Help with Measure Theory: Sup & Inf of B_n

In summary, if E is a non empty set and (B_n)_{n \geq 1} are elements in the set 2^E. Then I need help showing the following: 1) For every sequence (a_n)_{n\, \geq\, 1} of elements in the set - \infty\ \union\ \mathbb{R}\ \union\ \infty, there is a limit to the sequence, which is the supremum of the set B_n.2) The limsup of a sequence of sets is the supremum of the set B_n.3) The lim
  • #1
Mathman23
254
0
If E is a non empty set and[tex] (B_n)_{n \geq 1}[/tex] are elements in the set [tex]2^E[/tex].

I then need help showing the following:

[tex]lim_n\, sup\, B_n\, =\, lim_n\, inf\, B_n\, =\, \bigcup_{n\, =\, 1} ^{\infty}\, B_n[/tex]

if and only if [tex]B_n\, \subseteq\, B_{n+1}[/tex], for all [tex] n\, \geq\, 1[/tex],

Also I need to show

[tex]lim_n\, sup\, B_n\, =\, lim_n\, inf\, B_n\, =\, \bigcap_{n=1} ^{\infty} B_n[/tex]

if and only if [tex]B_n\, \supseteq\, B_{n+1}[/tex], for all [tex]n\, \geq\, 1[/tex]

I know that for every sequence [tex](a_n)_{n\, \geq\, 1}[/tex] of elements in the set [tex]- \infty\ \union\ \mathbb{R}\ \union\ \infty[/tex].

[tex]lim_n\, sup\, a_n\, =\, inf(M_n|\, n\, \geq\, 1)[/tex], where [tex]M_n\, :=\, sup(a_k|\, k\, \geq\, n},\, n\, \geq\, 1[/tex].

[tex]lim_n\, inf\, a_n\, =\, inf(m_n|\, n\, \geq\, 1)[/tex], where [tex]m_n\, :=\, sup(a_k|\, k\, \geq\, n},\, n\, \geq\, 1[/tex].

But could somebody please give me a hint or an idear on how to use this fact to show the original task?

Sincerely Fred
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This has nothing to do with measure theory, it's a purely set theoretic question. Start by writing down the definitions of lim sup and lim inf. And why am I seeing so many people write "idears" lately? The word is "idea".
 
  • #3
The limsup and liminf are defined whenever there is a partial order on a set. For real numbers, this is the normal "less than or equal to" order. For sets is its the "is a subset of" order. The sup of a collection of sets is defined just like it is for real numbers, ie, A is the sup of {Bn} iff 1) A contains every Bn and 2) If C contains every Bn, then C contains A. Can you figure out what A is here, and also in the inf case? Then use this in the definition of limsup and liminf.
 
  • #4
Is A the sum of all intersecting partions that I mention ?

I mean [tex]= \bigcap \bigcup _{n=1} ^{\infty} B_n[/tex]
??

I have a second question?

If E = R, where R being the set of all real numbers.

Where [tex]B_n = [0, x_n] [/tex] [tex] n \geq 1 [/tex]

is limited sequence of positive real numbers.

I need to show here

[tex] [0, lim , sup x_n [ \subseteq lim_{n} , sup B_n \subseteq [0, lim , sup x_n] [/tex]

Any idears here ?

Sincerely Yours
Fred
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I don't know what A is supposed to be. And show what you've tried on the second question.
 
  • #6
StatusX said:
I don't know what A is supposed to be. And show what you've tried on the second question.

[tex] [0, lim \ sup x_n [ \subseteq lim_{n} sup B_n \subseteq [0, lim \ sup x_n] [/tex]

should I treat [tex]x_{n} \subseteq B_{n}[/tex]

and [tex]lim sup x_n = \bigcap_{j=1} \bigcup_{n=j} ^{\infty} x_n [/tex]

if this is true then

[tex][0, lim_{n} \ sup x_n [ \subseteq lim_{n} sup B_n \subseteq [0, lim_{n} \ sup x_n] [/tex]

?

Sincerely Fred
 
Last edited:
  • #7
The xn are numbers, and the Bn are sets, so you can't compare them like you're doing. Before you can do this problem, you need to have figured out what the limsup of a sequence of sets is. Have you done this?
 
  • #8
What is what I have trouble with, do I treat x_n as a scalar in relation with B_n??

Sincerely Fred
 
  • #9
What do scalars have to do with anything? There aren't any vector spaces here. Don't overcomplicate things. Again, what is the limsup of a sequence of sets?
 
  • #10
I recon that must be

[tex] lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} sup x_n = lim (sup x_m), m \geq n[/tex]

??

Sincerely Fred

StatusX said:
What do scalars have to do with anything? There aren't any vector spaces here. Don't overcomplicate things. Again, what is the limsup of a sequence of sets?
 
  • #11
You're not getting anywhere. Take some time and think about the problem. Post something once you've worked on it for a while.
 
  • #12
I'm sorry, but could you please give me hint here?

/Fred


p.s. My father has very sick these last couple of weeks (heart trouble), and I have therefore not been able to get anywhere with this problem. So therefore I know its much to ask, but if you could be a kind soul and help me answer this problem, then I will never ask for anything this big again.

StatusX said:
You're not getting anywhere. Take some time and think about the problem. Post something once you've worked on it for a while.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
So what do you want from me? All I can do is try to explain the concepts to you, and you're not taking the time to try and understand them. If you're looking for someone to do the problem for you, it's not going to happen. Ask specific, meaningful questions and I'll try to answer them as clearly as possible. But please take a little time to ask the best questions you can.
 

FAQ: Help with Measure Theory: Sup & Inf of B_n

What is the definition of the supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets?

The supremum (or least upper bound) of a sequence of sets {B_n} is the smallest set that contains all elements of each set B_n. The infimum (or greatest lower bound) is the largest set that is contained in all sets B_n.

How do you calculate the supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets?

To calculate the supremum, take the union of all sets B_n and then take the smallest set that contains all elements of this union. To calculate the infimum, take the intersection of all sets B_n and then take the largest set that is contained in this intersection.

What is the relationship between the supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets?

The supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets are related in the sense that the supremum is always greater than or equal to the infimum. This means that the supremum is an upper bound and the infimum is a lower bound for the sequence of sets.

Can the supremum or infimum of a sequence of sets be an empty set?

Yes, the supremum or infimum of a sequence of sets can be an empty set if the sets in the sequence are all empty. This can also happen if the sets in the sequence do not have a common element.

What are some real-world applications of the supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets?

The concept of supremum and infimum is used in various fields of mathematics and sciences. In measure theory, the supremum and infimum of a sequence of sets play a crucial role in the definition of measures. They are also used in probability theory to define the probability of events. In economics, the concept of supremum and infimum is used to analyze market equilibrium. In computer science, they are used in optimization problems.

Back
Top