Geometric mean of a positive convergent sequence

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











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Let $(x_n)$ be a positive sequence such that $x_n to x $. It is required to show that $(x_1x_2...x_n)^frac1nto x$. All the proofs I know of this require the AM-GM inequality. Is there any way to show this using the basic properties of convergent sequences?(no logs allowed)







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
    – Theo Bendit
    Aug 22 at 3:52










  • Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 22 at 4:06










  • Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:20










  • It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
    – Steven Irrgang
    Aug 22 at 4:41










  • @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:51














up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Let $(x_n)$ be a positive sequence such that $x_n to x $. It is required to show that $(x_1x_2...x_n)^frac1nto x$. All the proofs I know of this require the AM-GM inequality. Is there any way to show this using the basic properties of convergent sequences?(no logs allowed)







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
    – Theo Bendit
    Aug 22 at 3:52










  • Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 22 at 4:06










  • Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:20










  • It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
    – Steven Irrgang
    Aug 22 at 4:41










  • @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:51












up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





Let $(x_n)$ be a positive sequence such that $x_n to x $. It is required to show that $(x_1x_2...x_n)^frac1nto x$. All the proofs I know of this require the AM-GM inequality. Is there any way to show this using the basic properties of convergent sequences?(no logs allowed)







share|cite|improve this question














Let $(x_n)$ be a positive sequence such that $x_n to x $. It is required to show that $(x_1x_2...x_n)^frac1nto x$. All the proofs I know of this require the AM-GM inequality. Is there any way to show this using the basic properties of convergent sequences?(no logs allowed)









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 22 at 3:58

























asked Aug 22 at 3:49









John Mitchell

317210




317210







  • 3




    It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
    – Theo Bendit
    Aug 22 at 3:52










  • Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 22 at 4:06










  • Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:20










  • It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
    – Steven Irrgang
    Aug 22 at 4:41










  • @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:51












  • 3




    It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
    – Theo Bendit
    Aug 22 at 3:52










  • Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 22 at 4:06










  • Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:20










  • It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
    – Steven Irrgang
    Aug 22 at 4:41










  • @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
    – John Mitchell
    Aug 22 at 4:51







3




3




It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
– Theo Bendit
Aug 22 at 3:52




It can be proven (in a normed linear space, even) that if $x_n to x$, then the sequence $fracx_1 + ldots + x_nn to x$ (not using AM-GM inequality). If you let $y_n = ln x_n$, then you could use this result.
– Theo Bendit
Aug 22 at 3:52












Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 22 at 4:06




Can you show that if the sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the limit of the subsequence must be $x$? You should not require AM-GM for this. Since the sequence of geometric means is bounded, so is every subsequence, hence every subsequence has a convergent subsequence to the same point $x$, and you can conclude the answer from here.
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 22 at 4:06












Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
– John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:20




Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I don’t know how to show it converges to x.
– John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:20












It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
– Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41




It follows fairly directly from the AM-GM inequality. It feels to me like any proof which didn't use the AM-GM inequality would just end up containing something very close to a proof of the AM-GM inequality instead.
– Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41












@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
– John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51




@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг can you elaborate?
– John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".



Steps:



  1. Pick an $epsilon > 0$ and then there is an $N$ such that $|x_n - x| < epsilon$ for any $n geq N$. So, $x-epsilon leq x_n leq x + epsilon$. (Warning $x - epsilon$ might be negative... how do you deal with that?)


  2. For $m geq N$, cut the product $x_1 cdots x_m$ into tow halfs. The second half ($x_i$, where $i geq N$) you deal with using $1$. Now, using Step 1, try to find a $N_1$ such that if $n geq N_1$ then both parts in steps $1$ and $2$.


This is a VERY standard trick in analysis, which you should get used to. This is the same proof, basically, that you would use to show that $fracx_1 + cdots + x_nn to x$.



