0

The following is an Exercise from Bruckner's Real Analysis:

Define a function p on the sequence space l^∞ by $$p(x) = > \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{x_1+x_2+\dots+x_n}{n},$$ and define a linear functional l on the subspace c by $$l(x) = \lim_{n→∞} x_n$$. (a) Show that p is subadditive and positively homogeneous on $l^∞$.
(b) Apply the Hahn–Banach theorem to obtain a linear functional L on $l^∞$ such that, for $x={\{x_n}\}$,

(i) $L(x)≥0$ if $x_n≥0$ for all n∈N.

(ii) $L({\{x_1 ,x_2 ,x_3,...}\})=L({\{x_2,x_3 ,x_4 ,...}\})$ for all $x ∈ l^∞$.

(iii) $\liminf x_n ≤ L(x) ≤ \limsup x_n$ for all $x ∈ l^∞$.

(iv)$L(x)=\lim_{n→∞} x_n$ for all x∈c. Thus L provides a notion of limit applied to all bounded sequences. The four properties (i) through (iv) are ones that we would expect of a generalized limit. One calls L a Banach limit.

(c) Calculate $L({\{0, 1, 0, 1,...}\})$.

item (a) : $p(ax)=ap(x)$ is obvious, but how $p(x+y) \le p(x)+p(y)$?

item (b) : I have no idea even for start.

item (c) : $L$ is an extension of $l$ so how the limit of ${\{0, 1, 0, 1,...}\}$ can exit at all to calculate?

The answer here is not helpful at all!

