A question about analysis...


by Artusartos
Tags: analysis
Artusartos
Artusartos is offline
#1
Dec16-12, 12:08 PM
P: 245
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

For question 20.16 (a) in this link:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~...04hw7sum06.pdf

I don't understand the last sentence in the solution. How/why does the limit comparison test for sequences tell us that result?

Thanks in advance

2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Lemurs match scent of a friend to sound of her voice
Repeated self-healing now possible in composite materials
'Heartbleed' fix may slow Web performance
Ray Vickson
Ray Vickson is offline
#2
Dec16-12, 12:25 PM
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 4,664
Quote Quote by Artusartos View Post
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

For question 20.16 (a) in this link:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~...04hw7sum06.pdf

I don't understand the last sentence in the solution. How/why does the limit comparison test for sequences tell us that result?

Thanks in advance

2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution
Can you have ##f_1(x_n) \leq f_2(x_n) \; \forall n## but ##\lim_{n \to \infty} f_1(x_n) > \lim_{n \to \infty} f_2(x_n)?##
Artusartos
Artusartos is offline
#3
Dec16-12, 01:15 PM
P: 245
Quote Quote by Ray Vickson View Post
Can you have ##f_1(x_n) \leq f_2(x_n) \; \forall n## but ##\lim_{n \to \infty} f_1(x_n) > \lim_{n \to \infty} f_2(x_n)?##
No but isn't that what we are trying to prove?

Of course, when I think about it, it makes sense. But I can't see any theorem like that in my textbook...

Ocifer
Ocifer is offline
#4
Dec17-12, 10:57 AM
P: 30

A question about analysis...


I've been thinking a bit about this, and I'm also curious why the Limit Comparison Test should be helpful.

Isn't the limit comparison test related not just to sequences, but specifically to infinite series? Since we're already told that both [itex]f_1[/itex] and [itex]f_2[/itex] converge to finite values as x->a+, why is it helpful that the LCT should tell us they both converge together?

In the proof provided in the OP's link, I follow most of the author's reasoning. I just don't see how LCT comes into it at all.

If this is not rigorous enough, someone please critique, but I am tempted to just leave it at the following:

Let [itex] \langle x_n \rangle [/itex] be a sequence of elements in (a,b) converging to a.

We know:
[itex] f_1(x_n) \leq f_2(x_n)[/itex], for all n

It must follow that:
[itex] \lim_{n \to \infty} f_1(x_n) \leq \lim_{n \to \infty} f_2(x_n)[/itex]

which, by hypothesis, implies:
[itex] L_1 \leq L_2 [/itex]

-------------------------------------------------

Is this also a satisfactory proof?
Ray Vickson
Ray Vickson is offline
#5
Dec17-12, 12:28 PM
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 4,664
Quote Quote by Artusartos View Post
No but isn't that what we are trying to prove?

Of course, when I think about it, it makes sense. But I can't see any theorem like that in my textbook...
It is probably regarded as obvious; in any case its proof is just about as simple as you can get; just assume the result is false and see what happens.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Matrix Analysis (Functional Analysis) Question Calculus & Beyond Homework 9
Complex analysis question: can't find similar question on internet Calculus 2
Analysis Question 3 Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
analysis question Calculus 0
analysis question Calculus & Beyond Homework 5