Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property.

TverorSecret
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to TverorSecret
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 08022017 19:32

crashMATHS
 Follow
 157 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to crashMATHS
 Visit crashMATHS's homepage!
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 2
 08022017 20:00
(Original post by TverorSecret)
Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property.
However, noting that , I would much rather go:
Given , take . Then,
Last edited by crashMATHS; 08022017 at 20:04. 
TverorSecret
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to TverorSecret
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 08022017 21:17
(Original post by crashMATHS)
What do you want to know? I think the proof looks okay.
However, noting that , I would much rather go:
Given , take . Then,
Yes thank you, I like what you wrote  may I ask what the colon before the equals sign represents in the third line.
Thank you for your response :_) 
crashMATHS
 Follow
 157 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to crashMATHS
 Visit crashMATHS's homepage!
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 4
 08022017 21:39
(Original post by TverorSecret)
Sorry I wanted to know if people thought it was correct, as I don't have a model solution to these types of questions.
Yes thank you, I like what you wrote  may I ask what the colon before the equals sign represents in the third line.
Thank you for your response :_) 
 Follow
 5
 08022017 21:46
(Original post by TverorSecret)
Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property. 
TverorSecret
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to TverorSecret
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 6
 08022017 22:51
(Original post by crashMATHS)
It means the quantity to the left of := is defined by the quantity to the right  equality by definition, if you like.(Original post by Zacken)
Yes, that's all fine. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 56 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 09022017 01:12
(Original post by TverorSecret)
..
You write that but the inequality isn't actually strict; the most you can say is that
(and in fact you will generally have equality).
It's not a big deal, but it's a good idea to get used to being careful about things like this, sometimes it does become important. 
 Follow
 8
 15022017 20:06
Why do you write 1/n in that way? idk just seems strange, although rest seems okay
Last edited by alexgreyx; 15022017 at 20:07. 
 Follow
 9
 15022017 20:27
(Original post by DFranklin)
Actually, there is one (tiny) issue:
You write that but the inequality isn't actually strict; the most you can say is that
(and in fact you will generally have equality).
It's not a big deal, but it's a good idea to get used to being careful about things like this, sometimes it does become important.
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex]
Instead of:
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}+\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex]
And yes the inequality should be strict, but for values greater than 0, then LHS = RHS for all values as OP had written 
DFranklin
 Follow
 56 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 10
 15022017 21:25
(Original post by alexgreyx)
Why did OP do:
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex]
Instead of:
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}+\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex]And yes the inequality should be strict, but for values greater than 0, then LHS = RHS for all values as OP had written 
 Follow
 11
 15022017 21:54
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex]
Instead of:
5 \frac{1}{n}  2 \frac{1}{n^2}  < \frac{5}{n}+\frac{2}{n^2}[/latex](Original post by DFranklin)
You'd have to ask him/her. It's not really ideal, but it's not indefensible (if you use nonstrict inequality signs).
No, it's precisely when you may have that LHS = RHS that you cannot say that LHS is strictly smaller than the RHS. 
 Follow
 12
 15022017 22:08
(Original post by DFranklin)
You'd have to ask him/her. It's not really ideal, but it's not indefensible (if you use nonstrict inequality signs).
No, it's precisely when you may have that LHS = RHS that you cannot say that LHS is strictly smaller than the RHS.
<= (5+n) / (2/n^2) then would that be more ideal than how OP posed it? 
DFranklin
 Follow
 56 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 13
 16022017 00:55
(Original post by alexgreyx)
So if they had used a + sign s.t. the end of their first line read:
<= (5+n) / (2/n^2) then would that be more ideal than how OP posed it?
Probably the cleanest approach here is to go:
for n >= 1, 0 < 2/n^2 < 5/n, so 0 < 5/n  2/n^2 < 5/n, and then given epsilon > 0, we have n > 5/epsilon => 5/n < epsilon.
But to be honest it's hard to definitively mess this question up  even if you omit justification (as I'd guess is what happened here in the original post), the justification is so trivial that you're likely to get the benefit of the doubt unless someone's being incredibly picky.
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 Convergence Sequence Question Help
 Absolute Convergence question
 How to show convergence of a sequence?
 Proof of convergence of a sequence?
 negation of definition of convergence
 Using the Negated definition of convergence
 Maths as level question help! Sequences
 Struggling with this definition of convergence
 Sequence limit
 Convergence proof
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Leviathan1741
 Moltenmo
Updated: February 16, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet