Prove any number $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit if $liminf x_n = a$, $lim sup x_n = b$, $ane b$,...












3












$begingroup$


I'm trying to solve the following problem:




Let ${x_n}$ denote a bounded sequence. Prove that any number $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$ if:
$$
begin{cases}
lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1})=0\
liminf x_n = a\
lim sup x_n = b\
ane b
end{cases}
$$




Here are some of my thoughts. We know that $x_n$ is bounded. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass we may choose some subsequence such that it has a finite limit:
$$
exists c in [a, b] : lim x_{n_k} = c iff forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N_1inBbb N: forall n_k > N_1 implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1
$$



We are also given that limsup and liminf exist and therefore:
$$
exists N_2 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_2 implies x_{n_k} ge a \
exists N_3 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_3 implies x_{n_k} le b
$$



If we now choose $N$ to be $max{N_2, N_3}$ we obtain:
$$
exists N = max{N_2, N_3}: forall n_k > N implies a le x_{n_k} le b tag1
$$



Also we are given the fact that $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$:
$$
forall epsilon_2 > 0, exists N_4 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_4implies |x_n - x_{n+1}| < epsilon_2
$$



But if $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$, then it is also true for the subsequences:
$$
forall epsilon_3 > 0, exists N_5 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_5implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k+1}| < epsilon_3 tag 2
$$



Now I'm struggling to combine that facts in order to show that any $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$, how do I proceed? Feels like i have to consider $(1)$ and $(2)$ in tandem in order to finish the proof.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I'm trying to solve the following problem:




    Let ${x_n}$ denote a bounded sequence. Prove that any number $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$ if:
    $$
    begin{cases}
    lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1})=0\
    liminf x_n = a\
    lim sup x_n = b\
    ane b
    end{cases}
    $$




    Here are some of my thoughts. We know that $x_n$ is bounded. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass we may choose some subsequence such that it has a finite limit:
    $$
    exists c in [a, b] : lim x_{n_k} = c iff forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N_1inBbb N: forall n_k > N_1 implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1
    $$



    We are also given that limsup and liminf exist and therefore:
    $$
    exists N_2 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_2 implies x_{n_k} ge a \
    exists N_3 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_3 implies x_{n_k} le b
    $$



    If we now choose $N$ to be $max{N_2, N_3}$ we obtain:
    $$
    exists N = max{N_2, N_3}: forall n_k > N implies a le x_{n_k} le b tag1
    $$



    Also we are given the fact that $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$:
    $$
    forall epsilon_2 > 0, exists N_4 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_4implies |x_n - x_{n+1}| < epsilon_2
    $$



    But if $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$, then it is also true for the subsequences:
    $$
    forall epsilon_3 > 0, exists N_5 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_5implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k+1}| < epsilon_3 tag 2
    $$



    Now I'm struggling to combine that facts in order to show that any $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$, how do I proceed? Feels like i have to consider $(1)$ and $(2)$ in tandem in order to finish the proof.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      2



      $begingroup$


      I'm trying to solve the following problem:




      Let ${x_n}$ denote a bounded sequence. Prove that any number $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$ if:
      $$
      begin{cases}
      lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1})=0\
      liminf x_n = a\
      lim sup x_n = b\
      ane b
      end{cases}
      $$




      Here are some of my thoughts. We know that $x_n$ is bounded. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass we may choose some subsequence such that it has a finite limit:
      $$
      exists c in [a, b] : lim x_{n_k} = c iff forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N_1inBbb N: forall n_k > N_1 implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1
      $$



      We are also given that limsup and liminf exist and therefore:
      $$
      exists N_2 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_2 implies x_{n_k} ge a \
      exists N_3 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_3 implies x_{n_k} le b
      $$



      If we now choose $N$ to be $max{N_2, N_3}$ we obtain:
      $$
      exists N = max{N_2, N_3}: forall n_k > N implies a le x_{n_k} le b tag1
      $$



      Also we are given the fact that $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$:
      $$
      forall epsilon_2 > 0, exists N_4 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_4implies |x_n - x_{n+1}| < epsilon_2
      $$



      But if $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$, then it is also true for the subsequences:
      $$
      forall epsilon_3 > 0, exists N_5 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_5implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k+1}| < epsilon_3 tag 2
      $$



      Now I'm struggling to combine that facts in order to show that any $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$, how do I proceed? Feels like i have to consider $(1)$ and $(2)$ in tandem in order to finish the proof.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I'm trying to solve the following problem:




      Let ${x_n}$ denote a bounded sequence. Prove that any number $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$ if:
      $$
      begin{cases}
      lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1})=0\
      liminf x_n = a\
      lim sup x_n = b\
      ane b
      end{cases}
      $$




      Here are some of my thoughts. We know that $x_n$ is bounded. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass we may choose some subsequence such that it has a finite limit:
      $$
      exists c in [a, b] : lim x_{n_k} = c iff forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N_1inBbb N: forall n_k > N_1 implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1
      $$



      We are also given that limsup and liminf exist and therefore:
      $$
      exists N_2 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_2 implies x_{n_k} ge a \
      exists N_3 in Bbb N : forall n_k > N_3 implies x_{n_k} le b
      $$



      If we now choose $N$ to be $max{N_2, N_3}$ we obtain:
      $$
      exists N = max{N_2, N_3}: forall n_k > N implies a le x_{n_k} le b tag1
      $$



      Also we are given the fact that $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$:
      $$
      forall epsilon_2 > 0, exists N_4 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_4implies |x_n - x_{n+1}| < epsilon_2
      $$



      But if $lim (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0$, then it is also true for the subsequences:
      $$
      forall epsilon_3 > 0, exists N_5 in Bbb N: forall n_k > N_5implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k+1}| < epsilon_3 tag 2
      $$



      Now I'm struggling to combine that facts in order to show that any $c in [a, b]$ is a subsequential limit of ${x_n}$, how do I proceed? Feels like i have to consider $(1)$ and $(2)$ in tandem in order to finish the proof.







      calculus limits limsup-and-liminf






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 17 '18 at 13:50









      romanroman

      2,36921224




      2,36921224






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Pick $cin (a,b)$ and enumerate $L={x_n:x_nle c}$ by ${y_n}$ and $U={x_n:x_nge c}$ by ${z_n}$. Notice ${x_n}={y_n}cup{z_n}$ and that both $y_n$ and $z_n$ are infinite because $liminf x_n=a$ and $liminf x_n=b$. If either $limsup y_n =c$ or $liminf z_n=c$ we are done, so suppose neither holds. Then there exists some $N$ s.t. for $m,nge N$, $y_m < c-epsilon<c<c+epsilon<z_n$ for some
          $epsilon>0$. If there were only finitely many $k$ s.t. $x_kle cle x_{k+1}$, we could not have $liminf x_n=a$ and $limsup x_n=b$. Therefore there are infinitely many $k$ s.t. $x_k=y_{n_k}$ and $x_{k+1}=z_{m_k}$. For $k$ large enough, $x_{k+1}-x_kge 2epsilon$, so we can not have $lim( x_n-x_{n+1})=0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
            $endgroup$
            – roman
            Dec 17 '18 at 15:13










          • $begingroup$
            @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
            $endgroup$
            – Guacho Perez
            Dec 17 '18 at 15:29



















          1












          $begingroup$


          Claim: Let $A,B$ be subsets of $Bbb R$ such that $delta:=inf B-sup A>0$. Let $x_nin Acup B$ be a sequence such that $lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n-x_{n+1})=0$, then $exists MinBbb N$ such that either $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$ or $x_nin B$ for all $nge M$.



          Proof: Let $n_0inBbb N$ be such that $|x_n-x_{n+1}|<delta/2$ for all $nge n_0$. Suppose for contradiction that such an $M$ cannot be found, then $exists N>n_0$ such that $x_Nin A$ but $x_{N+1}in B$. This, however, implies that
          $$
          deltale |x_N-x_{N+1}|<delta/2,
          $$

          a contradiction.




          Let's apply the above to your problem:



          Assume that $exists cin (a,b)$ such that $c$ is not a subsequential limit of $x_n$, then there is an $varepsilon>0$ and $NinBbb N$ such that for all $nge N$, $x_nnotin (c-varepsilon,c+varepsilon)$. This splits the set in which the sequence $x_n$ (for $nge N$) lies into two parts, i.e.
          $$
          A=[a,c-varepsilon], B=[c+varepsilon,b].
          $$

          The sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy the conditions above.



          Without loss of generality, let's say $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$. Then we have
          $$
          limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n le sup_{nge M} x_n le c-varepsilon < b,
          $$

          which contradicts $limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n = b$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            Here's my very informal answer.



