2
$\begingroup$

Let $\{a_n\}$ be a bounded sequence of real numbers. Let $s_n=\dfrac{a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_n}{n}~\forall~n\in\mathbb N.$ Show that $\lim \inf a_n\le\lim\inf s_n.$

The only definition I know of limit infimum is the lowest subsequencial limit. I've first prechoosed a convergent subsequence $\{s_{n_k}\}$ converging to $l$ of $\{s_n\}$ and then tried to find a convergent subsequence of $\{a_n\}$ whose limit is $\le l.$

But it didn't help.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Let $\alpha=\liminf_{n\to\infty}a_n$, by the Remark2 below, there exists $N>0$, such that for each $n>N$, we have $a_n\ge\beta$ (*), thus $$s_n=\frac{a_1+\dotsb+a_n}n=\frac{a_1+\dotsb+a_{N+1}+\dotsb+a_n}n\ge\frac{a_1+\dotsb+a_N+(n-N)\beta}n$$ Take limit as $n\to\infty$, we have $\liminf_{n\to\infty}s_n\ge\beta$ for each $\beta<\alpha$, hence $\liminf s_n\ge\liminf a_n$.

Remark1 The condition that $\{a_n\}$ is bounded implies that $\alpha\in\mathbb R$. But even if $\{a_n\}$ is unbounded, $\alpha\in[-\infty,+\infty]$, the preceding argument also works.

Especially, even if $\alpha=-\infty$, there's no $\beta<\alpha$, thus $\forall\beta<\alpha\colon\liminf s_n\ge\beta$ is vacuously true, which also implies that $\liminf s_n\ge\alpha$.

Generally, if $S$ is a totally-ordered set, and $x\ge\beta$ for all $\beta<\alpha$, then $x\ge\alpha$, no matter whether $\alpha$ is the minimum.

Remark2 $\alpha=\liminf a_n$ if and only $\alpha$ is a subsequential limit and $\forall\beta<\alpha,\exists N,\forall n>N\colon a_n\ge\beta$.

If $\alpha=\liminf a_n$, we have $\alpha$ is a subsequential limit. Suppose $\exists\beta_0<\alpha,\forall N,\exists n>N\colon\alpha<\beta_0$, we can choose a subsequence $\{a_{n_k}\}$, such that $a_{n_k}<\beta_0$, which contradicts the assumption that $\alpha$ is the lowest subsequential limit (choose a proper subsequence). For the reverse deduction, note that $\forall\beta<\alpha,\exists\gamma(\beta<\gamma<\alpha),\exists N>0,\forall n>N\colon a_n\le\gamma$, thus $\beta$ isn't a subsequential limit. The argument works even if $\alpha=-\infty$, by the same reason of vacuous truth.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The maths are correct--but did they never teach you not to mix symbols and words in proofs? $\endgroup$ – Did Feb 22 '14 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Did I need to change the layout, but before that, I need to do something more. $\endgroup$ – Yai0Phah Feb 22 '14 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Frank Science: In the last line should be $\liminf s_n\ge\beta$ for each $\beta<\alpha$... doesn't it? $\endgroup$ – Jose Antonio Feb 22 '14 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JoseAntonio I have edited the proof thoroughly. $\endgroup$ – Yai0Phah Feb 22 '14 at 8:23

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.