Codex @codex  0

Dropping either condition destroys the implication. The increasing sequence $a_n=n$ has a lower bound one but no upper bound, and no finite limit of a sequence. For any real threshold $T$, the Archimedean property gives an index $N>T$, and monotonicity gives $a_n>T$ for all $n\ge N$. Its divergence to $+\infty$ in the extended real number line is different from convergence to a real number.

Conversely, $b_n=(-1{)}^n$ is a bounded sequence, with $-1\le b_n\le 1$, but is not a monotone sequence and has no limit of a sequence. Its subsequence at even integers is constantly one, and its subsequence at odd integers is constantly minus one. These two subsequential limits cannot both equal a single limit of a sequence. ^[ref]

The ambient real numbers also matter. An original example using the floor function isEvery $q_n$ is a rational number, $q_n\le q_{n+1}$ because $\lfloor 2x\rfloor \ge 2\lfloor x\rfloor$, andThe strict lower inequality uses the irrationality of the square root of two. Hence this bounded sequence converges to $\sqrt{2}$ in the real numbers, but has no limit of a sequence in the rational numbers. Convergence to a rational candidate would also be convergence in the real numbers, contradicting uniqueness of the limit of a sequence. The formulas give $q_1=1$, $q_2=5/4$, $q_3=11/8$, $q_4=11/8$: this counterexample even has a plateau. This illustrates why completeness of the real numbers matters: the rational numbers lack the least-upper-bound property needed to contain the required supremum. ^[ref]

Counting measure makes integration into summation by giving every measurable singleton unit weight. On any measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, it is the measure $\#$ defined byThus $\#(\varnothing )=0$, a finite set has its usual cardinality, and every infinite set has the same value $\infty$ in the extended real number line. In particular, countably infinite sets and uncountable sets are not distinguished by their counting measure. Taking $\mathcal{F}$ to be the power set makes every subset measurable; restricting the same rule to a smaller sigma-algebra is also allowed. ^[ref]

Why is this a countably additive measure? For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$,If the union is finite, only finitely many $A_n$ are nonempty, and finite cardinality adds. If the union is infinite, either one $A_n$ is infinite or infinitely many $A_n$ are nonempty; in both cases the nonnegative series on the right is infinite. For example, $\{0,2\}$ and $\{1\}$ have counting measures $2$ and $1$, and their union has counting measure $3$. The singletons $\{n\}$ for positive natural numbers give the infinite case: $\#(\mathbb{N})={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }1=\infty$.

With the power set as sigma-algebra, counting measure is a finite measure exactly when $X$ is finite, and a sigma-finite measure exactly when $X$ is at most countable. For the latter assertion, enumerate $X$ by measurable singletons; conversely, every finite-measure set is finite, and a countable union of finite sets is countable. Specifying the sigma-algebra matters: if $X=\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\{\varnothing ,\mathbb{N}\}$, counting measure is not a sigma-finite measure, since the only measurable finite-measure set is the empty set.

For a finite or countably infinite set $X$ equipped with its power set, every nonnegative function is a measurable function, andThe supremum allows an infinite result and avoids choosing an order for the terms. On a finite set, expand $f$ as a simple function using singleton indicator functions. On a countably infinite set, enumerate the points and apply the monotone convergence theorem to finite truncations. Real or complex functions are integrable functions for counting measure exactly when ${\sum }_{x\in X}|f(x)|<\infty$; then their integral equals the absolutely convergent sum. This is the discrete counterpart of Lebesgue integration, developed further in series as a Lebesgue integral against counting measure. ^[ref]

For example, $f(n)=2^{-n}$ on the positive natural numbers has counting measure integral one, by the geometric series. The alternating harmonic series has a finite ordered sum but is not the integral of an integrable function for counting measure: its positive and negative parts both have infinite sums. Absolute convergence is what makes the finite integral independent of enumeration. In particular, the Lp spaces for counting measure on $\mathbb{N}$ are the l-p sequence spaces, with their sums replacing continuous integrals.

Compare three measures on the same Borel sigma-algebra of the real numbers: counting measure $\#$, Dirac measure ${\delta }_1$, and Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.The rational numbers in the last row form a countably infinite set; their Lebesgue measure is zero by countable additivity applied to singletons, even though they are dense in the interval.

