Analysis(sequences) proof: multiplying infinite limit at infinity by 0

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the behavior of the limit of a sequence multiplied by a constant, specifically when the limit of the sequence diverges to infinity. The subject area is sequences and limits in real analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of multiplying a divergent sequence by different constants, questioning the application of definitions of limits and divergence. There is discussion about using the sandwich theorem and the possibility of proving by contradiction. Some participants express uncertainty about the sufficiency of their reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their thoughts on various approaches to the problem. Some have suggested using definitions of limits and divergence, while others are questioning the validity of their assumptions and reasoning. No consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the definitions of limits and divergence, particularly in the context of sequences approaching infinity and the behavior of the product with zero. There are indications of confusion regarding the application of theorems and the nature of limits in specific cases.

K29
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let [tex]\stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}}a_{n} = \infty[/tex]
Let [tex]c \in R[/tex]
Prove that
[tex]\stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}} ca_{n}=[/tex]

[tex]\infty[/tex] for [tex]c>0[/tex] (i)

[tex]- \infty[/tex] for [tex]c<0[/tex] (ii)

[tex]0[/tex] for [tex]c=0[/tex] (iii)

Homework Equations


Definition of divergence to infinity (infinite limit at infinity)
[tex]\forall A \in R. \exists K\in R[/tex] such that [tex]a_{n} \geq A, \forall n \geq K[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


For the first two cases I just used the above definition and essentially multiplied c by the inequality.
For the c=0 case used the definition for a finite limit:
[tex]\forall \epsilon > 0 \exists K_{\epsilon} \in R[/tex] such that [tex]\forall n \in N, n \geq K_{\epsilon}, |a_{n}-L|<\epsilon[/tex]
Now if I can squeeze [tex]0 \leq |c a_{n}-0| \leq ?=0[/tex] then I'm done
But I can't see an upper limit for the inequality.Stuck there.
Or is there a way to prove this by contradiction instead of the way I've chosen.
Help?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
But in the case where c = 0, what is can?
 
Its 0.So sure, the sandwich theorem can't work. So could it be as simple as using the definition of divergence to get contradicion.
I must have [tex]ca_n \geq A, \forall A[/tex] but by fixing n I get [tex]ca_{n}=0 < A[/tex]. Contradiciton.
But is it enough to say that it does not diverge to infinity and minus infinity therefore it must converge to zero? Surely not?
 
Last edited:
Oh wait I think I see somthing else
Using the theorem that says
If [tex]|a_{n}-L|=0 \forall n[/tex] then [tex]|a_{n}-L| < \epsilon[/tex] etc etc defn of limit.
So I could prove by induction that |[tex]ca_{n}-0|=0[/tex] or more simply that
[tex]ca_{n}=0 \forall n[/tex] But then I get stuck on what to do with
[tex]ca_{n+1}[/tex]
 
LCKurtz said:
But in the case where c = 0, what is can?

K29 said:
Its 0.So sure, the sandwich theorem can't work.

You are trying to make |can - 0| < ε

If can = 0, how hard is that?
 
I thought I'd have to prove [tex]ca_{n} = 0 \forall n[/tex] by induction. But I've thought about it and I think I see that I shouldn't need to
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K