Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Another AC anomaly?
Replies: 43   Last Post: Dec 21, 2009 8:08 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 K_h Posts: 419 Registered: 4/12/07
Re: Another AC anomaly?
Posted: Dec 18, 2009 1:25 AM

"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message
news:Kusoo8.xz@cwi.nl...
> In article <GLidnXhuo5t347TWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> "K_h" <KHolmes@SX729.com> writes:

> > "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message
> > news:KuqwG3.qv@cwi.nl...

> ...
> > > > > The definition you provided for a sequence of sets
> > > > > A_n
> > > > > depends on whether
> > > > > each A_n is or is not a set containing a single
> > > > > set as
> > > > > an
> > > > > element.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your definition leads to some strange
> > > > > consequences. I
> > > > > can
> > > > > state the
> > > > > following theorem:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let A_n and B_n be two sequences of sets. Let A_s
> > > > > =
> > > > > lim
> > > > > sup A_n and
> > > > > A_i = lim inf A_n, similar for B_s and B_i. Let
> > > > > C_n
> > > > > be
> > > > > the sequence
> > > > > defined as:
> > > > > C_2n = A_n
> > > > > C_(2n+1) = B_n
> > > > > Theorem:
> > > > > lim sup C_n = union (A_s, B_s)
> > > > > lim inf C_n = intersect (A_i, B_i)
> > > > > Proof:
> > > > > easy.

> ...
> > > Well, the above theorem is still not valid with your
> > > definition.

> >
> > What case did you have in mind? I found cases where it
> > works fine.

>
> Let's have some arbitrary object 'a' and the natural
> numbers. Create
> the sequence A_n where A_n = {a} and the sequence B_n
> where B_n = {n}.
> According to your definition:
> lim sup A_n = {a}
> and
> lim sup B_n = {N}.
> Now create the sequence C_n: C_2n = A_n, C_2n+1 = B_n.
> Again according
> to your definition:
> lim sup C_n = {a}
> which is not equal to union (lim sup A_n, lim sup B_n).

This is a good example, thanks. Your theorem only applies
in special cases for the definition I have offered (although
my definition satisfies some different but interesting
theorems).

k

Date Subject Author
12/12/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/13/09 K_h
12/14/09 Dik T. Winter
12/14/09 K_h
12/15/09 Dik T. Winter
12/15/09 K_h
12/16/09 Dik T. Winter
12/16/09 K_h
12/17/09 Dik T. Winter
12/18/09 K_h
12/18/09 Dik T. Winter
12/18/09 K_h
12/21/09 Dik T. Winter
12/14/09 Dik T. Winter
12/14/09 K_h
12/15/09 Dik T. Winter
12/15/09 Dik T. Winter
12/15/09 K_h
12/16/09 Dik T. Winter
12/17/09 K_h
12/17/09 Dik T. Winter
12/18/09 K_h
12/18/09 K_h
12/18/09 Dik T. Winter
12/18/09 K_h
12/18/09 Dik T. Winter
12/18/09 K_h
12/15/09 K_h
12/16/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/17/09 Dik T. Winter
12/17/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/16/09 Dik T. Winter
12/15/09 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/13/09 K_h
12/13/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/13/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/14/09 Ilmari Karonen
12/14/09 Jesse F. Hughes
12/15/09 Chas Brown