Suppose that is a bounded function, and and its upper and lower bounds. Let us take any real number , and consider now the relations of inequality which may hold between and the values assumed by for large values of . There are three mutually exclusive possibilities:
(1) for all sufficiently large values of ;
(2) for all sufficiently large values of ;
(3) for an infinity of values of , and also for an infinity of values of .
In case (1) we shall say that is a superior number, in case (2) that it is an inferior number, and in case (3) that it is an intermediate number. It is plain that no superior number can be less than , and no inferior number greater than .
Let us consider the aggregate of all superior numbers. It is bounded below, since none of its members are less than , and has therefore a lower bound, which we shall denote by . Similarly the aggregate of inferior numbers has an upper bound, which we denote by .
We call and respectively the upper and lower limits of indetermination of as tends to infinity; and write These numbers have the following properties:
(1) ;
(2) and are the upper and lower bounds of the aggregate of intermediate numbers, if any such exist;
(3) if is any positive number, then for all sufficiently large values of , and for an infinity of values of ;
(4) similarly for all sufficiently large values of , and for an infinity of values of ;
(5) the necessary and sufficient condition that should tend to a limit is that , and in this case the limit is , the common value of and .
Of these properties, (1) is an immediate consequence of the definitions; and we can prove (2) as follows. If , there can be at most one intermediate number, viz. , and there is nothing to prove. Suppose then that . Any intermediate number is less than any superior and greater than any inferior number, so that . But if then must be intermediate, since it is plainly neither superior nor inferior. Hence there are intermediate numbers as near as we please to either or .
To prove (3) we observe that is superior and intermediate or inferior. The result is then an immediate consequence of the definitions; and the proof of (4) is substantially the same.
Finally (5) may be proved as follows. If , then for every positive value of and all sufficiently large values of , so that . Conversely, if , then the inequalities above written hold for all sufficiently large values of . Hence is inferior and superior, so that and therefore . As , this can only be true if .
Example XXXII
1. Neither nor is affected by any alteration in any finite number of values of .
2. If for all values of , then .
3. If , then and .
4. If , then and .
5. If , then , , .
6. If , then , , , .
7. Let , where . If is an integer then . If is rational but not integral a variety of cases arise. Suppose, , that , and being positive, odd, and prime to one another, and . Then assumes the cyclical sequence of values It is easily verified that the numerically greatest and least values of are and , so that The reader may discuss similarly the cases which arise when and are not both odd.
The case in which is irrational is more difficult: it may be shown that in this case and . It may also be shown that the values of are scattered all over the interval in such a way that, if is any number of the interval, then there is a sequence , , … such that as .
The results are very similar when is the fractional part of .