Find $lim_xto inftyleft(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)$ [duplicate]

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Sum of $lim_nrightarrow inftyleft(fracnn^2+1+fracnn^2+2+cdots cdots cdots +fracnn^2+nright)$
1 answer
Find $$lim_xto inftyleft(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)$$ , without using squeeze theorem.
I have done the solution as below using squeeze theorem ...
$$Let left[left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)right]=f(x)implies \ left(x over x^2+x+x over x^2+x+cdots +xover x^2+xright)lt f(x)lt left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+1+cdots +xover x^2+1right) \ x^2 over x+x^2lt f(x) lt x^2over 1+x^2\ textapplying limit on both sides \ implieslim_xto inftyx^2 over x+x^2= lim_xto inftyx^2over 1+x^2=1\ implies lim_xto inftyf(x)=1$$
Can we do this without squeeze theorem?
calculus real-analysis limits
marked as duplicate by Community⦠Sep 5 at 13:28
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Sum of $lim_nrightarrow inftyleft(fracnn^2+1+fracnn^2+2+cdots cdots cdots +fracnn^2+nright)$
1 answer
Find $$lim_xto inftyleft(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)$$ , without using squeeze theorem.
I have done the solution as below using squeeze theorem ...
$$Let left[left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)right]=f(x)implies \ left(x over x^2+x+x over x^2+x+cdots +xover x^2+xright)lt f(x)lt left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+1+cdots +xover x^2+1right) \ x^2 over x+x^2lt f(x) lt x^2over 1+x^2\ textapplying limit on both sides \ implieslim_xto inftyx^2 over x+x^2= lim_xto inftyx^2over 1+x^2=1\ implies lim_xto inftyf(x)=1$$
Can we do this without squeeze theorem?
calculus real-analysis limits
marked as duplicate by Community⦠Sep 5 at 13:28
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Sum of $lim_nrightarrow inftyleft(fracnn^2+1+fracnn^2+2+cdots cdots cdots +fracnn^2+nright)$
1 answer
Find $$lim_xto inftyleft(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)$$ , without using squeeze theorem.
I have done the solution as below using squeeze theorem ...
$$Let left[left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)right]=f(x)implies \ left(x over x^2+x+x over x^2+x+cdots +xover x^2+xright)lt f(x)lt left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+1+cdots +xover x^2+1right) \ x^2 over x+x^2lt f(x) lt x^2over 1+x^2\ textapplying limit on both sides \ implieslim_xto inftyx^2 over x+x^2= lim_xto inftyx^2over 1+x^2=1\ implies lim_xto inftyf(x)=1$$
Can we do this without squeeze theorem?
calculus real-analysis limits
This question already has an answer here:
Sum of $lim_nrightarrow inftyleft(fracnn^2+1+fracnn^2+2+cdots cdots cdots +fracnn^2+nright)$
1 answer
Find $$lim_xto inftyleft(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)$$ , without using squeeze theorem.
I have done the solution as below using squeeze theorem ...
$$Let left[left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+2+cdots +xover x^2+xright)right]=f(x)implies \ left(x over x^2+x+x over x^2+x+cdots +xover x^2+xright)lt f(x)lt left(x over x^2+1+x over x^2+1+cdots +xover x^2+1right) \ x^2 over x+x^2lt f(x) lt x^2over 1+x^2\ textapplying limit on both sides \ implieslim_xto inftyx^2 over x+x^2= lim_xto inftyx^2over 1+x^2=1\ implies lim_xto inftyf(x)=1$$
Can we do this without squeeze theorem?
