Confused by limit superior and limit inferior definition.

335 Views Asked by At

I'm trying to grasp the idea behind limit superior and limit inferior. Using the concept of subsequential limits, I understand that for a sequence $(x_n)$, the $\limsup x_n$ is the largest limit that a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ will approach. However, looking at this alternative definition/theorem, I get confused:

Definition:

Suppose $\limsup x_n \in \mathbb R$. Then $\beta = \limsup x_n$ if and only if for all $\epsilon > 0$,

(i) there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb N$ such that $x_n < \beta + \epsilon$ for all $n \ge n_0$ and

(ii) given $n \in \mathbb N$, there exists $k \in \mathbb N$ with $k \ge n$ such that $x_k > \beta - \epsilon$.

Specifically, I am confused as to how this definition works with the sequence $x_n = (-1)^n$.

Obviously, the limit superior of $(-1)^n$ is $1$. So $\beta = 1$. Thus, (i) is satisfied, since $ 1 < 1 + \epsilon$ and $-1 < 1+ \epsilon$. But what about (ii)? It seems that no matter what tail of $x_n$ I consider, I will always end up with $-1$ in $x_k$. And it is not true that $-1>1-\epsilon$ for small enough $\epsilon$.

Can someone explain where my logic fails? Please and thank you.

2

There are 2 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

It seems that no matter what tail of $x_n$ I consider, I will always end up with $-1$ in $x_k$. And it is $not$ true that $-1>1-\epsilon$ for small enough $\epsilon$.

Can someone explain where my logic fails?

You will not always end up with $-1$ in $x_k$.

Condition (ii) says that given $n\in{\mathbb N}$, there exists $k\in{\mathbb N}$ with $k\geq n$ such that $$ x_k>1-\epsilon\tag{*}. $$ But $x_k=(-1)^k$ and ($*$) is always true when $k$ is even.

0
On

Condition (ii) means there exist $x_k$s with indes $k$ as large as we please such that $x_k>1-\varepsilon$.

This is is indeed true since every other $x_k$ is equal to $1$ (namely those with even $k$.

Maybe you would find it more intuitive keeping in mind that the derived sequence $(y_n)\overset{\text{def}}{=}\sup\limits_{k\ge n}\,x_k$ is non-increasing and that $$\limsup_n x_n=\lim_ny_n=\lim_{n}\biggl(\sup_{k\ge n}\,x_k\biggr).$$