0
$\begingroup$

Define $\{s_n\}$ to be a sequence of real numbers. Let $E$ be the set of all numbers $x$ (in the extended real number system such that $s_{n_k} \rightarrow x$ for some subsequence $\{s_{n_k}\}$.

Walter Rudin defines $s^*=\sup E$ and $s_*=\inf E$. Now, a following theorem states that if $y>s^*$, then there is an $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall n \ge N \implies s_n<y$

There is a part on the proof of this statement that I do not understand. (Bold and italicized)

The proof goes as follows:

Suppose there is a number $y>s^*$ such that $s_n \ge y$ for infinitely many values of $n$. In that case, there is a number $z \in E$ such that $z\ge y>s^*$, contradicting the definition of $s^*$.

Can anyone tell me why this statement is true?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Let $\;\{s_{n_k}\}\;$ be the infinite number of elements of $\;\{s_n\}\;$ s.t. $\;s_{n_k}\ge y\;$ . Then either this subsequence is bounded and thus by Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem it has a partial (finite) limit, or it is unbounded and then it has a subsequence that covnerges to $\;\infty\;$ . Either way, there's an element $\;z\in E\;$ which is a partial limit of the original limit, an by cosntruction $\;z>s^*\;$ , contradicting the definition of $\;s^*\;$

$\endgroup$

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.