Proving Limit Definition: x^n = a^n for all positive integers n

  • Thread starter Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the limit definition that states lim(x->a) x^n = a^n for all positive integers n. Participants are exploring various approaches to establish this limit using definitions and properties of limits.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to factor x^n - a^n and is seeking assistance with the implications of the factors for determining delta in the limit definition.
  • Some participants suggest using the algebra of limits to express x^n as a product of n instances of x, questioning whether this approach is valid.
  • Others raise concerns about the applicability of certain methods, particularly when n is not a power of 2, and discuss the need to prove foundational limit properties.
  • There is a question about whether the limit of a product can be directly applied in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with multiple perspectives being explored. Some participants provide guidance on the properties of limits, while others question the validity of specific approaches. There is no explicit consensus, but various lines of reasoning are being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of using limit definitions and properties, with some expressing uncertainty about the implications of their approaches. There is mention of a typo that may have led to confusion regarding the limit variable.

Icebreaker
Prove using the def of lim that lim(x->a) x^n = a^n for all positive integers n.

The limit is obviously a^n. I've factored x^n - a^n and got

[tex](x^{n/2}+a^{n/2})(x^{n/4}+a^{n/4})(x^{n/8}+a^{n/8})...(x+a)(x-a)[/tex]

Now, I have my x-a, which is needed for determining delta, i.e., |x-a|<d. However, that long chain of factors before it I have no idea how to get rid of. I could look for an upper bound, but it's unbounded. Can anyone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Couldn't you just write

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow a}x^n = \lim_{n\rightarrow a}(x\cdot x\cdot\dots\cdot x)[/tex]

Where there are n x's in that product. Then use the algebra of limits to split this into

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow a}x \cdot \lim_{n\rightarrow a}x \cdot \dots \cdot \lim_{n\rightarrow a}x[/tex]

again n times.

Then use the definition of a limit that

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow a}x = a[/tex]

and conclude that

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow a}x^n = \lim_{n\rightarrow a}a\cdot \lim_{n\rightarrow a} \cdot \dots \cdot \lim_{n\rightarrow a}a[/tex]

n times. Which is obviously

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow a}a^n[/tex]

again by the algebra of limits.
 
x->a, not n->a
 
I could look for an upper bound, but it's unbounded.
No it's not.

Incidentally, your approach only works when n is a power of 2. Try:

[tex] p^n - q^n = (p-q) (p^{n-1} + p^{n-2}q + \cdots + p q^{n-2} + q^{n-1})[/tex]


(P.S. n->a was just a typo in Oxymoron's post. His approach works too)
 
Last edited:
But using Oxymoron's approach, by the definition of a limit alone, can we say lim x^n = (lim x)^n? Or perhaps I misunderstood something.
 
Well, Oxymoron's approach uses the first properties of limits (in particular, that the limit of a product is the product of limits), so I guess it's not appropriate for your exercise.
 
No. My approach uses both. You can use the algebra of limits to do the tedious work, but when it comes down to it, you still have to prove that

[tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow a} x = a[/tex]

then once you prove this from first prinicples (which is REALLY EASY) you know it works for

[tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow a} x^n = a^n[/tex]

which is just by the algebra of limits. So it uses both: properties of a limit AND the actual definition from first principles.

PS. Sorry about the typo
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K