Geometric mean of a positive convergent sequence

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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)
real-analysis sequences-and-series analysis convergence
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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)
real-analysis sequences-and-series analysis convergence
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.
â 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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
Aug 22 at 4:06
Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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.
â Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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)
real-analysis sequences-and-series analysis convergence
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)
real-analysis sequences-and-series analysis convergence
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.
â 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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
Aug 22 at 4:06
Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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.
â Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
â 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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
Aug 22 at 4:06
Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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.
â Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
Aug 22 at 4:06
Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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 donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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.
â 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.
â Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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:
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?)
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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:
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?)
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.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".
Steps:
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?)
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.
add a comment |Â
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:
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?)
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.
Use the "cut the sequence and analyse the main part and the tail separately".
Steps:
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?)
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.
edited Aug 22 at 5:34
answered Aug 22 at 5:25
4-ier
5989
5989
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Aug 22 at 8:08
Szeto
4,4531522
4,4531522
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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.
â 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.
â Ã°ÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
Aug 22 at 4:06
Can you elaborate?I understand that since the sequence is bounded, it has a convergent subsequence. But I donâÂÂt know how to show it converges to x.
â 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.
â Steven Irrgang
Aug 22 at 4:41
@ðÃÂÃÂþýòÃÂûûðþûþÃÂüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó can you elaborate?
â John Mitchell
Aug 22 at 4:51