1
$\begingroup$

If $\limsup x_n=\infty$, show that there exists a properly divergent subsequence $\{x_{r_{n}}\}$ of $\{x_n\}$ such that $\lim{x_{r_n}}=\infty$.

I have no idea to prove this. Please solve this problem.

2 Answers 2

2

Recall the definition $\limsup_n x_n = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sup\{x_n: n \ge k \}$. Denote by $s_k$ that last $\sup$, and note that $k

So there must be some $k_1$ such that $s_{k_1} \ge 2$, for the $s_k$ to tend to $\infty$. This means we must have some $x_{n_1} > 1$, for some $n_1 \ge k_1$, or else $1$ would have been a smaller upperbound for $\{x_n: n \ge k_1 \}$, contradicting its sup is at least 2.

Now there must be some $k_2 \ge n_2$, such that $s_{k_2} > 4$, for the same reason as before and again we find some $n_2 \ge k_2$ with $x_{n_2} > 3$, similarly.

This way we construct a subsequence $x_{n_l}$ that tends to infinity as well.

0

By definition limsup is the supremum of the set of subsequential limits of $x_n$. Thus by definition exists a subsequence $x_{r_n}$ of $x_n$ which diverges to $\infty$ and we know that when a sequence diverges to infinity then every subsequence of it diverges to infinity also.(or when a sequence converges then every subsequence of it converges also to the same limit of the sequence)

Also note that every sequence is a subsequence of itself.

  • 0
    This is but one of the definitions , namely the one which makes the statement true by definition...2017-01-01
  • 0
    I've seen this in some books as a definition of limsup2017-01-01
  • 0
    he probably meant the standard limit of sups definition. The fact he wants to show is part of showing the equivalence of the two definitions for the $+\infty$ case.2017-01-01
  • 0
    The lat remark is a bit misleading, we often need proper subsequences, e.g. when we consider $1, 2, \frac{1}{2}, 3, \frac{1}{3},4, \frac{1}{4}, 5,\ldots$.2017-01-01
  • 0
    the lat remark was just a remark,not a hint to solve the exercise2017-01-01