  • 1
    For (a): do you know taht $\limsup$ is subadditive? – Gary Jun 06 '21 at 12:15
  • @Gary, Yes but I can't apply it when there is a sum inside limsup and not just limsup (a_n) –  Jun 06 '21 at 12:25
  • 1
    Why not? Take $$ a_n : = \frac{{x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_n }}{n},\quad b_n : = \frac{{y_1 + y_2 + \cdots + y_n }}{n} $$ and use $\limsup (a_n+b_n) \leq \limsup a_n+\limsup b_n$. – Gary Jun 06 '21 at 12:28
  • @Gary, yes, (a) is settled! Thank you :) –  Jun 06 '21 at 12:51
  • 1
    Note : Willing to open dialogue on this question. It was identified as a duplicate which is disputed, but it is also quite broad, with three questions in one. Finally, the amount of effort which I would classify as "enough" has not been provided yet. For example, the commenter explains that (a) is settled. Ideally, updation of the question with further details is appreciated as the poster proceeds with their work. It is not ideal for me to engage with every user on what the issues with their question are, but if a user calls me I do not hesitate to act. I apologize. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:21
  • 1
    That, and the fact that this question passed through a bounty check despite having close votes on it were enough to demerit the question. Despite the undeletion, I still maintain that this question requires improvement. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:23
  • 1
    @TeresaLisbon, thank you for undeleting my question : 1. I am not a callous to say that I have learned from the most complete answer so forget about it : NO! There are many students willing to learn and I don't want them to lose this opportunity. Also Ramiro has spent quite a time on preparing an answer and deleting cause losing all points incl. bounty. (I don't understand what you mean : "this question passed through a bounty check"?) –  Jul 13 '21 at 04:29
  • 2
    @L.G. Having read further onwards , I realize that the answer below is very good to be deleted. Having said that, I still maintain that you should be adding more context than just a source (in fact, I was writing another pointer comment). What context you wish to add I do not know. I know we want to write questions and invite great answers, but I just don't want it to be the case that you write your question , provide a minimal attempt and get an answer. I understand now, following our conversation, that you have been honest and willing to learn. But how was I to know that from your post? – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:34
  • 1
  • Item (b) and (c) are irrelevant to (a) in a way that having an answer for (a) would not make a progress at all for the other two items; but it is relevant in a way that I thought maybe posting 3 different questions which are inside one exercise is not as helpful as having all three in one OP : Because in this way students are more productive, I thought. Please let me know clearly how to improve this question so that it stays open. Thanks a lot :)
  • –  Jul 13 '21 at 04:35
  • 1
    The problem @L.G. is that we just don't know who is being honest and who's being dishonest (and we need to identify this : it is a kind of moral obligation for a site that is so popular among beginner mathematicians). We ask people to provide context, usually because there is a difference between people who just post questions randomly vs people who actually take the time to write out their question, with details of their background, source and similar questions done (if not an attempt) with the willingness to participate in comments. But what happens in all that is... – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:37
  • 1
    ... that somewhere, we also end up losing good , honest students because they just don't see a point in doing things in a certain way. Frankly, I don't know what to do about this, and once again I'm really sorry. And about this question : I want to say that I will not ask you to improve this question, @L.G. because it's borderline and I am convinced (as others should now be) of your honesty. I also request you to not use the power argument anymore : I would like to say that I have the power to undo what I do as well, and I know that I'm capable of saying I made a mistake, and rectifying it. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:39
  • I fully understood your comments, @TeresaLisbon and I truly appreciate your kind words. I also am thankful for help on re-openning this post. I will pay more attention from now on. Thanks again :) –  Jul 13 '21 at 04:43
  • 1
    @L.G. Thank you very much for convincing me that we can move forward through positive action and words. Once again, I would like to apologize for my actions. I have apologized to the answerer as well, and up voted both posts. I will keep this conversation in mind as I meet more posters like you. If you ever find your question closed, do let me know and I will be there to assist you in improving it (including this question). (Clarification : the "bounty check" means that a question which is "not safe from closure" was bountied). – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:45
  • 1
    @TeresaLisbon, thank you very much. And I apologize for getting angry quickly :) –  Jul 13 '21 at 04:47
  • 1
    @L.G. You were not angry at all, but merely defending your question and the answerer. It's completely understandable, and you need not defend it.. People need to know that I make mistakes. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 04:52
  • Thanks for the further edits. Regarding question (c), I left some helpful comments in the answer below , you can take a look. I've basically talked about every kind of sequence whose value under $L$ can be found using just the definition of $L$. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 13 '21 at 05:14
  • @TeresaLisbon , Maybe you can help. Just after your conversation with L.G., he was suspended for 3 days "to cool down". I found it strange because the conversation (at least, what I read) seemed nice.However, short after L.G. suspension, his question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4192232/another-definition-of-a-convex-set/4193121#4193121 was closed (asking to "provide additional context"). Today, before L.G. could come back and "provide additional context" the question was deleted. It does not seem fair to the OP. (it continues) – Ramiro Jul 15 '21 at 01:14
  • @TeresaLisbon , Moreover, the question itself is a valid one, and with its answer, it maybe useful to students / other users. Please, could you take a look? – Ramiro Jul 15 '21 at 01:14
  • @Ramiro I'm surprised, so I will take a look. I'm actually supposed to be out of this site for a few days because my work load has caught up with me, but I'll do what I can. Thanks. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 15 '21 at 01:15
  • @Ramiro I think it's unfortunate that the question was deleted. I'm sure L.G. would have come back to add context. I will add an undelete vote because that's all I can do. I believe you when you say that L.G. will be back and add context ,but the trouble is that I'm not sure if others will believe me, so I can't post this anywhere and ask for help. I'm also, if ever so slightly, unsure that this could be a duplicate, for example see here. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 15 '21 at 01:21
  • In case, for example, the question doesn't get undeleted (it will need one more delete vote) I hope the references I provide can be of any consolation. But @Ramiro the trouble is this : I "estimate" that people post a question, and then even if they go to sleep they are up within say 7-8 hours. So I give myself about 10 hours after closure to a user for improvement. These users gave a whole week, so the argument doesn't weigh well. Either way, I hope the useful post is kept on. Thanks for calling me, and I hope your issue will be resolved. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 15 '21 at 01:23
  • @TeresaLisbon Thanks for your answer. For what I have followed (maybe I missed something) the question was closed asking for "additional context" AFTER L.G. was suspended for 3 days and then it was deleted about 24 hours later, while L.G. is still in suspension. Well, let us see how things evolve. Thanks again for your attention. – Ramiro Jul 15 '21 at 02:03
  • @Ramiro Sure, although I may not be there to witness proceedings, I will definitely be aware of the problem. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Jul 15 '21 at 02:07