            The lim sup and lim inf info
            says that the sequence
            gets infinitely often
            arbitrarily close to
            a and b.



            The difference info
            says that
            successive terms
            get eventually arbitrarily close.



            So,
            on the way between a and b,
            the successive terms
            are arbitrarily close
            and so will be,
            somewhere,
            arbitrarily close to c.



            Since this happens
            infinitely often,
            choose these terms close to c
            as the subsequence.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$





















              0












              $begingroup$

              The answer has already been given, but I will try to add my own thoughts on this, hopefully valid. Please let me know whether the reasoning below is wrong and I will either edit it or delete it completely.



              Choose some $c in [a, b]$. If $c = a$ or $c = b$ then we are done since:
              $$
              limsup x_n = b = c \
              text{or}\
              liminf x_n = a = c
              $$



              Suppose $ c notin {a, b}$. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass (and the fact that $x_n$ is bounded and hence $x_{n_k}$ is also) we may choose a convergent subsequence ${x_{n_k}}$ from ${x_n}$. Suppose its limit is $c$:
              $$
              lim x_{n_k} = c
              $$



              Using the definition of a limit:
              $$
              forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N in Bbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1 tag1
              $$



              On the other hand we have the following property:
              $$
              lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0
              $$



              This property also applies to subsequences so for ${x_{n_k}}$:
              $$
              lim_{ktoinfty} (x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = 0
              $$



              Rewriting it by definition we obtain:
              $$
              forall epsilon_2 > 0 exists N inBbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon_2 tag2
              $$



              Based on $(1)$ and $(2)$ we may choose $N$ such that both statements are satisfied. Since both inequalities in $(1)$ and $(2)$ become valid we may sum them up:
              $$
              forall epsilon = max{epsilon_1, epsilon_2} > 0 exists N = max{N_1, N_2}: n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon
              $$



              By trialnge inequality:
              $$
              |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| ge |x_{n_k} - c + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| = |2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1} - c|
              $$



              Going from definition to a limit we get:
              $$
              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = c
              $$



              We've chosen ${x_{n_k}}$ such that $lim x_{n_k} = c$ exists and we know that $lim({x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}}) = 0$ also exists, so:
              $$
              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
              lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
              lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + 0 = \
              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = c
              $$



              Since $c$ is arbitrary in $[a, b]$ and $x_{n_k}$ is a subsequence of $x_n$ this shows that every $cin[a, b]$ appears to be a subsequential limit.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                $endgroup$
                – Guacho Perez
                Dec 17 '18 at 20:58










              • $begingroup$
                @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                $endgroup$
                – roman
                Dec 18 '18 at 7:50











              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043964%2fprove-any-number-c-in-a-b-is-a-subsequential-limit-if-lim-inf-x-n-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              Pick $cin (a,b)$ and enumerate $L={x_n:x_nle c}$ by ${y_n}$ and $U={x_n:x_nge c}$ by ${z_n}$. Notice ${x_n}={y_n}cup{z_n}$ and that both $y_n$ and $z_n$ are infinite because $liminf x_n=a$ and $liminf x_n=b$. If either $limsup y_n =c$ or $liminf z_n=c$ we are done, so suppose neither holds. Then there exists some $N$ s.t. for $m,nge N$, $y_m < c-epsilon<c<c+epsilon<z_n$ for some
              $epsilon>0$. If there were only finitely many $k$ s.t. $x_kle cle x_{k+1}$, we could not have $liminf x_n=a$ and $limsup x_n=b$. Therefore there are infinitely many $k$ s.t. $x_k=y_{n_k}$ and $x_{k+1}=z_{m_k}$. For $k$ large enough, $x_{k+1}-x_kge 2epsilon$, so we can not have $lim( x_n-x_{n+1})=0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
                $endgroup$
                – roman
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:13










              • $begingroup$
                @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
                $endgroup$
                – Guacho Perez
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:29
















