Proving that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$

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











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












In one of my recent answers, I claim the following:




Since $dot r > 0$ when $0 < r < 1,$ and $dot r < 0$ when $r>1$, we may conclude that any solution starting in $(x_0,y_0)$ with $x_0^2+y_0^2 > 0$ will be attracted to the unit circle, so that
$$lim_t to infty r(t) = 1.$$




To briefly put this into context, we are working in polar coordinates, $r:mathbbRto [0,infty)$ is the radius function defined by $r(t)^2 = x(t)^2+y(t)^2$ and can be assumed to be smooth for the purposes of this question.



Of course, the result is intuitively clear, but I was unable to formulate a rigorous proof of this claim.
The thing that confuses me here is that we know the behaviour of the derivative depending on the value of $r$, rather than on the parameter $t$, so I am not sure how to use the information about the derivative in connection to the limit.



Could someone give me a hint on where/how to start?




EDIT: Just to be fully clear, I would like to prove the following:




Suppose that $r:mathbbRto(0,infty)$ is smooth and satisfies
beginalign
(1) quad dot r > 0 quad &textfor quad r < 1\
(2) quad dot r < 0 quad &textfor quad r > 1.
endalign
Then
$ lim_tto infty r(t) = 1. $





EDIT 2:
As pointed out in one of the answers, the claim is not true as stated.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:25










  • @Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:27











  • In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:31











  • @Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:33











  • Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:38














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












In one of my recent answers, I claim the following:




Since $dot r > 0$ when $0 < r < 1,$ and $dot r < 0$ when $r>1$, we may conclude that any solution starting in $(x_0,y_0)$ with $x_0^2+y_0^2 > 0$ will be attracted to the unit circle, so that
$$lim_t to infty r(t) = 1.$$




To briefly put this into context, we are working in polar coordinates, $r:mathbbRto [0,infty)$ is the radius function defined by $r(t)^2 = x(t)^2+y(t)^2$ and can be assumed to be smooth for the purposes of this question.



Of course, the result is intuitively clear, but I was unable to formulate a rigorous proof of this claim.
The thing that confuses me here is that we know the behaviour of the derivative depending on the value of $r$, rather than on the parameter $t$, so I am not sure how to use the information about the derivative in connection to the limit.



Could someone give me a hint on where/how to start?




EDIT: Just to be fully clear, I would like to prove the following:




Suppose that $r:mathbbRto(0,infty)$ is smooth and satisfies
beginalign
(1) quad dot r > 0 quad &textfor quad r < 1\
(2) quad dot r < 0 quad &textfor quad r > 1.
endalign
Then
$ lim_tto infty r(t) = 1. $





EDIT 2:
As pointed out in one of the answers, the claim is not true as stated.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:25










  • @Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:27











  • In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:31











  • @Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:33











  • Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:38












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











In one of my recent answers, I claim the following:




Since $dot r > 0$ when $0 < r < 1,$ and $dot r < 0$ when $r>1$, we may conclude that any solution starting in $(x_0,y_0)$ with $x_0^2+y_0^2 > 0$ will be attracted to the unit circle, so that
$$lim_t to infty r(t) = 1.$$




To briefly put this into context, we are working in polar coordinates, $r:mathbbRto [0,infty)$ is the radius function defined by $r(t)^2 = x(t)^2+y(t)^2$ and can be assumed to be smooth for the purposes of this question.



Of course, the result is intuitively clear, but I was unable to formulate a rigorous proof of this claim.
The thing that confuses me here is that we know the behaviour of the derivative depending on the value of $r$, rather than on the parameter $t$, so I am not sure how to use the information about the derivative in connection to the limit.



Could someone give me a hint on where/how to start?




EDIT: Just to be fully clear, I would like to prove the following:




Suppose that $r:mathbbRto(0,infty)$ is smooth and satisfies
beginalign
(1) quad dot r > 0 quad &textfor quad r < 1\
(2) quad dot r < 0 quad &textfor quad r > 1.
endalign
Then
$ lim_tto infty r(t) = 1. $





EDIT 2:
As pointed out in one of the answers, the claim is not true as stated.







share|cite|improve this question














In one of my recent answers, I claim the following:




Since $dot r > 0$ when $0 < r < 1,$ and $dot r < 0$ when $r>1$, we may conclude that any solution starting in $(x_0,y_0)$ with $x_0^2+y_0^2 > 0$ will be attracted to the unit circle, so that
$$lim_t to infty r(t) = 1.$$




To briefly put this into context, we are working in polar coordinates, $r:mathbbRto [0,infty)$ is the radius function defined by $r(t)^2 = x(t)^2+y(t)^2$ and can be assumed to be smooth for the purposes of this question.



