Limit as n approaches $infty$ of $fracxx+n$.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does one go about proving
$$lim_nrightarrow inftyfracxx+n=0$$
for any positive x. Intuitively this is pretty obvious. I'm assuming this is a squeeze theorem question where
$$frac1x+nleq fracxx+n<fracxx$$
but this doesn't really get us anywhere.
limits
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does one go about proving
$$lim_nrightarrow inftyfracxx+n=0$$
for any positive x. Intuitively this is pretty obvious. I'm assuming this is a squeeze theorem question where
$$frac1x+nleq fracxx+n<fracxx$$
but this doesn't really get us anywhere.
limits
2
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
1
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
3
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does one go about proving
$$lim_nrightarrow inftyfracxx+n=0$$
for any positive x. Intuitively this is pretty obvious. I'm assuming this is a squeeze theorem question where
$$frac1x+nleq fracxx+n<fracxx$$
but this doesn't really get us anywhere.
limits
How does one go about proving
$$lim_nrightarrow inftyfracxx+n=0$$
for any positive x. Intuitively this is pretty obvious. I'm assuming this is a squeeze theorem question where
$$frac1x+nleq fracxx+n<fracxx$$
but this doesn't really get us anywhere.
limits
limits
asked Sep 11 at 2:56
Student
308
308
2
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
1
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
3
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03
|
show 6 more comments
2
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
1
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
3
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03
2
2
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
1
1
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
3
3
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03
|
show 6 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
For
$x > 0 tag 1$
and
$n > 0, tag 2$
we have
$dfracxx + n = dfracx / nx / n + 1; tag 3$
note that
$1 + x/n > 1, tag 4$
or
$(1 + x/n)^-1 < 1; tag 5$
pick $epsilon > 0$; then for $n$ sufficiently large,
$dfracxn < epsilon; tag 6$
also, from (5) and (6) together in collusion,
$dfracx/n1 + x/n = (1 + x/n)^-1 (x/n) < x/n < epsilon; tag 7$
thus
$dfracxx + n = dfracx/n1 + x/n < epsilon; tag 8$
this shows that by taking $n$ large enough, we have $x/(x + n)$ arbitrarily small; hence
$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think you are somehow thinking that we are using the letter $x$ to represent a fixed positive number that $x$ is variable. It isn't. $x$ is a fixed positive number.
For any $epsilon > 0$ then $frac xx+n < epsilon iff$
$x < epsilon (x+n) iff$
$x - epsilon x < epsilon n iff$
$n > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$
And that's that.
For any $epsilon > 0$ if $M > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$ then $n> M$ means $frac xx+n < frac xx + frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon=epsilon$.
.....
Another way of putting this is:
$lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Note that $x$ doesn't necessarily have to be positive. When $x=0$, the problem is reduced to $lim_ntoinftyfrac1n=0$ which is straightforward and easy. Hence, we're left to prove it for non-zero real numbers.
Now take $x in mathbbR-0$. Take $m in mathbbN$ to be sufficiently large such that $x + m > 0$.
We now have:
$$frac1n-m+1 leq frac1x+nleq frac1n-m hspace10px(textwhen n >m)$$
Using the Archemedean property of the real line, for any given $epsilon >0$, you can find $t in mathbbN$ such that $frac1t < fracepsilon$. Now, set $N=t+m$. This proves that
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |frac1x+n|<fracepsilon$$
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |fracxx+n|<epsilon$$
Hence, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$x>0$, real, $n in mathbbZ^+$.
$0 < dfracxx+n lt dfrac xn$.
Let $epsilon >0$ be given.
Archimedean principle:
There is a $n_0 in mathbbZ^+$ such that
$n_0 > dfracxepsilon$.