              2












              $begingroup$

              Pick $cin (a,b)$ and enumerate $L={x_n:x_nle c}$ by ${y_n}$ and $U={x_n:x_nge c}$ by ${z_n}$. Notice ${x_n}={y_n}cup{z_n}$ and that both $y_n$ and $z_n$ are infinite because $liminf x_n=a$ and $liminf x_n=b$. If either $limsup y_n =c$ or $liminf z_n=c$ we are done, so suppose neither holds. Then there exists some $N$ s.t. for $m,nge N$, $y_m < c-epsilon<c<c+epsilon<z_n$ for some
              $epsilon>0$. If there were only finitely many $k$ s.t. $x_kle cle x_{k+1}$, we could not have $liminf x_n=a$ and $limsup x_n=b$. Therefore there are infinitely many $k$ s.t. $x_k=y_{n_k}$ and $x_{k+1}=z_{m_k}$. For $k$ large enough, $x_{k+1}-x_kge 2epsilon$, so we can not have $lim( x_n-x_{n+1})=0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
                $endgroup$
                – roman
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:13










              • $begingroup$
                @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
                $endgroup$
                – Guacho Perez
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:29














              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              Pick $cin (a,b)$ and enumerate $L={x_n:x_nle c}$ by ${y_n}$ and $U={x_n:x_nge c}$ by ${z_n}$. Notice ${x_n}={y_n}cup{z_n}$ and that both $y_n$ and $z_n$ are infinite because $liminf x_n=a$ and $liminf x_n=b$. If either $limsup y_n =c$ or $liminf z_n=c$ we are done, so suppose neither holds. Then there exists some $N$ s.t. for $m,nge N$, $y_m < c-epsilon<c<c+epsilon<z_n$ for some
              $epsilon>0$. If there were only finitely many $k$ s.t. $x_kle cle x_{k+1}$, we could not have $liminf x_n=a$ and $limsup x_n=b$. Therefore there are infinitely many $k$ s.t. $x_k=y_{n_k}$ and $x_{k+1}=z_{m_k}$. For $k$ large enough, $x_{k+1}-x_kge 2epsilon$, so we can not have $lim( x_n-x_{n+1})=0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Pick $cin (a,b)$ and enumerate $L={x_n:x_nle c}$ by ${y_n}$ and $U={x_n:x_nge c}$ by ${z_n}$. Notice ${x_n}={y_n}cup{z_n}$ and that both $y_n$ and $z_n$ are infinite because $liminf x_n=a$ and $liminf x_n=b$. If either $limsup y_n =c$ or $liminf z_n=c$ we are done, so suppose neither holds. Then there exists some $N$ s.t. for $m,nge N$, $y_m < c-epsilon<c<c+epsilon<z_n$ for some
              $epsilon>0$. If there were only finitely many $k$ s.t. $x_kle cle x_{k+1}$, we could not have $liminf x_n=a$ and $limsup x_n=b$. Therefore there are infinitely many $k$ s.t. $x_k=y_{n_k}$ and $x_{k+1}=z_{m_k}$. For $k$ large enough, $x_{k+1}-x_kge 2epsilon$, so we can not have $lim( x_n-x_{n+1})=0$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Dec 17 '18 at 15:27

























              answered Dec 17 '18 at 14:33









              Guacho PerezGuacho Perez

              3,93411134




              3,93411134












              • $begingroup$
                Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
                $endgroup$
                – roman
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:13










              • $begingroup$
                @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
                $endgroup$
                – Guacho Perez
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:29


















              • $begingroup$
                Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
                $endgroup$
                – roman
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:13










              • $begingroup$
                @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
                $endgroup$
                – Guacho Perez
                Dec 17 '18 at 15:29
















              $begingroup$
              Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
              $endgroup$
              – roman
              Dec 17 '18 at 15:13




              $begingroup$
              Could you please elaborate on the last statement? I can't see where the contradiction comes from
              $endgroup$
              – roman
              Dec 17 '18 at 15:13












              $begingroup$
              @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
              $endgroup$
              – Guacho Perez
              Dec 17 '18 at 15:29




              $begingroup$
              @roman I edited the answer to be more explicit.
              $endgroup$
              – Guacho Perez
              Dec 17 '18 at 15:29











              1












              $begingroup$


              Claim: Let $A,B$ be subsets of $Bbb R$ such that $delta:=inf B-sup A>0$. Let $x_nin Acup B$ be a sequence such that $lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n-x_{n+1})=0$, then $exists MinBbb N$ such that either $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$ or $x_nin B$ for all $nge M$.



