Talk:Equivalence of Definitions of Limit Inferior of Sequence of Sets

Of the latest addition to this page by User:Saung Tadashi I see the addition of the requirement that the sets in the sequence are distinct, but that makes me ask the question: does this also need to be specified in the definitions themselves? Merely inserting this condition into the proof seems inadequate.

Can it also be demonstrated why the sets need to be distinct? --prime mover (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It was simply an increasing sequence of indices, not a sequence of distinct sets. I've edited accordingly. — Lord_Farin (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)