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

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1













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?










share|cite|improve this 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?
    – Theo Bendit
    Sep 5 at 5:40










  • Is $x$ an integer?
    – 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.
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:45










  • see this
    – Chinnapparaj R
    Sep 5 at 5:46










  • @JackyChong no ,but a real number .
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:46














up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1













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?










share|cite|improve this 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?
    – Theo Bendit
    Sep 5 at 5:40










  • Is $x$ an integer?
    – 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.
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:45










  • see this
    – Chinnapparaj R
    Sep 5 at 5:46










  • @JackyChong no ,but a real number .
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:46












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1






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?










share|cite|improve this question
















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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?
    – Theo Bendit
    Sep 5 at 5:40










  • Is $x$ an integer?
    – 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.
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:45










  • see this
    – Chinnapparaj R
    Sep 5 at 5:46










  • @JackyChong no ,but a real number .
    – 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?
    – Theo Bendit
    Sep 5 at 5:40










  • Is $x$ an integer?
    – 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.
    – Subhajit Halder
    Sep 5 at 5:45










  • see this
    – Chinnapparaj R
    Sep 5 at 5:46










  • @JackyChong no ,but a real number .
    – 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?
– 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?
– Theo Bendit
Sep 5 at 5:40












Is $x$ an integer?
– Jacky Chong
Sep 5 at 5:42




Is $x$ an integer?
– 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.
– 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.
– Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:45












see this
– Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46




see this
– Chinnapparaj R
Sep 5 at 5:46












@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
– Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46




@JackyChong no ,but a real number .
– Subhajit Halder
Sep 5 at 5:46










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
$$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
    – mrs
    Sep 5 at 5:46






  • 1




    @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
    – Claude Leibovici
    Sep 5 at 5:48






  • 1




    @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
    – paulplusx
    Sep 5 at 6:33










  • @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
    – 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?
    – gimusi
    Sep 5 at 7:21

















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



$$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$






share|cite|improve this answer





























    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 $xto infty$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      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 $n$).






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        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 $O(frac1x)$






        share|cite|improve this answer



























          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
          $$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
          x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer
















          • 1




            Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
            – mrs
            Sep 5 at 5:46






          • 1




            @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
            – Claude Leibovici
            Sep 5 at 5:48






          • 1




            @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
            – paulplusx
            Sep 5 at 6:33










          • @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
            – 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?
            – gimusi
            Sep 5 at 7:21














          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
          $$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
          x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer
















          • 1




            Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
            – mrs
            Sep 5 at 5:46






          • 1




            @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
            – Claude Leibovici
            Sep 5 at 5:48






          • 1




            @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
            – paulplusx
            Sep 5 at 6:33










          • @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
            – 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?
            – gimusi
            Sep 5 at 7:21












          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
          $$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
          x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          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
          $$S_x=1-frac12 x-frac16 x^2+frac14
          x^3+Oleft(frac1x^4right)$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Sep 5 at 5:44









          Claude Leibovici

          113k1155127




          113k1155127







          • 1




            Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
            – mrs
            Sep 5 at 5:46






          • 1




            @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
            – Claude Leibovici
            Sep 5 at 5:48






          • 1




            @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
            – paulplusx
            Sep 5 at 6:33










          • @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
            – 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?
            – gimusi
            Sep 5 at 7:21












          • 1




            Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
            – mrs
            Sep 5 at 5:46






          • 1




            @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
            – Claude Leibovici
            Sep 5 at 5:48






          • 1




            @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
            – paulplusx
            Sep 5 at 6:33










          • @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
            – 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?
            – gimusi
            Sep 5 at 7:21







          1




          1




          Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
          – mrs
          Sep 5 at 5:46




          Getting older has its own benefits! great Claude+
          – 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.
          – Claude Leibovici
          Sep 5 at 5:48




          @mrs. Just out of curiosity, are you kidding the old man ? (joke for sure !). Cheers and thanks.
          – Claude Leibovici
          Sep 5 at 5:48




          1




          1




          @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
          – paulplusx
          Sep 5 at 6:33




          @Claude You have already answered a similar question here, why answer it again ?
          – paulplusx
          Sep 5 at 6:33












          @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
          – Claude Leibovici
          Sep 5 at 6:35




          @paulplusx. I did not remember that ! Problem of age, I guess !!
          – 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?
          – 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?
          – gimusi
          Sep 5 at 7:21










          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



          $$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            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



            $$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              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



              $$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$






              share|cite|improve this answer














              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



              $$sum_k=1^xk^p sim fracx^p+1p+1$$







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Sep 5 at 7:48

























              answered Sep 5 at 6:41









              gimusi

              73.2k73889




              73.2k73889




















                  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 $xto infty$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                    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 $xto infty$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                      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 $xto infty$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      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 $xto infty$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Sep 5 at 6:57

























                      answered Sep 5 at 6:40









                      Topo

                      275212




                      275212




















                          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 $n$).






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            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 $n$).






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              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 $n$).






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              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 $n$).







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Sep 5 at 7:57

























                              answered Sep 5 at 7:52









                              Yves Daoust

                              115k666209




                              115k666209




















                                  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 $O(frac1x)$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    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 $O(frac1x)$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                                      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 $O(frac1x)$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      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 $O(frac1x)$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Sep 5 at 7:24









                                      Xoff

                                      8,51111342




                                      8,51111342












                                          這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                                          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                          1st Magritte Awards