              Proof: Let $n_0inBbb N$ be such that $|x_n-x_{n+1}|<delta/2$ for all $nge n_0$. Suppose for contradiction that such an $M$ cannot be found, then $exists N>n_0$ such that $x_Nin A$ but $x_{N+1}in B$. This, however, implies that
              $$
              deltale |x_N-x_{N+1}|<delta/2,
              $$

              a contradiction.




              Let's apply the above to your problem:



              Assume that $exists cin (a,b)$ such that $c$ is not a subsequential limit of $x_n$, then there is an $varepsilon>0$ and $NinBbb N$ such that for all $nge N$, $x_nnotin (c-varepsilon,c+varepsilon)$. This splits the set in which the sequence $x_n$ (for $nge N$) lies into two parts, i.e.
              $$
              A=[a,c-varepsilon], B=[c+varepsilon,b].
              $$

              The sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy the conditions above.



              Without loss of generality, let's say $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$. Then we have
              $$
              limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n le sup_{nge M} x_n le c-varepsilon < b,
              $$

              which contradicts $limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n = b$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$


                Claim: Let $A,B$ be subsets of $Bbb R$ such that $delta:=inf B-sup A>0$. Let $x_nin Acup B$ be a sequence such that $lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n-x_{n+1})=0$, then $exists MinBbb N$ such that either $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$ or $x_nin B$ for all $nge M$.



                Proof: Let $n_0inBbb N$ be such that $|x_n-x_{n+1}|<delta/2$ for all $nge n_0$. Suppose for contradiction that such an $M$ cannot be found, then $exists N>n_0$ such that $x_Nin A$ but $x_{N+1}in B$. This, however, implies that
                $$
                deltale |x_N-x_{N+1}|<delta/2,
                $$

                a contradiction.




                Let's apply the above to your problem:



                Assume that $exists cin (a,b)$ such that $c$ is not a subsequential limit of $x_n$, then there is an $varepsilon>0$ and $NinBbb N$ such that for all $nge N$, $x_nnotin (c-varepsilon,c+varepsilon)$. This splits the set in which the sequence $x_n$ (for $nge N$) lies into two parts, i.e.
                $$
                A=[a,c-varepsilon], B=[c+varepsilon,b].
                $$

                The sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy the conditions above.



                Without loss of generality, let's say $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$. Then we have
                $$
                limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n le sup_{nge M} x_n le c-varepsilon < b,
                $$

                which contradicts $limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n = b$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$


                  Claim: Let $A,B$ be subsets of $Bbb R$ such that $delta:=inf B-sup A>0$. Let $x_nin Acup B$ be a sequence such that $lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n-x_{n+1})=0$, then $exists MinBbb N$ such that either $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$ or $x_nin B$ for all $nge M$.



                  Proof: Let $n_0inBbb N$ be such that $|x_n-x_{n+1}|<delta/2$ for all $nge n_0$. Suppose for contradiction that such an $M$ cannot be found, then $exists N>n_0$ such that $x_Nin A$ but $x_{N+1}in B$. This, however, implies that
                  $$
                  deltale |x_N-x_{N+1}|<delta/2,
                  $$

                  a contradiction.




                  Let's apply the above to your problem:



                  Assume that $exists cin (a,b)$ such that $c$ is not a subsequential limit of $x_n$, then there is an $varepsilon>0$ and $NinBbb N$ such that for all $nge N$, $x_nnotin (c-varepsilon,c+varepsilon)$. This splits the set in which the sequence $x_n$ (for $nge N$) lies into two parts, i.e.
                  $$
                  A=[a,c-varepsilon], B=[c+varepsilon,b].
                  $$

                  The sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy the conditions above.



                  Without loss of generality, let's say $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$. Then we have
                  $$
                  limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n le sup_{nge M} x_n le c-varepsilon < b,
                  $$

                  which contradicts $limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n = b$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$




                  Claim: Let $A,B$ be subsets of $Bbb R$ such that $delta:=inf B-sup A>0$. Let $x_nin Acup B$ be a sequence such that $lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n-x_{n+1})=0$, then $exists MinBbb N$ such that either $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$ or $x_nin B$ for all $nge M$.



                  Proof: Let $n_0inBbb N$ be such that $|x_n-x_{n+1}|<delta/2$ for all $nge n_0$. Suppose for contradiction that such an $M$ cannot be found, then $exists N>n_0$ such that $x_Nin A$ but $x_{N+1}in B$. This, however, implies that
                  $$
                  deltale |x_N-x_{N+1}|<delta/2,
                  $$

                  a contradiction.