Of course, the result is intuitively clear, but I was unable to formulate a rigorous proof of this claim.
The thing that confuses me here is that we know the behaviour of the derivative depending on the value of $r$, rather than on the parameter $t$, so I am not sure how to use the information about the derivative in connection to the limit.



Could someone give me a hint on where/how to start?




EDIT: Just to be fully clear, I would like to prove the following:




Suppose that $r:mathbbRto(0,infty)$ is smooth and satisfies
beginalign
(1) quad dot r > 0 quad &textfor quad r < 1\
(2) quad dot r < 0 quad &textfor quad r > 1.
endalign
Then
$ lim_tto infty r(t) = 1. $





EDIT 2:
As pointed out in one of the answers, the claim is not true as stated.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 24 at 11:23

























asked Aug 24 at 8:21









Sobi

2,185314




2,185314











  • The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:25










  • @Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:27











  • In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:31











  • @Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:33











  • Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:38
















  • The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:25










  • @Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:27











  • In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:31











  • @Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:33











  • Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
    – Fakemistake
    Aug 24 at 8:38















The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:25




The differential equation you are considering is $dotr=r(1-r^2)$?
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:25












@Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:27





@Fakemistake Yes. Is that relevant though?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:27













In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:31





In general: If $dotr=f(r)$ is given, then the roots of $f$ are (constant) solutions of the differential equation. Any other solution converges to one of the constant solutions.
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:31













@Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:33





@Fakemistake Yes, I am aware of that. As I said, this is intuitively clear as well. But my question concerns proving this claim e.g. using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition of the limit or via other properties of limits.
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:33













Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:38




Well, one way is to consider the solution of the given differential equation (wolfram alpha provides one) and then take the limit, but it guess this is not what you want.
– Fakemistake
Aug 24 at 8:38










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










This is wrong as it stands. Consider $r(t)=frac110arctan t$. Then $r(t)<1$ for all $t$ and $dot r(t)>0$ for all $t$ but $r(t)not to 1$ as $ttoinfty$.



You will need $r$ to satisfy some other conditions, for example a suitable ODE.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:19






  • 2




    That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
    – Kusma
    Aug 24 at 11:20










  • Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:22

















up vote
1
down vote













One way to approach this problem might be the following: If $r(t) = alpha in (0, 1)$, say, you may compute the derivative at this point. It will be an $epsilon$ away from $0$. You want to prove that for a sufficiently large interval, it remains away from $0$, so that the solution increases (by the differential equation, $r$ will stay below $1$ all the time, otherwise the derivative becomes positive).



So write down the equation
$$
r(1-r^2) le epsilon/2.
$$
What condition must $r$ satisfy so that this holds?



EDIT: For the general case, see my comment below.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:41






  • 1




    Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    Aug 24 at 8:50










  • That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:58










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%2f2892892%2fproving-that-lim-t-to-infty-rt-1%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



accepted










This is wrong as it stands. Consider $r(t)=frac110arctan t$. Then $r(t)<1$ for all $t$ and $dot r(t)>0$ for all $t$ but $r(t)not to 1$ as $ttoinfty$.



You will need $r$ to satisfy some other conditions, for example a suitable ODE.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:19






  • 2




    That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
    – Kusma
    Aug 24 at 11:20










  • Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:22














up vote
3
down vote



accepted










This is wrong as it stands. Consider $r(t)=frac110arctan t$. Then $r(t)<1$ for all $t$ and $dot r(t)>0$ for all $t$ but $r(t)not to 1$ as $ttoinfty$.



You will need $r$ to satisfy some other conditions, for example a suitable ODE.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:19






  • 2




    That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
    – Kusma
    Aug 24 at 11:20










  • Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:22












up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






This is wrong as it stands. Consider $r(t)=frac110arctan t$. Then $r(t)<1$ for all $t$ and $dot r(t)>0$ for all $t$ but $r(t)not to 1$ as $ttoinfty$.