For $n ge n_0$ :
$|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
For
$x > 0 tag 1$
and
$n > 0, tag 2$
we have
$dfracxx + n = dfracx / nx / n + 1; tag 3$
note that
$1 + x/n > 1, tag 4$
or
$(1 + x/n)^-1 < 1; tag 5$
pick $epsilon > 0$; then for $n$ sufficiently large,
$dfracxn < epsilon; tag 6$
also, from (5) and (6) together in collusion,
$dfracx/n1 + x/n = (1 + x/n)^-1 (x/n) < x/n < epsilon; tag 7$
thus
$dfracxx + n = dfracx/n1 + x/n < epsilon; tag 8$
this shows that by taking $n$ large enough, we have $x/(x + n)$ arbitrarily small; hence
$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
For
$x > 0 tag 1$
and
$n > 0, tag 2$
we have
$dfracxx + n = dfracx / nx / n + 1; tag 3$
note that
$1 + x/n > 1, tag 4$
or
$(1 + x/n)^-1 < 1; tag 5$
pick $epsilon > 0$; then for $n$ sufficiently large,
$dfracxn < epsilon; tag 6$
also, from (5) and (6) together in collusion,
$dfracx/n1 + x/n = (1 + x/n)^-1 (x/n) < x/n < epsilon; tag 7$
thus
$dfracxx + n = dfracx/n1 + x/n < epsilon; tag 8$
this shows that by taking $n$ large enough, we have $x/(x + n)$ arbitrarily small; hence
$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
For
$x > 0 tag 1$
and
$n > 0, tag 2$
we have
$dfracxx + n = dfracx / nx / n + 1; tag 3$
note that
$1 + x/n > 1, tag 4$
or
$(1 + x/n)^-1 < 1; tag 5$
pick $epsilon > 0$; then for $n$ sufficiently large,
$dfracxn < epsilon; tag 6$
also, from (5) and (6) together in collusion,
$dfracx/n1 + x/n = (1 + x/n)^-1 (x/n) < x/n < epsilon; tag 7$
thus
$dfracxx + n = dfracx/n1 + x/n < epsilon; tag 8$
this shows that by taking $n$ large enough, we have $x/(x + n)$ arbitrarily small; hence
$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$
For
$x > 0 tag 1$
and
$n > 0, tag 2$
we have
$dfracxx + n = dfracx / nx / n + 1; tag 3$
note that
$1 + x/n > 1, tag 4$
or
$(1 + x/n)^-1 < 1; tag 5$
pick $epsilon > 0$; then for $n$ sufficiently large,
$dfracxn < epsilon; tag 6$
also, from (5) and (6) together in collusion,
$dfracx/n1 + x/n = (1 + x/n)^-1 (x/n) < x/n < epsilon; tag 7$
thus
$dfracxx + n = dfracx/n1 + x/n < epsilon; tag 8$
this shows that by taking $n$ large enough, we have $x/(x + n)$ arbitrarily small; hence
$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$
answered Sep 11 at 3:41
Robert Lewis
41.3k22759
41.3k22759
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think you are somehow thinking that we are using the letter $x$ to represent a fixed positive number that $x$ is variable. It isn't. $x$ is a fixed positive number.
For any $epsilon > 0$ then $frac xx+n < epsilon iff$
$x < epsilon (x+n) iff$
$x - epsilon x < epsilon n iff$
$n > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$
And that's that.
For any $epsilon > 0$ if $M > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$ then $n> M$ means $frac xx+n < frac xx + frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon=epsilon$.
.....
Another way of putting this is:
$lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think you are somehow thinking that we are using the letter $x$ to represent a fixed positive number that $x$ is variable. It isn't. $x$ is a fixed positive number.
For any $epsilon > 0$ then $frac xx+n < epsilon iff$
$x < epsilon (x+n) iff$
$x - epsilon x < epsilon n iff$
$n > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$
And that's that.
For any $epsilon > 0$ if $M > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$ then $n> M$ means $frac xx+n < frac xx + frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon=epsilon$.
.....
Another way of putting this is:
$lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I think you are somehow thinking that we are using the letter $x$ to represent a fixed positive number that $x$ is variable. It isn't. $x$ is a fixed positive number.
For any $epsilon > 0$ then $frac xx+n < epsilon iff$
$x < epsilon (x+n) iff$
$x - epsilon x < epsilon n iff$
$n > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$
And that's that.
For any $epsilon > 0$ if $M > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$ then $n> M$ means $frac xx+n < frac xx + frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon=epsilon$.
.....
Another way of putting this is:
$lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.
I think you are somehow thinking that we are using the letter $x$ to represent a fixed positive number that $x$ is variable. It isn't. $x$ is a fixed positive number.
For any $epsilon > 0$ then $frac xx+n < epsilon iff$
$x < epsilon (x+n) iff$
$x - epsilon x < epsilon n iff$
$n > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$
And that's that.
For any $epsilon > 0$ if $M > frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon$ then $n> M$ means $frac xx+n < frac xx + frac x(1-epsilon)epsilon=epsilon$.
.....
Another way of putting this is:
$lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.
answered Sep 11 at 3:52
fleablood
64.9k22680
64.9k22680
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Note that $x$ doesn't necessarily have to be positive. When $x=0$, the problem is reduced to $lim_ntoinftyfrac1n=0$ which is straightforward and easy. Hence, we're left to prove it for non-zero real numbers.
Now take $x in mathbbR-0$. Take $m in mathbbN$ to be sufficiently large such that $x + m > 0$.
We now have:
$$frac1n-m+1 leq frac1x+nleq frac1n-m hspace10px(textwhen n >m)$$
Using the Archemedean property of the real line, for any given $epsilon >0$, you can find $t in mathbbN$ such that $frac1t < fracepsilon$. Now, set $N=t+m$. This proves that
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |frac1x+n|<fracepsilon$$
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |fracxx+n|<epsilon$$
Hence, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Note that $x$ doesn't necessarily have to be positive. When $x=0$, the problem is reduced to $lim_ntoinftyfrac1n=0$ which is straightforward and easy. Hence, we're left to prove it for non-zero real numbers.
