As a criterion for the existence of the limit of a function we have:
$\lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x)$ exists iff for each sequence $(a_n)$ with $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}a_n=a$ the limit $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}f(a_n)$ exists.
Let's consider an improper integral $\int\limits_a^{b}f(t)dt$ where $a<b$ and $b\in\mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$.
The improper integral exists iff $f(t)$ is Riemann integrable on $[a,\beta]$ for each $\beta$ with $a<\beta<b$ and the limit $\lim\limits_{\beta\to b} \int\limits_a^{\beta}f(t)dt$ exists. In fact, $\lim\limits_{\beta\to b} \int\limits_a^{\beta}f(t)dt$ can be interpreted as a limit of a function, let's call it $F(\beta):=\int\limits_a^{\beta}f(t)$. Hence, it must be possible to prove the existence of $\lim\limits_{\beta\to b}F(\beta)$ by the above criterion. However, in our lecture it says that in the context of improper integrals it is sufficient to find only one sequence such that $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} F(\beta_n)=\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} \int\limits_a^{\beta_n}f(t)dt$ exists.
Why is it sufficient to show it only for one sequence?