You will need $r$ to satisfy some other conditions, for example a suitable ODE.






share|cite|improve this answer














This is wrong as it stands. Consider $r(t)=frac110arctan t$. Then $r(t)<1$ for all $t$ and $dot r(t)>0$ for all $t$ but $r(t)not to 1$ as $ttoinfty$.



You will need $r$ to satisfy some other conditions, for example a suitable ODE.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 24 at 11:19

























answered Aug 24 at 11:03









Kusma

2,697214




2,697214











  • Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:19






  • 2




    That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
    – Kusma
    Aug 24 at 11:20










  • Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:22
















  • Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:19






  • 2




    That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
    – Kusma
    Aug 24 at 11:20










  • Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 11:22















Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 11:19




Nice example! What if we added the condition $dot r = 0$ at $r = 1$?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 11:19




2




2




That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
– Kusma
Aug 24 at 11:20




That is true in my example: whenever $r(t)=1$ (i.e. never), $dot r=0$.
– Kusma
Aug 24 at 11:20












Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 11:22




Oh, indeed! That came as a surprise to me, thanks!
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 11:22










up vote
1
down vote













One way to approach this problem might be the following: If $r(t) = alpha in (0, 1)$, say, you may compute the derivative at this point. It will be an $epsilon$ away from $0$. You want to prove that for a sufficiently large interval, it remains away from $0$, so that the solution increases (by the differential equation, $r$ will stay below $1$ all the time, otherwise the derivative becomes positive).



So write down the equation
$$
r(1-r^2) le epsilon/2.
$$
What condition must $r$ satisfy so that this holds?



EDIT: For the general case, see my comment below.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:41






  • 1




    Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    Aug 24 at 8:50










  • That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:58














up vote
1
down vote













One way to approach this problem might be the following: If $r(t) = alpha in (0, 1)$, say, you may compute the derivative at this point. It will be an $epsilon$ away from $0$. You want to prove that for a sufficiently large interval, it remains away from $0$, so that the solution increases (by the differential equation, $r$ will stay below $1$ all the time, otherwise the derivative becomes positive).



So write down the equation
$$
r(1-r^2) le epsilon/2.
$$
What condition must $r$ satisfy so that this holds?



EDIT: For the general case, see my comment below.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:41






  • 1




    Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    Aug 24 at 8:50










  • That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:58












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









One way to approach this problem might be the following: If $r(t) = alpha in (0, 1)$, say, you may compute the derivative at this point. It will be an $epsilon$ away from $0$. You want to prove that for a sufficiently large interval, it remains away from $0$, so that the solution increases (by the differential equation, $r$ will stay below $1$ all the time, otherwise the derivative becomes positive).



So write down the equation
$$
r(1-r^2) le epsilon/2.
$$
What condition must $r$ satisfy so that this holds?



EDIT: For the general case, see my comment below.






share|cite|improve this answer














One way to approach this problem might be the following: If $r(t) = alpha in (0, 1)$, say, you may compute the derivative at this point. It will be an $epsilon$ away from $0$. You want to prove that for a sufficiently large interval, it remains away from $0$, so that the solution increases (by the differential equation, $r$ will stay below $1$ all the time, otherwise the derivative becomes positive).



So write down the equation
$$
r(1-r^2) le epsilon/2.
$$
What condition must $r$ satisfy so that this holds?



EDIT: For the general case, see my comment below.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 24 at 8:51

























answered Aug 24 at 8:37









AlgebraicsAnonymous

1,03012




1,03012











  • Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:41






  • 1




    Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    Aug 24 at 8:50










  • That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:58
















  • Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:41






  • 1




    Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    Aug 24 at 8:50










  • That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
    – Sobi
    Aug 24 at 8:58















Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:41




Should the result not hold regardless of the differential equation behind all of this? That is, if we only know that $dot r > 0$ for $0 < r < 1$ and $dot r < 0$ for $r > 1$, can we not still say that $lim_tto infty r(t) = 1$?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:41




1




1




Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
Aug 24 at 8:50




Yes, you may use that r(t) increases monotonically until it has reached 1, so the limit exists by the convergence of monotonely increasing bounded things. If it's not one, it's strictly smaller. But then the derivative will always be strictly larger than something, and you converge to infinity.
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
Aug 24 at 8:50












That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:58




That seems like a good idea. Maybe you could slightly formalize your contradiction argument and edit your answer so that I can mark it as an answer?
– Sobi
Aug 24 at 8:58

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2892892%2fproving-that-lim-t-to-infty-rt-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?