Now take $x in mathbbR-0$. Take $m in mathbbN$ to be sufficiently large such that $x + m > 0$.
We now have:
$$frac1n-m+1 leq frac1x+nleq frac1n-m hspace10px(textwhen n >m)$$
Using the Archemedean property of the real line, for any given $epsilon >0$, you can find $t in mathbbN$ such that $frac1t < fracepsilon$. Now, set $N=t+m$. This proves that
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |frac1x+n|<fracepsilon$$
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |fracxx+n|<epsilon$$
Hence, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Note that $x$ doesn't necessarily have to be positive. When $x=0$, the problem is reduced to $lim_ntoinftyfrac1n=0$ which is straightforward and easy. Hence, we're left to prove it for non-zero real numbers.
Now take $x in mathbbR-0$. Take $m in mathbbN$ to be sufficiently large such that $x + m > 0$.
We now have:
$$frac1n-m+1 leq frac1x+nleq frac1n-m hspace10px(textwhen n >m)$$
Using the Archemedean property of the real line, for any given $epsilon >0$, you can find $t in mathbbN$ such that $frac1t < fracepsilon$. Now, set $N=t+m$. This proves that
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |frac1x+n|<fracepsilon$$
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |fracxx+n|<epsilon$$
Hence, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.
Note that $x$ doesn't necessarily have to be positive. When $x=0$, the problem is reduced to $lim_ntoinftyfrac1n=0$ which is straightforward and easy. Hence, we're left to prove it for non-zero real numbers.
Now take $x in mathbbR-0$. Take $m in mathbbN$ to be sufficiently large such that $x + m > 0$.
We now have:
$$frac1n-m+1 leq frac1x+nleq frac1n-m hspace10px(textwhen n >m)$$
Using the Archemedean property of the real line, for any given $epsilon >0$, you can find $t in mathbbN$ such that $frac1t < fracepsilon$. Now, set $N=t+m$. This proves that
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |frac1x+n|<fracepsilon$$
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbbN: ngeq N implies |fracxx+n|<epsilon$$
Hence, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.
edited Sep 11 at 3:59
answered Sep 11 at 3:33
stressed out
3,7261531
3,7261531
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$x>0$, real, $n in mathbbZ^+$.
$0 < dfracxx+n lt dfrac xn$.
Let $epsilon >0$ be given.
Archimedean principle:
There is a $n_0 in mathbbZ^+$ such that
$n_0 > dfracxepsilon$.
For $n ge n_0$ :
$|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$x>0$, real, $n in mathbbZ^+$.
$0 < dfracxx+n lt dfrac xn$.
Let $epsilon >0$ be given.
Archimedean principle:
There is a $n_0 in mathbbZ^+$ such that
$n_0 > dfracxepsilon$.
For $n ge n_0$ :
$|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
$x>0$, real, $n in mathbbZ^+$.
$0 < dfracxx+n lt dfrac xn$.
Let $epsilon >0$ be given.
Archimedean principle:
There is a $n_0 in mathbbZ^+$ such that
$n_0 > dfracxepsilon$.
For $n ge n_0$ :
$|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.
$x>0$, real, $n in mathbbZ^+$.
$0 < dfracxx+n lt dfrac xn$.
Let $epsilon >0$ be given.
Archimedean principle:
There is a $n_0 in mathbbZ^+$ such that
$n_0 > dfracxepsilon$.
For $n ge n_0$ :
$|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.
answered Sep 11 at 9:02
Peter Szilas
9,8842720
9,8842720
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2f2912689%2flimit-as-n-approaches-infty-of-fracxxn%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
2
and why is $frac1x+nleq fracxx+n$ ? is $x geq 1$ ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 2:58
Hint: $fracxx+n = fracxx+n cdot frac1/n1/n$
– JavaMan
Sep 11 at 3:00
if x<1, limit rules take over, as in $frac1infty$
– Student
Sep 11 at 3:01
1
what does "limit rules take over" mean ?
– Ahmad Bazzi
Sep 11 at 3:03
3
As AhmadBazzi points out, your first inequality only makes sense if $x > 1$, which doesn't cover "all positive $x$", so your lower bound doesn't work out for you. As to the upper bound, that is simply 1, which isn't going to squeeze things the way you want. If you want to use the squeeze theorem, I might suggest $$fracx2n le fracxx+n le fracxn, $$ where the lower bound holds for $n$ sufficiently large (i.e. when $n ge x$). That being said, I think that the problem can be better handled directly (using JavaMan's hind, for example).
– Xander Henderson
Sep 11 at 3:03