What is the definition of supremum for a sequence of real numbers?

In summary, the conversation discussed the definition of the supremum for a sequence \{x_n\}. The formula \sup_n x_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} \left( \max\limits_{1 \leq k \leq n} x_k \right) was introduced and it was stated that it is the same as the supremum. The relevance of the remark about partial orders was questioned, but it was clarified that the definition is valid for any partially ordered set. It was also mentioned that the condition given for the supremum is not valid for subsets of real numbers, but it works for any countably infinite set. In conclusion, the conversation provided an explanation of the definition of the suprem
  • #1
AxiomOfChoice
533
1
If you're given a sequence [itex]\{x_n\}[/itex], do you have

[tex]
\sup_n x_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} \left( \max\limits_{1 \leq k \leq n} x_k \right)
[/tex]

I've never seen this definition before, but it makes sense.

...and if it's NOT the same as the supremum...what *is* it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is the same as the supremum. But you should try to prove they're equal for yourself; it follows somewhat easily from the definitions, where sup is the least upper bound.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Notice that this gives the supremum for a sequence- a countably infinite set. The supremum is defined for any set (assuming [itex]+\infty[/itex] is a valid supremum), countable or not.
 
  • #4
@HallsofIvy: I don't really see the relevance of your remark, but if you want to generalize: the supremum is defined for any partially ordered set.
 
  • #5
Landau said:
@HallsofIvy: I don't really see the relevance of your remark, but if you want to generalize: the supremum is defined for any partially ordered set.

I think the relevance of his remark is this: It's not possible for the condition I listed to be the definition of the supremum of a set of real numbers because it doesn't even make sense for an uncountably infinite set; e.g., [itex][0,1][/itex]. But I think it works just fine for any countably infinite set.
 
  • #6
Sure it is not valid for subsets of R, in the same way it is not valid for arbitrary posets. But you were explicitly talking about sequences of reals, so...
 

FAQ: What is the definition of supremum for a sequence of real numbers?

What is the definition of supremum?

The supremum of a set is the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all of the numbers in the set. In other words, it is the least upper bound of the set.

How is supremum different from maximum?

The supremum of a set may or may not be a member of the set, while the maximum is always a member of the set. Additionally, a set can have multiple maximum values, but only one supremum.

What does it mean for a set to be bounded above?

A set is bounded above if there is a number that is greater than or equal to all of the numbers in the set. This number is called the supremum of the set.

Can a set have a supremum if it is unbounded?

No, a set must be bounded above in order for it to have a supremum. If a set is unbounded, it does not have a supremum.

How is supremum used in math and science?

The concept of supremum is used in various mathematical and scientific fields, such as analysis, optimization, and statistics. It is often used to find the best or most optimal solution to a problem, or to define the upper limit of a set of data.

Similar threads

Back
Top