For a sequence $(x_k) \in \mathbb{R}$ ,

$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sup x_k = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}$ $(\sup{x_l| l ≥ k})$

$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf x_k$ = $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}(\inf{x_l| l ≥ k})$.

Show there is a subsequence of $(x_k)$ that converges to $\lim_{x_k \rightarrow \infty} \sup x_k $, and a subsequence that converges to $\lim_{x_k \rightarrow \infty} \inf x_k $

Im trying to show both of these but I am having trouble explaining why the subsequence would be convergent since it doesn't say the sequence $(x_k)$ is bounded.

  • $\begingroup$ lim inf and lim sup don't necessarily converge- but if they don't, neither does the function. You can show that there is a subsequence that diverges in the same way, though (e.g. if $x_n = (-1)^n n$, then $\limsup x_n = \lim x_{2n}$, and $\liminf x_n = \lim x_{2n+1}$) $\endgroup$ – Clinton Bradford Oct 10 '14 at 2:32

If the sequence is unbounded above, then lim sup is infinite.

If the sequence is bounded, let

$$x^* = \limsup x_k$$


$$\alpha_k = \sup_{l\geq k}x_l$$

Since $x_k$ is bounded, $\alpha_k$ is bounded below and non-increasing.


$$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\alpha_k=\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\sup_{l\geq k}x_l= \inf_{k}\sup_{l\geq k}x_l=x^*$$

For any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $N \in \mathbf{N}$ such that for $k \geq N$

$$x^* - \epsilon < \alpha_k < x^* + \epsilon.$$

In particular, given $m \geq N$, since $x^*-\epsilon < \sup_{k\geq m}x_k=\alpha_m$, there exists $k_m \geq m$ such that

$$x^* - \epsilon < x_{k_m} \leq\alpha_m< x^* + \epsilon.$$

Hence, $|x_{k_m} - x^*| < \epsilon$ when $m \geq N$ and the subsequence $(x_{k_m}$) converges to $x^*$.

You can make a similar argument for $\liminf x_k$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ how can $x_{k_m}$ converge to $\lim \sup x_n$ ? the variables in here are confusing me a little bit. isn't it supposed to be a subsequence of $x_k$ and not $x_n$ where did the $x_n$ come from? $\endgroup$ – Alex Chavez Oct 10 '14 at 7:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexChavez: $\limsup_n x_n = \limsup_k x_k$ You can change the index notation as long as you are consistent. Nevertheless you are correct that my notation was confusing. I changed it so that the basic sequence is $(x_k)$ throughout. $\endgroup$ – RRL Oct 10 '14 at 14:56

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.