This question already has an answer here:
Sum of $lim_nrightarrow inftyleft(fracnn^2+1+fracnn^2+2+cdots cdots cdots +fracnn^2+nright)$
1 answer
calculus real-analysis limits
calculus real-analysis limits
edited Sep 5 at 5:42
mrs
58.3k750143
58.3k750143
asked Sep 5 at 5:33
Subhajit Halder
1079
1079
marked as duplicate by Community⦠Sep 5 at 13:28
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Community⦠Sep 5 at 13:28
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
We could do it using harmonic numbers
$$S_x=sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=xsum_k=1^x frac 1 x^2+k=x left(H_x^2+x-H_x^2right)$$
Now, using the asymptotics
$$H_p=gamma +log left(pright)+frac12 p-frac112
p^2+Oleft(frac1p^4right)$$ we should get
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
By geometric series we have
$$frac x x^2+k=frac1xfrac 1 1+k/x^2=$$$$=frac1xleft(1-frackx^2+left(-frackx^2right)^2+ldotsright)=frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldots$$
and therefore
$$sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=sum_k=1^x left(frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldotsright)=1-fracsum_k=1^xkx^3+fracsum_k=1^xk^2x^5+ldots $$
$$sim 1-fracx^22x^3+fracx^33x^5+ldotsto 1$$
indeed recall that by Faulhaber's formula
$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hint :
Take, $displaystyle a_x,n=fracx^2x^2+n$. Then use Cauchy's First limit theorem.
As $a_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$, so $displaystyle frac1xsum_n=1^xa_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
With a Riemannian sum:
$$sum_k=1^nfracnn^2+k=nfrac 1n^2sum_k=1^nfrac11+dfrac kn^2$$ can be seen as a Riemaniann sum truncated to the $n$ first terms among $n^2$. Then
$$lim_ntoinftynint_0^1/nfracdx1+x=lim_ntoinftynlogleft(1+frac1nright)=1.$$
No quite rigorous, though (because the sum converges to the integral at the same time that we increase $n$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just using that $frac11+epsilon=1-epsilon+O(epsilon^2)$ and $sum_i=1^n i=fracn(n+1)2$
So $$fracxx^2+c=frac1xfracx^2x^2+c=frac1xfrac11+fraccx^2=frac1xleft(1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)right)$$
$$sum_c=1^xfracxx^2+c=frac1xsum_c=1^x1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)=1-fracx (x+1)2x^3+O(frac1x^2)=1-frac12x+O(frac1x^2)$$
Note that using $frac11+epsilon=1+O(epsilon)$ is in fact enough and simpler here, but you don't get the $frac-12x$, only $O(frac1x)$
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
We could do it using harmonic numbers
$$S_x=sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=xsum_k=1^x frac 1 x^2+k=x left(H_x^2+x-H_x^2right)$$
Now, using the asymptotics
$$H_p=gamma +log left(pright)+frac12 p-frac112
p^2+Oleft(frac1p^4right)$$ we should get
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
We could do it using harmonic numbers
$$S_x=sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=xsum_k=1^x frac 1 x^2+k=x left(H_x^2+x-H_x^2right)$$
Now, using the asymptotics
$$H_p=gamma +log left(pright)+frac12 p-frac112
p^2+Oleft(frac1p^4right)$$ we should get
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
We could do it using harmonic numbers
$$S_x=sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=xsum_k=1^x frac 1 x^2+k=x left(H_x^2+x-H_x^2right)$$
Now, using the asymptotics
$$H_p=gamma +log left(pright)+frac12 p-frac112
p^2+Oleft(frac1p^4right)$$ we should get
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$
We could do it using harmonic numbers
$$S_x=sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=xsum_k=1^x frac 1 x^2+k=x left(H_x^2+x-H_x^2right)$$
Now, using the asymptotics
$$H_p=gamma +log left(pright)+frac12 p-frac112
p^2+Oleft(frac1p^4right)$$ we should get
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$
answered Sep 5 at 5:44
Claude Leibovici
113k1155127
113k1155127
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
1
1
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
â mrs
Sep 5 at 5:46
1
1
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
@mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 5:48
1
1
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
â paulplusx
Sep 5 at 6:33
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
â Claude Leibovici
Sep 5 at 6:35
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
@ClaudeLeibovici Nice derivation! I obtain $S_x=sim 1-frac12x+fracx3x^2+ldots$ but I can't see why. Any idea?
