The Student Room Group

limits

if the limit of sequence a is infinity, and the limit of sequence b is c, how do i show the limit of sequence ab is infinity? also c>0
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 1
Original post by asdfyolo
if the limit of sequence a is infinity, and the limit of sequence b is c, how do i show the limit of sequence ab is infinity? also c>0

There are a few different ways to do it I should imagine, some brief thoughts on the subject - you'll want to be more rigorous than I have been.
A brief sketch is that (bn)(b_n) converges so it is eventually close to cc.
Since this is the case, and you know that (an)(a_n) is divergent, you can see that, for large nn the sequence (anbn)c(an)(a_nb_n) \sim c(a_n) and so must diverge. If you can express that more carefully, then you are done.

Bigger hint in the spoiler - try to prove it yourself first. :smile:[spoiler]Eventually you have bn>cϵb_n>c-\epsilon.

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)
An alternative approach: You may already have done some of these steps, in which case you can skip them.

1) Prove that if c>0c > 0, (an)(a_n) a sequence diverging to ++\infty, then (can)0(ca_n)\to 0.
2) Prove that if (an)(a_n) is a sequence diverging to infinity, and (bn)(b_n) is a sequence such that bn>anb_n > a_n for all sufficiently large nn, then (bn)0(b_n)\to 0.
3) Since (bn)c(b_n)\to c, there is in particular some NN in the naturals such that for all n>Nn > N, bn>c/2>0b_n > c/2 > 0. Use this, and the above, to prove the result.
[QUOTE="joostan;60495845"]There are a few different ways to do it I should imagine, some brief thoughts on the subject - you'll want to be more rigorous than I have been.
A brief sketch is that (bn)(b_n) converges so it is eventually close to cc.
Since this is the case, and you know that (an)(a_n) is divergent, you can see that, for large nn the sequence (anbn)c(an)(a_nb_n) \sim c(a_n) and so must diverge. If you can express that more carefully, then you are done.

Bigger hint in the spoiler - try to prove it yourself first. :smile:

Spoiler

It is NOT true that eventually b_n - epsilon > c. Did you mean b_n > c - epsilon?
Reply 4
Original post by DFranklin
It is NOT true that eventually b_n - epsilon > c. Did you mean b_n > c - epsilon?


Yup, been having problems with spoilers, had to type it out twice - errors must've crept in.
Thanks :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest