Is there a contradiction in these two definitions of limit Superior?

125 Views Asked by At

Definition 1 : Let $A=\{a_n\}$ be a sequence of real numbers not necessarily bounded . Then we define :

$\lim \sup ~ a_n = \inf ~\{\sup ~a_n,~\sup ~a_{n+1}~\sup ~a_{n+2}, \cdots\} $

Definition 2 : If $A =\{a_n\}$ is a sequence of real numbers which is bounded above, then the limit superior of $A$ denoted by $S$ is the infimum of those real numbers $v$ with the property that there are only a finite number of natural numbers $n$ such that $v < a_n$

Please consider this image : enter image description here

Let the sequence $A$ denoted on the number line be bounded above by $b$ and may or may not be bounded below. ( In this case, we have taken $A$ to be bounded below by $a$ as well)

Now, $\{\sup ~a_n,~\sup ~a_{n+1}~\sup ~a_{n+2}, \cdots\}$ is a monotonically decreasing and bounded sequence which converges to the point $S . S_o =~ \sup ~a_n , S_1 = ~\sup ~a_{n+1}$ and so on.

Question 1: As per definition $2$, there can only be a finite numbers of terms to the right of $S$. But how can this be possible here when we have a whole sequence of supremums itself convering towards $S$.

Question 2: What could happen when $A$ is not bounded below? I fail to understand how can only a finite number of terms be there on the right side of $S$.

Thank you for help.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

I hope that this makes things clear for you.

Let $A$ denote a sequence $\left(a_{n}\right)$.

Definition 1a) $\limsup A:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}s_{n}$ where $s_{n}:=\sup\left\{ a_{k}\mid k\geq n\right\} $

The fact that sequence $\left(s_{n}\right)$ is non-increasing makes it possible to define equivalently:

Definition 1b) $\limsup A:=\inf\left\{ s_{n}\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\right\} $.

Now define $V:=\left\{ v\in\mathbb{R}\mid\text{the set }\left\{ n\in\mathbb{N}\mid v<a_{n}\right\} \text{ is finite}\right\} $ and note:

$$v\in V\iff\exists n\; s_{n}\leq v$$

This shows that $V=\cup_{n=1}\left[s_{n},\infty\right)$ and consequently $\inf V=\inf\left\{ s_{n}\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\right\} =\limsup A$


In special case where $A$ is not bounded above we have $s_n=+\infty$ for each $n$ so that $\limsup A=+\infty$. Secondly we have $V=\emptyset$ and $\inf\emptyset:=+\infty$. So everything remains valid in that case.