Limit as n approaches $infty$ of $fracxx+n$.

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











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












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.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 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















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












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.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 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













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





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.










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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













  • 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











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



$displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$






share|cite|improve this answer



























    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:



    $lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      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, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        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 $n ge n_0$ :



        $|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.






        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: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          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%2f2912689%2flimit-as-n-approaches-infty-of-fracxxn%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          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



          $displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            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



            $displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$






            share|cite|improve this answer






















              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



              $displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$






              share|cite|improve this answer












              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



              $displaystyle lim_n to infty dfracxx + n = 0. tag 9$







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Sep 11 at 3:41









              Robert Lewis

              41.3k22759




              41.3k22759




















                  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:



                  $lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    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:



                    $lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                      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:



                      $lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      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:



                      $lim_nto infty frac xx+n = xlim_nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_x+nto infty frac 1x+n = xlim_m=x+nto inftyfrac 1m = x*0 = 0$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Sep 11 at 3:52









                      fleablood

                      64.9k22680




                      64.9k22680




















                          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, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            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, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              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, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              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, $lim_ntoinftyfracxx+n=0$.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Sep 11 at 3:59

























                              answered Sep 11 at 3:33









                              stressed out

                              3,7261531




                              3,7261531




















                                  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 $n ge n_0$ :



                                  $|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    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 $n ge n_0$ :



                                    $|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                                      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 $n ge n_0$ :



                                      $|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      $x>0$, 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 $n ge n_0$ :



                                      $|dfracxx+n| lt dfracxn lt dfracxn_0 lt x (dfracepsilonx) = epsilon.$.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Sep 11 at 9:02









                                      Peter Szilas

                                      9,8842720




                                      9,8842720



























                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded















































                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          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













































































                                          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?