2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to show that if $ \limsup s_n = +\infty$ and $\liminf t_n > 0$, then $\lim\sup s_n t_n = +\infty$.

Could someone check my proof/give feedback?

Since $\lim\inf t_n > 0$, we know that there is a natural $N_1$ such that $m = \inf \{t_n \ | \ n > N_1 \} > 0$. Also because $\lim\sup s_n = +\infty$, there exists $N_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ and $M > 0 $ such that $\displaystyle \sup s_n > \frac{M}{m}$ for $n > N_2$. Then for $n > \max \{ N_1, N_2 \}$, we have $s_n t_n \geq s_n m$. Now we can write $\displaystyle \lim\sup s_n t_n \geq \lim\sup s_n m = m \lim\sup s_n > m \left( \frac{M}{m} \right) = M$. Since $M$ was any arbitrary number greater than 0, we see that $\lim\sup s_n t_n = +\infty$.

Edit

Since $\limsup s_n = +\infty$, there exists a subsequence $s_{n_j} \to +\infty$ as $j \to \infty$. Then we can also take a subsequence $t_{n_j}$ of $t_n$. Now we have $s_{n_j}t_{n_j} \geq s_{n_j}m$ and $\limsup s_{n_j}t_{n_j} \geq m \limsup s_{n_j} = +\infty$. Since $\limsup s_{n_j}t_{n_j} = +\infty$, we must have $\limsup s_n t_n = +\infty$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $s_{n_j}t_{n_j} \geq s_{n_j}m$ for $n_j >N_1$. Moreover, you have better than $\limsup s_{n_j}t_{n_j}=+\infty$; you actually have $\lim_{n\to\infty}s_{n_j}t_{n_j}=+\infty$. This lets you make the final conclusion. $\endgroup$ – Gyu Eun Lee May 21 '13 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ @proximal: Awesome! Thanks for the followup. $\endgroup$ – Student May 21 '13 at 14:07
1
$\begingroup$

This is red herring, but there are a few mistakes in this line:

"...because $\limsup s_n=+\infty$, there exists $N_2\in\mathbb{N}$ and $M>0$ such that $\sup s_n>\frac{M}{m}$ for $n>N_2$."

First of all, if by $\sup s_n$ you mean $\sup\{s_n: n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ then clearly this number is $\infty$, so your statement is vacuous. If by $\sup s_n$ you are referring to $\sup\{s_n:n>N_2\}$, then this number is still $+\infty$.

Second, this $N_2$ will depend on $M$; the correct order of quantification is "for any $M>0$ there exists $N_2\in\mathbb{N}$ such that..."

I say this is a red herring because this line is irrelevant to the proof. You are done once you are able to show that $\limsup s_nt_n \geq m\limsup s_n$, since the right hand side is equal to $+\infty$. You have not quite done this yet. Instead of doing this strange business with the $\limsup$, try going back to the original definition:

By $\limsup a_n=+\infty$ we mean that there exists a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{k=1}^\infty$ such that $a_{n_k}\to+\infty$ as $k \to \infty$.

Getting the inequality $s_nt_n\geq s_nm$ is a good idea (in fact, this is the only hard part of the proof), but you need to ensure $s_n \geq 0$ for this inequality to work. Since you're working with $\limsup$, you don't need the entire sequence to be nonnegative, but only a subsequence. Can you extract such a subsequence from the definition?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the feedback. Would you mind looking at my edit? $\endgroup$ – Student May 21 '13 at 4:09

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.