                  Let's apply the above to your problem:



                  Assume that $exists cin (a,b)$ such that $c$ is not a subsequential limit of $x_n$, then there is an $varepsilon>0$ and $NinBbb N$ such that for all $nge N$, $x_nnotin (c-varepsilon,c+varepsilon)$. This splits the set in which the sequence $x_n$ (for $nge N$) lies into two parts, i.e.
                  $$
                  A=[a,c-varepsilon], B=[c+varepsilon,b].
                  $$

                  The sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy the conditions above.



                  Without loss of generality, let's say $x_nin A$ for all $nge M$. Then we have
                  $$
                  limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n le sup_{nge M} x_n le c-varepsilon < b,
                  $$

                  which contradicts $limsup_{ntoinfty} x_n = b$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 18 '18 at 7:58

























                  answered Dec 17 '18 at 17:12









                  BigbearZzzBigbearZzz

                  8,93521652




                  8,93521652























                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Here's my very informal answer.



                      The lim sup and lim inf info
                      says that the sequence
                      gets infinitely often
                      arbitrarily close to
                      a and b.



                      The difference info
                      says that
                      successive terms
                      get eventually arbitrarily close.



                      So,
                      on the way between a and b,
                      the successive terms
                      are arbitrarily close
                      and so will be,
                      somewhere,
                      arbitrarily close to c.



                      Since this happens
                      infinitely often,
                      choose these terms close to c
                      as the subsequence.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Here's my very informal answer.



                        The lim sup and lim inf info
                        says that the sequence
                        gets infinitely often
                        arbitrarily close to
                        a and b.



                        The difference info
                        says that
                        successive terms
                        get eventually arbitrarily close.



                        So,
                        on the way between a and b,
                        the successive terms
                        are arbitrarily close
                        and so will be,
                        somewhere,
                        arbitrarily close to c.



                        Since this happens
                        infinitely often,
                        choose these terms close to c
                        as the subsequence.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          Here's my very informal answer.



                          The lim sup and lim inf info
                          says that the sequence
                          gets infinitely often
                          arbitrarily close to
                          a and b.



                          The difference info
                          says that
                          successive terms
                          get eventually arbitrarily close.



                          So,
                          on the way between a and b,
                          the successive terms
                          are arbitrarily close
                          and so will be,
                          somewhere,
                          arbitrarily close to c.



                          Since this happens
                          infinitely often,
                          choose these terms close to c
                          as the subsequence.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Here's my very informal answer.



                          The lim sup and lim inf info
                          says that the sequence
                          gets infinitely often
                          arbitrarily close to
                          a and b.



                          The difference info
                          says that
                          successive terms
                          get eventually arbitrarily close.



                          So,
                          on the way between a and b,
                          the successive terms
                          are arbitrarily close
                          and so will be,
                          somewhere,
                          arbitrarily close to c.



                          Since this happens
                          infinitely often,
                          choose these terms close to c
                          as the subsequence.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 17 '18 at 14:27









                          marty cohenmarty cohen

                          74.4k549129




                          74.4k549129























                              0












                              $begingroup$

                              The answer has already been given, but I will try to add my own thoughts on this, hopefully valid. Please let me know whether the reasoning below is wrong and I will either edit it or delete it completely.



                              Choose some $c in [a, b]$. If $c = a$ or $c = b$ then we are done since:
                              $$
                              limsup x_n = b = c \
                              text{or}\
                              liminf x_n = a = c
                              $$



                              Suppose $ c notin {a, b}$. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass (and the fact that $x_n$ is bounded and hence $x_{n_k}$ is also) we may choose a convergent subsequence ${x_{n_k}}$ from ${x_n}$. Suppose its limit is $c$:
                              $$
                              lim x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Using the definition of a limit:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N in Bbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1 tag1
                              $$



                              On the other hand we have the following property:
                              $$
                              lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0
                              $$



                              This property also applies to subsequences so for ${x_{n_k}}$:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty} (x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = 0
                              $$



                              Rewriting it by definition we obtain:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_2 > 0 exists N inBbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon_2 tag2
                              $$



                              Based on $(1)$ and $(2)$ we may choose $N$ such that both statements are satisfied. Since both inequalities in $(1)$ and $(2)$ become valid we may sum them up:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon = max{epsilon_1, epsilon_2} > 0 exists N = max{N_1, N_2}: n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon
                              $$