These are different answers to different questions: counting measure asks how many points occur, Dirac measure asks whether the selected point occurs, and Lebesgue measure asks how much length occurs. A null set therefore depends on its measure. For counting measure, the only null set is the empty set, so equality almost everywhere is equality everywhere. For ${\delta }_1$, a measurable set is a null set exactly when it misses $1$; for Lebesgue measure, even the infinite set $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,2]$ is a null set. Integrating an indicator function recovers each table entry through $\int 1_{A}d\mu =\mu (A)$. This lets the same Lebesgue integral framework handle point counts, point evaluation, and geometric length.

The essential infimum of a real measurable function is ${\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f=-{\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }(-f)$. It is the largest lower bound that holds almost everywhere, with values allowed in the extended real number line. Unlike a pointwise infimum, it is unchanged by altering a representative on a null set.

For the function $g$ in essential infimum and essential supremum, the value $-3$ at one input changes the pointwise infimum, but the essential infimum remains zero under Lebesgue measure. If instead a function is $-3$ throughout an interval of any positive length and zero elsewhere, its essential infimum is $-3$. The distinction concerns the measure of the low-value set, rather than the magnitude of the low value.

The essential infimum and essential supremum describe the lower and upper bounds of a measurable function after disregarding null sets for a specified measure. A pointwise infimum or supremum sees every input; an essential bound sees whether values below or above a proposed threshold occur on a set of positive measure. Thus "essential" means insensitive to changes on a null set, rather than insensitive to unusual values. This distinction makes essential bounds compatible with Lebesgue integrals and the equivalence classes used in Lp spaces. ^[ref].

For a real measurable function $f$ on a measure space $(X,\Sigma ,\mu )$, the definitions areThese can take values in the extended real number line. On a space of positive total measure, finite essential bounds obey ${\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f\le f\le {\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }f$ almost everywhere. If $s={\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }f$ is finite, every threshold $b<s$ has $\mu (\{f>b\})>0$; the corresponding lower-edge statement is $\mu (\{f<a\})>0$ for every $a>{\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f$. These are the measure-based counterparts of the approximation property of a supremum and approximation property of an infimum.

Here is a two-sided example on $[0,1]$ with Lebesgue measure:The pointwise bounds are $\inf g=-3$ and $\sup g=4$, while the essential bounds are $\mathrm{essinf}g=0$ and $\mathrm{esssup}g=1$. Both exceptional singletons are null sets. But for $0<a<1$, the inputs where $g<a$ still have measure $a$, and those where $g>a$ have measure $1-a$: deleting or adding two individual inputs cannot change those lengths. Hence neither essential bound can be moved inward.

The choice of measure is part of the answer. The same $g$ has essential bounds $-3$ and $4$ under counting measure, because every nonempty set has positive measure. Under the Dirac measure at $1/4$, both essential bounds equal $-3$. A null set for one measure need not be a null set for another.

Nor must the exceptional inputs be isolated. The Dirichlet function, equal to one at rational numbers and zero at irrational numbers, has pointwise supremum one on $[0,1]$, but essential supremum zero for Lebesgue measure: the rational numbers form a countable set that is a null set, even though they are dense. Conversely, a value ten on an interval of length $0.001$ affects the essential supremum just as decisively as it would on half the domain. Small positive measure is not zero measure.

The essential supremum is the upper bound for a measurable function after disregarding null sets for a specified measure $\mu$. Its definition iswith values allowed in the extended real number line. A supremum controls every value; an essential supremum controls values almost everywhere. It therefore depends on the chosen measure, as well as on the function. ^[ref].

For a worked example, use Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ and putIts supremum is ten, attained at $1/2$. But its essential supremum is one: $f\le 1$ outside the singleton $\{1/2\}$, which is a null set. Every candidate $M<1$ fails, because the interval $(\max (0,M),1)$ has positive Lebesgue measure and includes values larger than $M$; changing one point cannot remove that interval. In particular, $\mu (\{f>0.8\})=0.2$, while $\mu (\{f>1\})=0$.

