# More limits help

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

(d) I am confused as to how to go about simplifying this to get a answer for n in terms of E - still stuck in terms of simplification

0

reply

Report

#2

d): Try to write it as the product of 5 different terms with a single n from the numerator, and a single term from the denominator in each. 4 of these should tend to 1, and the other to 0.

2. x need not be an integer. Suppose x was not 0, what would that mean?

3. Use part 2.

2. x need not be an integer. Suppose x was not 0, what would that mean?

3. Use part 2.

0

reply

(Original post by

d): Try to write it as the product of 5 different terms with a single n from the numerator, and a single term from the denominator in each. 4 of these should tend to 1, and the other to 0.

2. x need not be an integer. Suppose x was not 0, what would that mean?

3. Use part 2.

**james22**)d): Try to write it as the product of 5 different terms with a single n from the numerator, and a single term from the denominator in each. 4 of these should tend to 1, and the other to 0.

2. x need not be an integer. Suppose x was not 0, what would that mean?

3. Use part 2.

I split up the (n^4)/n! into n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)!

Although i'm unsure where to go from there because although they tend to 1 (aparts from 1/(n-4)!, in order to simplify the expression I need to make sure it becomes larger. Since n > 0, 1 is not larger than n/(n-1). Is it allowed to simplify it to something larger (such as 2, instead of 1?), even though it tends to 1? I don't think I can let 1/(n-4)! become 0 either as I need to get a value for n in terms of epsilon

0

reply

Report

#4

(Original post by

Thanks again James,

I split up the (n^4)/n! into n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)!

Although i'm unsure where to go from there because although they tend to 1 (aparts from 1/(n-4)!, in order to simplify the expression I need to make sure it becomes larger. Since n > 0, 1 is not larger than n/(n-1). Is it allowed to simplify it to something larger (such as 2, instead of 1?), even though it tends to 1? I don't think I can let 1/(n-4)! become 0 either as I need to get a value for n in terms of epsilon

**Dannygem**)Thanks again James,

I split up the (n^4)/n! into n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)!

Although i'm unsure where to go from there because although they tend to 1 (aparts from 1/(n-4)!, in order to simplify the expression I need to make sure it becomes larger. Since n > 0, 1 is not larger than n/(n-1). Is it allowed to simplify it to something larger (such as 2, instead of 1?), even though it tends to 1? I don't think I can let 1/(n-4)! become 0 either as I need to get a value for n in terms of epsilon

0

reply

(Original post by

Do you need to prove this using the epsilon definition of limits? Have to proven the result about the product of limits?

**james22**)Do you need to prove this using the epsilon definition of limits? Have to proven the result about the product of limits?

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

Yeah I do, I haven't done much about the product of limits I don't think

**Dannygem**)Yeah I do, I haven't done much about the product of limits I don't think

1

reply

(Original post by

OK, you managed to split the fraction up how I would, now consider which terms are bounded. If you can find an upper bound for all but 1 of the terms, you can effectively ignore them (still need to include in your proof though). For example if |a_n| is bounded by 2, and b_n tends to 0, then a_n*b_n will tend to 0 (not too difficult to prove with epsilons).

**james22**)OK, you managed to split the fraction up how I would, now consider which terms are bounded. If you can find an upper bound for all but 1 of the terms, you can effectively ignore them (still need to include in your proof though). For example if |a_n| is bounded by 2, and b_n tends to 0, then a_n*b_n will tend to 0 (not too difficult to prove with epsilons).

(n^4)/n! < E

n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)! < E

I need some way of keeping the 'n' as I need to write 'n' in terms of epsilon, so I can't just say that 1/(n-4)! tends to 0 otherwise the whole expression becomes 0

0

reply

Report

#8

(Original post by

[IMG]

(2) I have no idea how to go about this, apart from the obvious that since 'x' is a integer then the only way that lxl can be less than E is for it to be 0 as E can be all values above 0.

**Dannygem**)[IMG]

(2) I have no idea how to go about this, apart from the obvious that since 'x' is a integer then the only way that lxl can be less than E is for it to be 0 as E can be all values above 0.

0

reply

(Original post by

Proof by contradiction will do the job here. Claim that and derive a contradiction from the fact that for all

**atsruser**)Proof by contradiction will do the job here. Claim that and derive a contradiction from the fact that for all

3 uses a very similar contradiction unsure as to why it wasn't just a subpart of question (2) as question (1) is a lot longer than them both combined

0

reply

Report

#10

(Original post by

Thanks, i've managed to do part 2 and 3 now!

3 uses a very similar contradiction unsure as to why it wasn't just a subpart of question (2) as question (1) is a lot longer than them both combined

**Dannygem**)Thanks, i've managed to do part 2 and 3 now!

3 uses a very similar contradiction unsure as to why it wasn't just a subpart of question (2) as question (1) is a lot longer than them both combined

1

reply

(Original post by

I think that you're meant to use (2) to prove (3). It's one of those "hence, show that .." questions without being explicit about it.

**atsruser**)I think that you're meant to use (2) to prove (3). It's one of those "hence, show that .." questions without being explicit about it.

but I thought i'd just do the proof again with An - L because it was so short

0

reply

Report

#12

(Original post by

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean but if I do this:

(n^4)/n! < E

n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)! < E

I need some way of keeping the 'n' as I need to write 'n' in terms of epsilon, so I can't just say that 1/(n-4)! tends to 0 otherwise the whole expression becomes 0

**Dannygem**)I'm not sure if I understand what you mean but if I do this:

(n^4)/n! < E

n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)! < E

I need some way of keeping the 'n' as I need to write 'n' in terms of epsilon, so I can't just say that 1/(n-4)! tends to 0 otherwise the whole expression becomes 0

0

reply

Report

#13

(Original post by

Yeah I was going to just say that since x = 0, An - L = 0 and so An = L

but I thought i'd just do the proof again with An - L because it was so short

**Dannygem**)Yeah I was going to just say that since x = 0, An - L = 0 and so An = L

but I thought i'd just do the proof again with An - L because it was so short

0

reply

(Original post by

Hi, I'm doing the same sheet (and hence are on the same course as you ha ha). For 2 is it literally a case of saying something like 'suppose that x does not equal zero. Then x is not less than or equal to all e>0. Hence it must be zero?

**pineapplechemist**)Hi, I'm doing the same sheet (and hence are on the same course as you ha ha). For 2 is it literally a case of saying something like 'suppose that x does not equal zero. Then x is not less than or equal to all e>0. Hence it must be zero?

For 2 basically what I did was:

Assume l x l < E for all values of E > 0

Suppose x was not equal to 0, this means that l x l > 0.

However, l x l < E and since E > 0, l x l must be =< 0.

This contradicts our statement that l x l > 0, and so 'x' must equal zero.

For 3 you can then think about the result in this question and apply it

(Original post by

If n > 8, then n-4, n-3, n-2 and n-1 are all bigger than n/2.

**DFranklin**)If n > 8, then n-4, n-3, n-2 and n-1 are all bigger than n/2.

Not sure if I am actually just supposed to do what James22 said above and try to prove it that way, it'd be different to the way the first 3 subparts of the question were answered.

0

reply

Report

#15

**Dannygem**)

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean but if I do this:

(n^4)/n! < E

n/n x n/(n-1) x n/(n-2) x n/(n-3) x 1/(n-4)! < E

I need some way of keeping the 'n' as I need to write 'n' in terms of epsilon, so I can't just say that 1/(n-4)! tends to 0 otherwise the whole expression becomes 0

0

reply

Report

#16

(Original post by

Hi there

For 2 basically what I did was:

Assume l x l < E for all values of E > 0

Suppose x was not equal to 0, this means that l x l > 0.

However, l x l < E and since E > 0, l x l must be =< 0.

This contradicts our statement that l x l > 0, and so 'x' must equal zero.

For 3 you can then think about the result in this question and apply it

Thanks for the hint, i've now managed to get 6((n/2)!), I still have no idea how to get rid of the factorial

**Dannygem**)Hi there

For 2 basically what I did was:

Assume l x l < E for all values of E > 0

Suppose x was not equal to 0, this means that l x l > 0.

However, l x l < E and since E > 0, l x l must be =< 0.

This contradicts our statement that l x l > 0, and so 'x' must equal zero.

For 3 you can then think about the result in this question and apply it

Thanks for the hint, i've now managed to get 6((n/2)!), I still have no idea how to get rid of the factorial

But as for getting rid of factorials: In general, note that N! is bigger (typically a LOT bigger!) than N, so once you get to dividing a constant by a factorial it is very easy to show it tends to 0.

0

reply

(Original post by

Pretty sure you've messed up somewhere there. (What you've written is going to be a valid bound for large enough n, but I very much doubt your reasoing to get there is correct).

But as for getting rid of factorials: In general, note that N! is bigger (typically a LOT bigger!) than N, so once you get to dividing a constant by a factorial it is very easy to show it tends to 0.

**DFranklin**)Pretty sure you've messed up somewhere there. (What you've written is going to be a valid bound for large enough n, but I very much doubt your reasoing to get there is correct).

But as for getting rid of factorials: In general, note that N! is bigger (typically a LOT bigger!) than N, so once you get to dividing a constant by a factorial it is very easy to show it tends to 0.

0

reply

Report

#18

(Original post by

Hi there

For 2 basically what I did was:

Assume l x l < E for all values of E > 0

Suppose x was not equal to 0, this means that l x l > 0.

However, l x l < E and since E > 0, l x l must be =< 0.

This contradicts our statement that l x l > 0, and so 'x' must equal zero.

**Dannygem**)Hi there

For 2 basically what I did was:

Assume l x l < E for all values of E > 0

Suppose x was not equal to 0, this means that l x l > 0.

However, l x l < E and since E > 0, l x l must be =< 0.

This contradicts our statement that l x l > 0, and so 'x' must equal zero.

1. Assume that

2. Write down a specific that is smaller than (Hint: what can you say about the average of 0 and ?)

3. Write down a contradiction, again explicitly, in terms of and your constructed .

0

reply

Report

#19

(Original post by

Yeah I think i've done that now. I was just wondering about how to write n in terms of epsilon, as I had to do for the previous 3 subparts. I don't think I can :/

**Dannygem**)Yeah I think i've done that now. I was just wondering about how to write n in terms of epsilon, as I had to do for the previous 3 subparts. I don't think I can :/

If you cannot give a value for "n" in terms of epsilon, you haven't shown anything. On the other hand, your value doesn't have to be optimal (i.e. it doesn't have to be the smallest possible choice).

E.g. to find N such that , I can simply go:

n! is never smaller than n, so So if then .

This is completely valid, despite the fact that if, say, epsilon is 1/1000 I end up with when in fact the result holds for any n > 6.

0

reply

Report

#20

(Original post by

On the other hand, your value doesn't have to be optimal (i.e. it doesn't have to be the smallest possible choice).

**DFranklin**)On the other hand, your value doesn't have to be optimal (i.e. it doesn't have to be the smallest possible choice).

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top