it's stated that $\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n} \leq \beta$. Now, I guess this comes from theorem 3.17b) which says that (using the above notation)

If $\beta>\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}$, there is an integer N such that $n\geq N$ implies $\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}<\beta$

and not $\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}\leq\beta$.

So my questions are:

  1. What am I missing in the last step? If $x>a$ and $x\geq b$ why should it always be $b\leq\ a$?
  2. Why Rudin uses "$\leq$" instead of $<$ in the second step, provided it comes from Theorem 3.17?

Thanks in advance, I hope my thoughs were clearly explained.

(let me know how to center the text!)


EDIT: I found out that user @Mikhail D had the same flow of thoughts from theorem 3.17 to 3.37. He explained it more organically than what I did as answer of the following post.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure it isn't $(x>a\land x\ge b)\implies b\color{red}{\ge }a$? $\endgroup$
    – Invisible
    Oct 3 '20 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ That's indeed what buzzes me.. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 3 '20 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ @erma: To get a centred displayed expression, enclose it in double dollar signs: $$expression$$. Click on edit below the question to see what I did. $\endgroup$ Oct 3 '20 at 18:15
0
$\begingroup$

First of all, from the first step, we can replace $\leq$ with $<$ if that makes the proof easier. Why?

Claim 1: Let $\{a_n\}$ be a bounded sequence with $\alpha=\limsup a_n$. Then for all $\beta>\alpha$, there exists $N$ such that $a_n<\beta$ for all $n\geq N$.

Proof: Let $\beta>\alpha$ and suppose for each $k$, there exists $n_k>k$ such that $a_{n_k}\geq \beta$. Any convergent subsequences of $\{a_{n_k}\}$ must be a convergent subsequence of $\{a_n\}$. Hence, $\alpha\geq \limsup_{k\to\infty} a_{n_k}\geq \beta$, which is a contradiction.

Now, if you run through the same proof, but replace $a_n<\beta$ with $a_n\leq \beta$, the conclusion is the same. Thus, it doesn't really matter which one you use.

As far as the claim: If $\gamma \leq \beta$ for all $\beta>\alpha$, then $\gamma \leq \alpha$.

Proof: Suppose not; that is, $\gamma >\alpha$. Choose $\beta$ such that $\gamma>\beta>\alpha$. Then $\gamma >\beta$ and $\gamma \leq \beta$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ answer 1) I followed your proof and I am fine with the first part, but if we then replace $a_n<\beta$ with $a_n\leq\beta$ and come to the conclusion that $a_{n}\leq\beta$ for $n>N$ with $\beta > \alpha$ aren't we contradicting the definition of $\alpha$ by including the $\alpha =\beta$ case? I think at this point we should change also $\beta > \alpha$ in $\beta\geq\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 4 '20 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ answer 2) I can't choose $\beta$ such that $\gamma>\beta>\alpha$ because $\beta\geq\gamma$ must hold. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 4 '20 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ Answer 1: The claim does not hold if you allow $\alpha=\beta$. Take, for example, $a_n=(-1)^n \frac{1}{n}$. This converges to $0$ so $\alpha=0$. But it is not true that there exists $N$ such that $a_n\leq \alpha$ for all $n\geq N$. The claim, in full, generality, requires $\alpha<\beta$. $\endgroup$
    – zugzug
    Oct 4 '20 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ Answer 2: That is precisely the contradiction. If $\gamma >\alpha$ was assumed (proof by contradiction). Then it is true that there exists a number between $\gamma$ and $\alpha$. Call it $\beta$. But then this contradicts the assumption that $\beta \geq \gamma$ for all $\beta>\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – zugzug
    Oct 4 '20 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ Answer 1) I agree that we want $\alpha < \beta$. I was pointing out that by replacing $a_n<\beta$ with $a_n\leq\beta$ (and knowing that $a_n\leq\alpha$) we are not excluding $\alpha=\beta$ which is not what we want. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 4 '20 at 21:00
0
$\begingroup$

Let $\alpha = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}$ and $\gamma = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_n}$. Rudin wants to show that $$\gamma \leq \alpha . \tag{1}$$

You say that all the steps are clear to you except the very last one. My interpretation is that you accept (18) which means that $$\gamma \leq \beta \text{ for } \textbf{ each } \beta > \alpha . \tag{2}$$ Now assume that $\gamma > \alpha$. Then we may choose $\beta = \alpha + \frac{\gamma - \alpha}{2}$ and obtain from (18) $$\gamma \le \alpha + \frac{\gamma - \alpha}{2} $$ which is equivalent to $2\gamma < \gamma$, a contradiction. Therefore $(1)$ is true.

Of course you are right that if we are given three numbers $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ such that $\beta > \alpha$ and $\gamma \le \beta$, then we cannot conclude that $\gamma \le \alpha$. But that is not the situation here: In fact we have $\gamma \le \beta$ for all $\beta > \alpha$.

Finally, you can of course start the proof with the stronger (but correct) fact

There is an integer $N$ such that $\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n} < \beta$ for $n \ge N$.

This gives you

$$\sqrt[n]{c_n} < \sqrt[n]{c_N \beta^{-N}} \cdot \beta .$$ However, this does not imply $\limsup_{n \to \infty}\sqrt[n]{c_n} < \beta$, but only $\limsup_{n \to \infty}\sqrt[n]{c_n} \leq \beta$ as stated by Rudin.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ In the first part, you stated $\beta= \frac{\alpha + \gamma}{2}<\gamma$ violating what is found in the proof (i.e. $\beta\leq\gamma$) and then you used $\beta\leq\gamma$ to find that it cannot be $\gamma>\alpha$. How is it fair? $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 4 '20 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @erma In the proof we found that for each $\beta > \alpha$ we have $\gamma \le \beta$ (not $\beta \le \gamma$ ). Then we prove by contradiction that $\gamma \le \alpha$: Assuming that $\gamma > \alpha$, then certainly $\beta := \alpha + \frac{\gamma - \alpha}{2} > \alpha$. This implies $\gamma \le \beta = \alpha + \frac{\gamma - \alpha}{2} $ which is not true. $\endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Oct 4 '20 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I miss wrote, I shouldn't reply when tired! So first you suppose $\gamma>\alpha$ and find that this can imply $\gamma>\beta$ which is against the proof so it had to be $\gamma\leq\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 5 '20 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ @erma Correct. If $\gamma > \alpha$, we can alternatively pick any $\beta$ such that $\alpha < \beta < \gamma$. Then by our proof $\gamma \le \beta$ which is a contradiction. $\endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Oct 5 '20 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ Great. Thanks Paul, much appreciated. $\endgroup$
    – erma
    Oct 6 '20 at 19:11

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.