Set-theoretic limit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, the limit of a sequence of sets (subsets of a common set ) is a set whose elements are determined by the sequence in either of two equivalent ways: (1) by upper and lower bounds on the sequence that converge monotonically to the same set (analogous to convergence of real-valued sequences) and (2) by convergence of a sequence of indicator functions which are themselves real-valued. As is the case with sequences of other objects, convergence is not necessary or even usual.

More generally, again analogous to real-valued sequences, the less restrictive limit infimum and limit supremum of a set sequence always exist and can be used to determine convergence: the limit exists if the limit infimum and limit supremum are identical. (See below). Such set limits are essential in measure theory and probability.

It is a common misconception that the limits infimum and supremum described here involve sets of accumulation points, that is, sets of where each is in some This is only true if convergence is determined by the discrete metric (that is, if there is such that for all ). This article is restricted to that situation as it is the only one relevant for measure theory and probability. See the examples below. (On the other hand, there are more general topological notions of set convergence that do involve accumulation points under different metrics or topologies.)

Definitions[]

The two definitions[]

Suppose that is a sequence of sets. The two equivalent definitions are as follows.

  • Using union and intersection: define[1]
    and
    If these two sets are equal, then the set-theoretic limit of the sequence exists and is equal to that common set. Either set as described above can be used to get the limit, and there may be other means to get the limit as well.
  • Using indicator functions: let equal if and otherwise. Define[1]
    and
    where the expressions inside the brackets on the right are, respectively, the limit infimum and limit supremum of the real-valued sequence Again, if these two sets are equal, then the set-theoretic limit of the sequence exists and is equal to that common set, and either set as described above can be used to get the limit.

To see the equivalence of the definitions, consider the limit infimum. The use of De Morgan's law below explains why this suffices for the limit supremum. Since indicator functions take only values and if and only if takes value only finitely many times. Equivalently, if and only if there exists such that the element is in for every which is to say if and only if for only finitely many Therefore, is in the if and only if is in all but finitely many For this reason, a shorthand phrase for the limit infimum is " is in all but finitely often", typically expressed by writing " a.b.f.o.".

Similarly, an element is in the limit supremum if, no matter how large is, there exists such that the element is in That is, is in the limit supremum if and only if is in infinitely many For this reason, a shorthand phrase for the limit supremum is " is in infinitely often", typically expressed by writing " i.o.".

To put it another way, the limit infimum consists of elements that "eventually stay forever" (are in each set after some ), while the limit supremum consists of elements that "never leave forever" (are in some set after each ). Or more formally:

    for every       there is a with for all and
for every there is a with for all .

Monotone sequences[]

The sequence is said to be nonincreasing if for each and nondecreasing if for each In each of these cases the set limit exists. Consider, for example, a nonincreasing sequence Then

From these it follows that
Similarly, if is nondecreasing then

The Cantor set is defined this way.

Properties[]

  • If the limit of as goes to infinity, exists for all then
    Otherwise, the limit for does not exist.
  • It can be shown that the limit infimum is contained in the limit supremum:
    for example, simply by observing that all but finitely often implies infinitely often.
  • Using the monotonicity of and of
  • By using De Morgan's law twice, with set complement
    That is, all but finitely often is the same as finitely often.
  • From the second definition above and the definitions for limit infimum and limit supremum of a real-valued sequence,
    and
  • Suppose is a