1
$\begingroup$

From Wikipedia:

Let $Y$ be a partially ordered set which is also a topological space and a complete lattice so that the suprema and infima always exist. For a set $X ⊆ Y$, define $$ \liminf X := \inf \{ x \in Y : x \text{ is a limit point of } X \}\, $$ $$ \limsup X := \sup \{ x \in Y : x \text{ is a limit point of } X \}\, $$

I wonder if this definition is consistent in some way with the informal interpretation of $\limsup$ as $\inf \sup$, and of $\liminf$ as $\sup \inf$, or just another case that you "don't know why Wikipedia writes what it writes"? Thanks!

$\endgroup$
12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ :) $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Nov 24, 2011 at 2:31
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b.: :-D. Yes, I haven't forgot it. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 24, 2011 at 2:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tim: Wikipedia is made by you! I hope you can go there and improve it... ;-) $\endgroup$
    – André Caldas
    Nov 24, 2011 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréCaldas: Yes, and Wiki is my teacher! $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Nov 24, 2011 at 2:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, the grafted-on note that "neither the limit inferior nor the limit superior of a set must be an element of the set" simply cannot be right. Nothing even slightly like it is true for the standard concepts in $\mathbb R$. $\endgroup$
    – hmakholm left over Monica
    Nov 24, 2011 at 3:03

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.