Note: It is often easier conceptually (and practically) to try to normalize the thing you are dealing with. However, in this case it adds more steps needlessly, but it is easier to understand. E.g. if $x > 0$, then you can replace the original sequence $x_n$, with $y_n = x_n/x$ so that $y_n to 1$ and you now want to show that $sqrt[n]y_1cdots y_n to 1$, because multiplying both sides by $x$ gives the original result. For $x = 0$ (because the limit of positive numbers might be zero), this boils down to a proof no easier than the original proof: eventually $x_n$ is small.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Another approach to avoid AM-GM:
    $$beginalign
    lim_ntoinftyln (x_1x_2cdot x_n)^1/n
    &=lim_ntoinftyfracln x_1+ln x_2+cdots+ln x_nn \
    &=lim_ntoinftyfrac(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n+1)-(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n)(n+1)-n qquad(1)\
    &=lim_ntoinftyln x_n+1\
    &=ln x
    endalign
    $$



    Thus we can conclude
    $$colorredlim_ntoinfty(x_1x_2cdots x_n)^1/n=x$$



    $(1)$: Stoltz-Casearo theorem is used.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2890603%2fgeometric-mean-of-a-positive-convergent-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".



      Steps:



      1. Pick an $epsilon > 0$ and then there is an $N$ such that $|x_n - x| < epsilon$ for any $n geq N$. So, $x-epsilon leq x_n leq x + epsilon$. (Warning $x - epsilon$ might be negative... how do you deal with that?)


      2. For $m geq N$, cut the product $x_1 cdots x_m$ into tow halfs. The second half ($x_i$, where $i geq N$) you deal with using $1$. Now, using Step 1, try to find a $N_1$ such that if $n geq N_1$ then both parts in steps $1$ and $2$.


      This is a VERY standard trick in analysis, which you should get used to. This is the same proof, basically, that you would use to show that $fracx_1 + cdots + x_nn to x$.



      Note: It is often easier conceptually (and practically) to try to normalize the thing you are dealing with. However, in this case it adds more steps needlessly, but it is easier to understand. E.g. if $x > 0$, then you can replace the original sequence $x_n$, with $y_n = x_n/x$ so that $y_n to 1$ and you now want to show that $sqrt[n]y_1cdots y_n to 1$, because multiplying both sides by $x$ gives the original result. For $x = 0$ (because the limit of positive numbers might be zero), this boils down to a proof no easier than the original proof: eventually $x_n$ is small.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".



        Steps:



        1. Pick an $epsilon > 0$ and then there is an $N$ such that $|x_n - x| < epsilon$ for any $n geq N$. So, $x-epsilon leq x_n leq x + epsilon$. (Warning $x - epsilon$ might be negative... how do you deal with that?)


        2. For $m geq N$, cut the product $x_1 cdots x_m$ into tow halfs. The second half ($x_i$, where $i geq N$) you deal with using $1$. Now, using Step 1, try to find a $N_1$ such that if $n geq N_1$ then both parts in steps $1$ and $2$.


        This is a VERY standard trick in analysis, which you should get used to. This is the same proof, basically, that you would use to show that $fracx_1 + cdots + x_nn to x$.



        Note: It is often easier conceptually (and practically) to try to normalize the thing you are dealing with. However, in this case it adds more steps needlessly, but it is easier to understand. E.g. if $x > 0$, then you can replace the original sequence $x_n$, with $y_n = x_n/x$ so that $y_n to 1$ and you now want to show that $sqrt[n]y_1cdots y_n to 1$, because multiplying both sides by $x$ gives the original result. For $x = 0$ (because the limit of positive numbers might be zero), this boils down to a proof no easier than the original proof: eventually $x_n$ is small.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".



          Steps:



          1. Pick an $epsilon > 0$ and then there is an $N$ such that $|x_n - x| < epsilon$ for any $n geq N$. So, $x-epsilon leq x_n leq x + epsilon$. (Warning $x - epsilon$ might be negative... how do you deal with that?)


          2. For $m geq N$, cut the product $x_1 cdots x_m$ into tow halfs. The second half ($x_i$, where $i geq N$) you deal with using $1$. Now, using Step 1, try to find a $N_1$ such that if $n geq N_1$ then both parts in steps $1$ and $2$.


          This is a VERY standard trick in analysis, which you should get used to. This is the same proof, basically, that you would use to show that $fracx_1 + cdots + x_nn to x$.



          Note: It is often easier conceptually (and practically) to try to normalize the thing you are dealing with. However, in this case it adds more steps needlessly, but it is easier to understand. E.g. if $x > 0$, then you can replace the original sequence $x_n$, with $y_n = x_n/x$ so that $y_n to 1$ and you now want to show that $sqrt[n]y_1cdots y_n to 1$, because multiplying both sides by $x$ gives the original result. For $x = 0$ (because the limit of positive numbers might be zero), this boils down to a proof no easier than the original proof: eventually $x_n$ is small.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".



