Let $\{a_n\}$ be a bounded sequence of real numbers and let $P$ be the set of limit points of $\{a_n\}$. Prove that $\limsup a_n = \sup P$ and $\liminf a_n = \inf P$

my work:

Since ${a_n}$ is bounded, then there is an $M$ such that ${a_n} \leq M$ for all $n$. By Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, ${a_n}$ must have a subsequence that converges (in this case to $P$).
Then, $P \leq M$.
$\liminf {a_n} \leq \limsup {a_n} \leq M$.
Since $P \leq M$, then $\liminf {a_n} \leq \inf P \leq \sup P \leq\limsup {a_n} \leq M$.

I'm not sure how to finish though, or if what I've put is correct

Help is greatly appreciated!

  • $\begingroup$ $P$ is a set, one which may contain more than one point. What do you mean when you say that $a_n$ converges to $P$? $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 18 '13 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ subsequences which converges to a set of limit points P. $\endgroup$ – starter1011 Nov 18 '13 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ Sequences don't "converge" to a set of points. If a sequence converges, it converges to a unique limit. $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 18 '13 at 3:13
  • $\begingroup$ that's why im saying that a subsequence of a_n converges to a certain element of the set of limit points P. $\endgroup$ – starter1011 Nov 18 '13 at 3:15
  • $\begingroup$ I see, much clearer now, thank you. That's not how things are usually said, though. Honestly, I'm having a hard time of understanding your line of thought. $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 18 '13 at 3:22

This question can be answered by showing that the following two things are true:

  1. If $a_{n_k}\to a \in P$, then $\liminf a_n \leq a \leq \limsup a_n$.
  2. There is a subsequence that converges to $\liminf a_n$, and one that converges to $\limsup a_n$.

From there, we may conclude that since the liminf and limsup are lower and upper bounds of $P$ that are elements of $P$, they must also be the greatest lower bound and least upper bound.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate the answer but I don't think using the term "baffles" is necessary. I don't know how I'm suppose to present the properties of lim inf/lim sup in conjunction with the problem. Yes, I understand property 1 and property 2 of what you said. I don't understand why lim inf a_n has to be the inf of P? $\endgroup$ – starter1011 Nov 18 '13 at 3:36
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry if I've offended you. Do you understand why if the lim inf is both a lower bound of $P$ and a member of $P$, it must also be the inf of $P$? $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 18 '13 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. definitely haha. why is lim inf of a_n a lower bound of P? this is because P is the set of limit points, therefore, ...yeah I get it.. It's just like.. feels somehow wrong, even though it's clearly correct. maybe because it literally employs the definition lim inf/sup and that's it, rather than trying to use some kind of algebra like I did. (if that makes sense). regardless, thank you! $\endgroup$ – starter1011 Nov 18 '13 at 3:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do see what you mean. I'm wondering though, what is your definition of $\limsup$? Depending on the definition you start with, this question is either a trivial application of a definition (as you suggest) or something a bit more subtle. Is your definition $\limsup a_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} \sup_{k>n}\{a_n\}$? $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 18 '13 at 4:02

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.