                              By trialnge inequality:
                              $$
                              |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| ge |x_{n_k} - c + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| = |2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1} - c|
                              $$



                              Going from definition to a limit we get:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = c
                              $$



                              We've chosen ${x_{n_k}}$ such that $lim x_{n_k} = c$ exists and we know that $lim({x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}}) = 0$ also exists, so:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + 0 = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Since $c$ is arbitrary in $[a, b]$ and $x_{n_k}$ is a subsequence of $x_n$ this shows that every $cin[a, b]$ appears to be a subsequential limit.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$













                              • $begingroup$
                                Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Guacho Perez
                                Dec 17 '18 at 20:58










                              • $begingroup$
                                @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                                $endgroup$
                                – roman
                                Dec 18 '18 at 7:50
















                              0












                              $begingroup$

                              The answer has already been given, but I will try to add my own thoughts on this, hopefully valid. Please let me know whether the reasoning below is wrong and I will either edit it or delete it completely.



                              Choose some $c in [a, b]$. If $c = a$ or $c = b$ then we are done since:
                              $$
                              limsup x_n = b = c \
                              text{or}\
                              liminf x_n = a = c
                              $$



                              Suppose $ c notin {a, b}$. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass (and the fact that $x_n$ is bounded and hence $x_{n_k}$ is also) we may choose a convergent subsequence ${x_{n_k}}$ from ${x_n}$. Suppose its limit is $c$:
                              $$
                              lim x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Using the definition of a limit:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N in Bbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1 tag1
                              $$



                              On the other hand we have the following property:
                              $$
                              lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0
                              $$



                              This property also applies to subsequences so for ${x_{n_k}}$:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty} (x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = 0
                              $$



                              Rewriting it by definition we obtain:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_2 > 0 exists N inBbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon_2 tag2
                              $$



                              Based on $(1)$ and $(2)$ we may choose $N$ such that both statements are satisfied. Since both inequalities in $(1)$ and $(2)$ become valid we may sum them up:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon = max{epsilon_1, epsilon_2} > 0 exists N = max{N_1, N_2}: n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon
                              $$



                              By trialnge inequality:
                              $$
                              |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| ge |x_{n_k} - c + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| = |2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1} - c|
                              $$



                              Going from definition to a limit we get:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = c
                              $$



                              We've chosen ${x_{n_k}}$ such that $lim x_{n_k} = c$ exists and we know that $lim({x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}}) = 0$ also exists, so:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + 0 = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Since $c$ is arbitrary in $[a, b]$ and $x_{n_k}$ is a subsequence of $x_n$ this shows that every $cin[a, b]$ appears to be a subsequential limit.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$













                              • $begingroup$
                                Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Guacho Perez
                                Dec 17 '18 at 20:58










                              • $begingroup$
                                @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                                $endgroup$
                                – roman
                                Dec 18 '18 at 7:50














                              0












                              0








                              0





                              $begingroup$

                              The answer has already been given, but I will try to add my own thoughts on this, hopefully valid. Please let me know whether the reasoning below is wrong and I will either edit it or delete it completely.



                              Choose some $c in [a, b]$. If $c = a$ or $c = b$ then we are done since:
                              $$
                              limsup x_n = b = c \
                              text{or}\
                              liminf x_n = a = c
                              $$



                              Suppose $ c notin {a, b}$. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass (and the fact that $x_n$ is bounded and hence $x_{n_k}$ is also) we may choose a convergent subsequence ${x_{n_k}}$ from ${x_n}$. Suppose its limit is $c$:
                              $$
                              lim x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Using the definition of a limit:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N in Bbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1 tag1
                              $$



                              On the other hand we have the following property:
                              $$
                              lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0
                              $$



                              This property also applies to subsequences so for ${x_{n_k}}$:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty} (x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = 0
                              $$



                              Rewriting it by definition we obtain:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_2 > 0 exists N inBbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon_2 tag2
                              $$



                              Based on $(1)$ and $(2)$ we may choose $N$ such that both statements are satisfied. Since both inequalities in $(1)$ and $(2)$ become valid we may sum them up:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon = max{epsilon_1, epsilon_2} > 0 exists N = max{N_1, N_2}: n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon
                              $$



                              By trialnge inequality:
                              $$
                              |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| ge |x_{n_k} - c + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| = |2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1} - c|
                              $$



                              Going from definition to a limit we get:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = c
                              $$



                              We've chosen ${x_{n_k}}$ such that $lim x_{n_k} = c$ exists and we know that $lim({x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}}) = 0$ also exists, so:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + 0 = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Since $c$ is arbitrary in $[a, b]$ and $x_{n_k}$ is a subsequence of $x_n$ this shows that every $cin[a, b]$ appears to be a subsequential limit.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$



                              The answer has already been given, but I will try to add my own thoughts on this, hopefully valid. Please let me know whether the reasoning below is wrong and I will either edit it or delete it completely.