          Steps:



          1. Pick an $epsilon > 0$ and then there is an $N$ such that $|x_n - x| < epsilon$ for any $n geq N$. So, $x-epsilon leq x_n leq x + epsilon$. (Warning $x - epsilon$ might be negative... how do you deal with that?)


          2. For $m geq N$, cut the product $x_1 cdots x_m$ into tow halfs. The second half ($x_i$, where $i geq N$) you deal with using $1$. Now, using Step 1, try to find a $N_1$ such that if $n geq N_1$ then both parts in steps $1$ and $2$.


          This is a VERY standard trick in analysis, which you should get used to. This is the same proof, basically, that you would use to show that $fracx_1 + cdots + x_nn to x$.



          Note: It is often easier conceptually (and practically) to try to normalize the thing you are dealing with. However, in this case it adds more steps needlessly, but it is easier to understand. E.g. if $x > 0$, then you can replace the original sequence $x_n$, with $y_n = x_n/x$ so that $y_n to 1$ and you now want to show that $sqrt[n]y_1cdots y_n to 1$, because multiplying both sides by $x$ gives the original result. For $x = 0$ (because the limit of positive numbers might be zero), this boils down to a proof no easier than the original proof: eventually $x_n$ is small.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 22 at 5:34

























          answered Aug 22 at 5:25









          4-ier

          5989




          5989




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Another approach to avoid AM-GM:
              $$beginalign
              lim_ntoinftyln (x_1x_2cdot x_n)^1/n
              &=lim_ntoinftyfracln x_1+ln x_2+cdots+ln x_nn \
              &=lim_ntoinftyfrac(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n+1)-(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n)(n+1)-n qquad(1)\
              &=lim_ntoinftyln x_n+1\
              &=ln x
              endalign
              $$



              Thus we can conclude
              $$colorredlim_ntoinfty(x_1x_2cdots x_n)^1/n=x$$



              $(1)$: Stoltz-Casearo theorem is used.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Another approach to avoid AM-GM:
                $$beginalign
                lim_ntoinftyln (x_1x_2cdot x_n)^1/n
                &=lim_ntoinftyfracln x_1+ln x_2+cdots+ln x_nn \
                &=lim_ntoinftyfrac(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n+1)-(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n)(n+1)-n qquad(1)\
                &=lim_ntoinftyln x_n+1\
                &=ln x
                endalign
                $$



                Thus we can conclude
                $$colorredlim_ntoinfty(x_1x_2cdots x_n)^1/n=x$$



                $(1)$: Stoltz-Casearo theorem is used.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  Another approach to avoid AM-GM:
                  $$beginalign
                  lim_ntoinftyln (x_1x_2cdot x_n)^1/n
                  &=lim_ntoinftyfracln x_1+ln x_2+cdots+ln x_nn \
                  &=lim_ntoinftyfrac(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n+1)-(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n)(n+1)-n qquad(1)\
                  &=lim_ntoinftyln x_n+1\
                  &=ln x
                  endalign
                  $$



                  Thus we can conclude
                  $$colorredlim_ntoinfty(x_1x_2cdots x_n)^1/n=x$$



                  $(1)$: Stoltz-Casearo theorem is used.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Another approach to avoid AM-GM:
                  $$beginalign
                  lim_ntoinftyln (x_1x_2cdot x_n)^1/n
                  &=lim_ntoinftyfracln x_1+ln x_2+cdots+ln x_nn \
                  &=lim_ntoinftyfrac(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n+1)-(ln x_1+cdots+ln x_n)(n+1)-n qquad(1)\
                  &=lim_ntoinftyln x_n+1\
                  &=ln x
                  endalign
                  $$



                  Thus we can conclude
                  $$colorredlim_ntoinfty(x_1x_2cdots x_n)^1/n=x$$



                  $(1)$: Stoltz-Casearo theorem is used.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 22 at 8:08









                  Szeto

                  4,4531522




                  4,4531522






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2890603%2fgeometric-mean-of-a-positive-convergent-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      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