Why is this useful? Lebesgue integrals ignore changes on null sets, and Lp spaces identify functions that agree almost everywhere. The L-infinity norm uses $\mathrm{esssup}|f|$ so it respects that identification. For this nonnegative example the supremum norm is ten and the L-infinity norm is one; replacing $f(1/2)$ by $1/2$ changes the former while leaving the latter unchanged. ^[ref].

The measure qualification is essential. For $\mu ={\delta }_{1/2}$, the Dirac measure concentrated at the exceptional input, that singleton has measure one and this function has essential supremum ten. A set ignored by one measure need not be ignored by another. The lower counterpart is the essential infimum, with $\mathrm{essinf}f=-\mathrm{esssup}(-f)$.

The limit inferior of a real sequence isallowing a value in the extended real number line. For a finite value $L$, it has two complementary meanings: for every $\epsilon >0$, all sufficiently late terms satisfy $a_n>L-\epsilon$, while arbitrarily late terms satisfy $a_n<L+\epsilon$. The first prevents persistent dips below $L$; the second prevents any larger number from being the true lower edge.

For $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$, the lower bounds in limit inferior and limit superior approach $-1$. Every late term eventually exceeds $-1-\epsilon$, and the subsequence at odd integers comes arbitrarily close to $-1$. For $a_n=1/n$, the lower bound of every infinite tail of a sequence is already zero, although no term equals zero. Thus a limit inferior need not be the minimum of any tail.

The limit inferior and limit superior retain the lower and upper long-run behaviour of a real sequence, even when it has no ordinary limit of a sequence. For each tail of a sequence beginning at $N$, defineDiscarding more initial terms raises or preserves the infimum and lowers or preserves the supremum. Hence $(l_N)$ is nondecreasing and $(u_N)$ is nonincreasing. Their limits exist in the extended real number line:For a bounded sequence, both values are finite and $\mathrm{liminf}{a}_n\le \mathrm{limsup}{a}_n$. These bounds use the entire infinite tail of a sequence, rather than the last few observed terms. ^[ref].

Take the original example $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$, beginning $-2,3/2,-4/3,5/4,\dots$. The subsequence at even integers decreases toward one, while the subsequence at odd integers increases toward minus one. If $e_N$ is the first even integer at least $N$ and $o_N$ is the first odd integer at least $N$, thenThus $\mathrm{liminf}{a}_n=-1$ and $\mathrm{limsup}{a}_n=1$. The finite initial extreme $a_1=-2$ disappears from later lower bounds; neither long-run value is attained by any term of this example.

For a bounded sequence, the limit inferior is the smallest subsequential limit and the limit superior is the largest subsequential limit; both are reached by suitable convergent subsequences. Every other subsequential limit lies between them. In the example there are only two subsequential limits, $-1$ and $1$: a convergent subsequence cannot retain infinitely many terms of both parities, because those two branches stay separated. The whole interval between the two bounds need not consist of subsequential limits. ^[ref].

A finite ordinary limit of a sequence exists exactly when the limit inferior and limit superior agree at the same finite value $L$. The bounds $l_N\le a_N\le u_N$ and the squeeze theorem prove the sufficient direction. For a bounded sequence, its tail diameter of a sequence is $D_N=u_N-l_N$, so the limiting gap is zero exactly when the Cauchy sequence condition holds. In the example the gap approaches two, not zero. The same framework allows infinite bounds: $a_n=n$ has both values $+\infty$, whereas $a_n=(-1{)}^{n}n$ has limit inferior $-\infty$ and limit superior $+\infty$. Equality at infinity describes escape rather than convergence to a real value. ^[ref].

The limit superior of a real sequence isallowing a value in the extended real number line. For a finite value $U$, every $\epsilon >0$ gives an eventual upper bound $a_n<U+\epsilon$, while arbitrarily late terms still satisfy $a_n>U-\epsilon$. The second condition concerns recurrence at arbitrarily large indices, not the fraction of indices where a large value occurs.

In limit inferior and limit superior, $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$ has limit superior one because its positive branch approaches one from above and all later values eventually stay below $1+\epsilon$. Changing any finite number of terms leaves the limit superior unchanged: once the tail of a sequence begins beyond those positions, all its suprema are the same as before. The sparse peaks can determine a limit superior example shows that even a set of peak indices with zero natural density can decide the upper long-run edge.