Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TverorSecret)
    Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property.
    What do you want to know? I think the proof looks okay.

    However, noting that  \displaystyle \frac{5}{n} - \frac{2}{n^2} < \frac{5}{n} , I would much rather go:

    Given  \varepsilon > 0 , take  \displaystyle N : = \Bigl \lceil \frac{5}{\varepsilon}}  \Bigl \rceil . Then,


     \displaystyle n> N \Rightarrow \Bigl\lvert 5 \left(1+\frac{1}{n} \right) - 2 \left(1+\frac{1}{n^2}\right) - 3 \Bigl\rvert < \frac{5}{n} < \varepsilon
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crashMATHS)
    What do you want to know? I think the proof looks okay.

    However, noting that  \displaystyle \frac{5}{n} - \frac{2}{n^2} < \frac{5}{n} , I would much rather go:

    Given  \varepsilon > 0 , take  \displaystyle N : = \Bigl \lceil \frac{5}{\varepsilon}}  \Bigl \rceil . Then,


     \displaystyle n> N \Rightarrow \Bigl\lvert 5 \left(1+\frac{1}{n} \right) - 2 \left(1+\frac{1}{n^2}\right) - 3 \Bigl\rvert < \frac{5}{n} < \varepsilon
    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 :_)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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 :_)
    It means the quantity to the left of := is defined by the quantity to the right - equality by definition, if you like.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TverorSecret)
    Hi I attach my work, I have made the assumption that this convergense adheres to Archimeadean's property.
    Yes, that's all fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Great yeah ic - thanks for your help.

    (Original post by Zacken)
    Yes, that's all fine.
    Awesome thnx
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TverorSecret)
    ..
    Actually, there is one (tiny) issue:

    You write that | 5 \frac{1}{n} - 2 \frac{1}{n^2} | < \frac{5}{n}-\frac{2}{n^2} but the inequality isn't actually strict; the most you can say is that

    | 5 \frac{1}{n} - 2 \frac{1}{n^2} | \leq \frac{5}{n}-\frac{2}{n^2}

    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why do you write 1/n in that way? idk just seems strange, although rest seems okay
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Actually, there is one (tiny) issue:

    You write that | 5 \frac{1}{n} - 2 \frac{1}{n^2} | < \frac{5}{n}-\frac{2}{n^2} but the inequality isn't actually strict; the most you can say is that

    | 5 \frac{1}{n} - 2 \frac{1}{n^2} | \leq \frac{5}{n}-\frac{2}{n^2}

    (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.
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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]
    You'd have to ask him/her. It's not really ideal, but it's not indefensible (if you use non-strict inequality signs).

    And yes the inequality should be strict, but for values greater than 0, then LHS = RHS for all values as OP had written
    No, it's precisely when you may have that LHS = RHS that you cannot say that LHS is strictly smaller than the RHS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TverorSecret)
    Great yeah ic - thanks for your help.



    Awesome thnx
    Why did you 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]

    (Original post by DFranklin)
    You'd have to ask him/her. It's not really ideal, but it's not indefensible (if you use non-strict 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.
    That makes more sense yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    You'd have to ask him/her. It's not really ideal, but it's not indefensible (if you use non-strict 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.
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Assuming you mean (5+n)/(2n^2), not hugely. You generally want to do two things when saying "A < B" in part of an analysis argument. First you should make sure than it's true that "A < B", but secondly, if you're then going to be working with B, you want to try to make sure B is something nice to work with. (5+n)/(2n^2) passes the first test but not the second.

    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.