â gimusi
Sep 5 at 7:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
By geometric series we have
$$frac x x^2+k=frac1xfrac 1 1+k/x^2=$$$$=frac1xleft(1-frackx^2+left(-frackx^2right)^2+ldotsright)=frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldots$$
and therefore
$$sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=sum_k=1^x left(frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldotsright)=1-fracsum_k=1^xkx^3+fracsum_k=1^xk^2x^5+ldots $$
$$sim 1-fracx^22x^3+fracx^33x^5+ldotsto 1$$
indeed recall that by Faulhaber's formula
$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
By geometric series we have
$$frac x x^2+k=frac1xfrac 1 1+k/x^2=$$$$=frac1xleft(1-frackx^2+left(-frackx^2right)^2+ldotsright)=frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldots$$
and therefore
$$sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=sum_k=1^x left(frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldotsright)=1-fracsum_k=1^xkx^3+fracsum_k=1^xk^2x^5+ldots $$
$$sim 1-fracx^22x^3+fracx^33x^5+ldotsto 1$$
indeed recall that by Faulhaber's formula
$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
By geometric series we have
$$frac x x^2+k=frac1xfrac 1 1+k/x^2=$$$$=frac1xleft(1-frackx^2+left(-frackx^2right)^2+ldotsright)=frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldots$$
and therefore
$$sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=sum_k=1^x left(frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldotsright)=1-fracsum_k=1^xkx^3+fracsum_k=1^xk^2x^5+ldots $$
$$sim 1-fracx^22x^3+fracx^33x^5+ldotsto 1$$
indeed recall that by Faulhaber's formula
$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$
By geometric series we have
$$frac x x^2+k=frac1xfrac 1 1+k/x^2=$$$$=frac1xleft(1-frackx^2+left(-frackx^2right)^2+ldotsright)=frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldots$$
and therefore
$$sum_k=1^x frac x x^2+k=sum_k=1^x left(frac1x-frackx^3+frack^2x^5+ldotsright)=1-fracsum_k=1^xkx^3+fracsum_k=1^xk^2x^5+ldots $$
$$sim 1-fracx^22x^3+fracx^33x^5+ldotsto 1$$
indeed recall that by Faulhaber's formula
$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$
edited Sep 5 at 7:48
answered Sep 5 at 6:41
gimusi
73.2k73889
73.2k73889
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hint :
Take, $displaystyle a_x,n=fracx^2x^2+n$. Then use Cauchy's First limit theorem.
As $a_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$, so $displaystyle frac1xsum_n=1^xa_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hint :
Take, $displaystyle a_x,n=fracx^2x^2+n$. Then use Cauchy's First limit theorem.
As $a_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$, so $displaystyle frac1xsum_n=1^xa_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Hint :
Take, $displaystyle a_x,n=fracx^2x^2+n$. Then use Cauchy's First limit theorem.
As $a_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$, so $displaystyle frac1xsum_n=1^xa_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$.
Hint :
Take, $displaystyle a_x,n=fracx^2x^2+n$. Then use Cauchy's First limit theorem.
As $a_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$, so $displaystyle frac1xsum_n=1^xa_x,n to 1$ when $xto infty$.
edited Sep 5 at 6:57
answered Sep 5 at 6:40
Topo
275212
275212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
With a Riemannian sum:
$$sum_k=1^nfracnn^2+k=nfrac 1n^2sum_k=1^nfrac11+dfrac kn^2$$ can be seen as a Riemaniann sum truncated to the $n$ first terms among $n^2$. Then
$$lim_ntoinftynint_0^1/nfracdx1+x=lim_ntoinftynlogleft(1+frac1nright)=1.$$
No quite rigorous, though (because the sum converges to the integral at the same time that we increase $n$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
With a Riemannian sum:
$$sum_k=1^nfracnn^2+k=nfrac 1n^2sum_k=1^nfrac11+dfrac kn^2$$ can be seen as a Riemaniann sum truncated to the $n$ first terms among $n^2$. Then
$$lim_ntoinftynint_0^1/nfracdx1+x=lim_ntoinftynlogleft(1+frac1nright)=1.$$
No quite rigorous, though (because the sum converges to the integral at the same time that we increase $n$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
With a Riemannian sum:
$$sum_k=1^nfracnn^2+k=nfrac 1n^2sum_k=1^nfrac11+dfrac kn^2$$ can be seen as a Riemaniann sum truncated to the $n$ first terms among $n^2$. Then
$$lim_ntoinftynint_0^1/nfracdx1+x=lim_ntoinftynlogleft(1+frac1nright)=1.$$
No quite rigorous, though (because the sum converges to the integral at the same time that we increase $n$).
With a Riemannian sum:
$$sum_k=1^nfracnn^2+k=nfrac 1n^2sum_k=1^nfrac11+dfrac kn^2$$ can be seen as a Riemaniann sum truncated to the $n$ first terms among $n^2$. Then
$$lim_ntoinftynint_0^1/nfracdx1+x=lim_ntoinftynlogleft(1+frac1nright)=1.$$
No quite rigorous, though (because the sum converges to the integral at the same time that we increase $n$).
edited Sep 5 at 7:57
answered Sep 5 at 7:52
Yves Daoust
115k666209
115k666209
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just using that $frac11+epsilon=1-epsilon+O(epsilon^2)$ and $sum_i=1^n i=fracn(n+1)2$
So $$fracxx^2+c=frac1xfracx^2x^2+c=frac1xfrac11+fraccx^2=frac1xleft(1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)right)$$
$$sum_c=1^xfracxx^2+c=frac1xsum_c=1^x1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)=1-fracx (x+1)2x^3+O(frac1x^2)=1-frac12x+O(frac1x^2)$$
Note that using $frac11+epsilon=1+O(epsilon)$ is in fact enough and simpler here, but you don't get the $frac-12x$, only $O(frac1x)$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just using that $frac11+epsilon=1-epsilon+O(epsilon^2)$ and $sum_i=1^n i=fracn(n+1)2$
So $$fracxx^2+c=frac1xfracx^2x^2+c=frac1xfrac11+fraccx^2=frac1xleft(1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)right)$$
$$sum_c=1^xfracxx^2+c=frac1xsum_c=1^x1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)=1-fracx (x+1)2x^3+O(frac1x^2)=1-frac12x+O(frac1x^2)$$
Note that using $frac11+epsilon=1+O(epsilon)$ is in fact enough and simpler here, but you don't get the $frac-12x$, only $O(frac1x)$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Just using that $frac11+epsilon=1-epsilon+O(epsilon^2)$ and $sum_i=1^n i=fracn(n+1)2$
So $$fracxx^2+c=frac1xfracx^2x^2+c=frac1xfrac11+fraccx^2=frac1xleft(1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)right)$$
$$sum_c=1^xfracxx^2+c=frac1xsum_c=1^x1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)=1-fracx (x+1)2x^3+O(frac1x^2)=1-frac12x+O(frac1x^2)$$
Note that using $frac11+epsilon=1+O(epsilon)$ is in fact enough and simpler here, but you don't get the $frac-12x$, only $O(frac1x)$
Just using that $frac11+epsilon=1-epsilon+O(epsilon^2)$ and $sum_i=1^n i=fracn(n+1)2$
So $$fracxx^2+c=frac1xfracx^2x^2+c=frac1xfrac11+fraccx^2=frac1xleft(1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)right)$$
$$sum_c=1^xfracxx^2+c=frac1xsum_c=1^x1-fraccx^2+O(fraccx^4)=1-fracx (x+1)2x^3+O(frac1x^2)=1-frac12x+O(frac1x^2)$$
Note that using $frac11+epsilon=1+O(epsilon)$ is in fact enough and simpler here, but you don't get the $frac-12x$, only $O(frac1x)$
answered Sep 5 at 7:24
Xoff
8,51111342
8,51111342
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Squeeze theorem is one of the most fundamental tools in limits. Its proof is very straightforward, and it codifies the idea of estimating using inequalities, which is really the essence of computating all limits. What I'm trying to say, is that avoiding using it is an odd, and somewhat artificial request. Is there any particular reason to avoid using it? Were you looking for, say, a method involving finding the closed form of the sum instead?
â Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40
Is $x$ an integer?
â Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42
@TheoBendit This was part of my old assignment. I was just wondering is there some other way to do this. Just curiosity , nothing else. I'm still in highschool.
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45
see this
â Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46
@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
â Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46