User:IssaRice/Taking inf and sup separately: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
Line 26: Line 26:


(Notation from Tao's ''Analysis I''.)
(Notation from Tao's ''Analysis I''.)
Let <math>I</math> be a bounded interval on the real line, and let <math>f : I \to \mathbf R</math>.


We have
We have

Revision as of 23:04, 17 December 2018

This page describes a trick that is sometimes helpful in analysis.

Satement

Let and be bounded subsets of the real line. Suppose that for every and we have . Then .

Actually, do and have to be bounded? I think they can even be empty!

Proof

Let and be arbitrary. We have by hypothesis . Since is arbitrary, we have that is an upper bound of the set , so taking the superemum over we have (remember, is the least upper bound, whereas is just another upper bound). Since was arbitrary, we see that is a lower bound of the set . Taking the infimum over , we have , as required.

Applications

liminf vs limsup

(Notation from Tao's Analysis I.)

Let be a sequence of real numbers. Let and let . Then we have .

Consider the sequences and defined by and .

Now consider the sets and . If we can show that for arbitrary , then we can apply the trick to these sets to conclude that .

Lower and upper Riemann integral

(Notation from Tao's Analysis I.)

Let be a bounded interval on the real line, and let .

We have

We want to show .

Define

Then we have and . To apply the trick all we need to do is to let be a p.c. function on that majorizes , and let be a p.c. function on that minorizes , and show that .