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

In summary, the conversation discusses how to prove using the definition of a limit that lim(x->a) x^n = a^n for all positive integers n. Different approaches are suggested, including using the algebra of limits and the definition of a limit from first principles.
  • #1
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
x->a, not n->a
 
  • #4
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:
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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
 

1. What is the limit definition for proving x^n = a^n for all positive integers n?

The limit definition for proving x^n = a^n for all positive integers n is as follows: If for any positive real number ε, there exists a positive integer N such that for all n ≥ N, |x^n - a^n| < ε, then we can say that x^n = a^n for all positive integers n.

2. How do you determine the value of N in the limit definition for proving x^n = a^n for all positive integers n?

To determine the value of N, we need to first choose a positive real number ε. Then, we need to solve the inequality |x^n - a^n| < ε for n. The value of N will be the smallest positive integer that satisfies this inequality.

3. Can the limit definition be used to prove x^n = a^n for non-integer values of n?

No, the limit definition can only be used to prove x^n = a^n for positive integer values of n. For non-integer values of n, we need to use other methods such as logarithms or the binomial theorem to prove the equality.

4. Is the limit definition the only way to prove x^n = a^n for all positive integers n?

No, there are other methods such as mathematical induction or direct proof that can be used to prove x^n = a^n for all positive integers n. However, the limit definition is a commonly used method in calculus to prove this equality.

5. Can the limit definition be used to prove x^n = a^n for negative values of x and a?

Yes, the limit definition can be used to prove x^n = a^n for negative values of x and a as long as we consider the absolute value of x and a in the inequality. This is because the absolute value of a negative number is equal to its positive equivalent, and the limit definition only considers the distance between two values, not their signs.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
255
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
574
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
549
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
512
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top