                              Choose some $c in [a, b]$. If $c = a$ or $c = b$ then we are done since:
                              $$
                              limsup x_n = b = c \
                              text{or}\
                              liminf x_n = a = c
                              $$



                              Suppose $ c notin {a, b}$. Then by Bolzano-Weierstrass (and the fact that $x_n$ is bounded and hence $x_{n_k}$ is also) we may choose a convergent subsequence ${x_{n_k}}$ from ${x_n}$. Suppose its limit is $c$:
                              $$
                              lim x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Using the definition of a limit:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_1 > 0 exists N in Bbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| < epsilon_1 tag1
                              $$



                              On the other hand we have the following property:
                              $$
                              lim_{ntoinfty} (x_n - x_{n+1}) = 0
                              $$



                              This property also applies to subsequences so for ${x_{n_k}}$:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty} (x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = 0
                              $$



                              Rewriting it by definition we obtain:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon_2 > 0 exists N inBbb N: forall n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon_2 tag2
                              $$



                              Based on $(1)$ and $(2)$ we may choose $N$ such that both statements are satisfied. Since both inequalities in $(1)$ and $(2)$ become valid we may sum them up:
                              $$
                              forall epsilon = max{epsilon_1, epsilon_2} > 0 exists N = max{N_1, N_2}: n_k > N implies |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| < epsilon
                              $$



                              By trialnge inequality:
                              $$
                              |x_{n_k} - c| + |x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| ge |x_{n_k} - c + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}| = |2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1} - c|
                              $$



                              Going from definition to a limit we get:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = c
                              $$



                              We've chosen ${x_{n_k}}$ such that $lim x_{n_k} = c$ exists and we know that $lim({x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}}) = 0$ also exists, so:
                              $$
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(2x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} + x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + lim_{ktoinfty}(x_{n_k} - x_{n_k + 1}) = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} + 0 = \
                              = lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = c
                              $$



                              Since $c$ is arbitrary in $[a, b]$ and $x_{n_k}$ is a subsequence of $x_n$ this shows that every $cin[a, b]$ appears to be a subsequential limit.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Dec 17 '18 at 16:52

























                              answered Dec 17 '18 at 16:39









                              romanroman

                              2,36921224




                              2,36921224












                              • $begingroup$
                                Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Guacho Perez
                                Dec 17 '18 at 20:58










                              • $begingroup$
                                @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                                $endgroup$
                                – roman
                                Dec 18 '18 at 7:50


















                              • $begingroup$
                                Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Guacho Perez
                                Dec 17 '18 at 20:58










                              • $begingroup$
                                @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                                $endgroup$
                                – roman
                                Dec 18 '18 at 7:50
















                              $begingroup$
                              Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Guacho Perez
                              Dec 17 '18 at 20:58




                              $begingroup$
                              Remember you are trying to prove the existence of a subsequence that converges to $c$, so when you say "suppose its limit is $c$" after invoking Bolzano-Weierstrass, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Here, you have only that $x_{n_k}$ converges to some $c$ in $[a,b]$, but you are trying to prove this happens for all $c$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Guacho Perez
                              Dec 17 '18 at 20:58












                              $begingroup$
                              @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                              $endgroup$
                              – roman
                              Dec 18 '18 at 7:50




                              $begingroup$
                              @GuachoPerez Well, after going though this answer once again, you are right, thank you for the notices. That problem is driving me mad. I'm going to accept you answer while it seems i'm too dumb to prove it myself
                              $endgroup$
                              – roman
                              Dec 18 '18 at 7:50


















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043964%2fprove-any-number-c-in-a-b-is-a-subsequential-limit-if-lim-inf-x-n-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Plaza Victoria

                              Puebla de Zaragoza

                              Musa