Does the Limit of x^4 * 0.99^x as x Approaches Infinity Equal Zero?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JPC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite
AI Thread Summary
The limit of x^4 * 0.99^x as x approaches infinity is confirmed to equal zero. The discussion clarifies that while x^4 increases towards infinity, the term 0.99^x decreases to zero at a faster rate, leading to the overall limit being zero. There was some confusion regarding notation and terminology, particularly the use of "F" and "f" and the term "infinite indice." The participants emphasized that for any function of the form F(x) = a^x where 0 < a < 1, the limit approaches zero. Ultimately, the conclusion is that lim(+infinity) x^4 * 0.99^x = 0.
JPC
Messages
204
Reaction score
1
hey

if let's say : F(x) = 0.5^x , 0 < 0.5 < 1

is lim(+infinte) f = 0 ?

.............

this is for one of my math questions :

lim (+infinite) x^4 * 0.99^x = ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Impossible to say, since you haven't said what f is, only F.

And yes, we DO know that 0.5 lies between 0 and 1.

What is meant by infinite indice is beyond me.
 
WE have the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...,obviously the nth term gets as close to zero as we like, and so 0 is the least upper bound and since it is never less than zero, the limit is 0.
 
ok then

lim (+infinite) x^4 * 0.99^x = 0

thanks
i just had a little dougthBTW : arildno ;
- for the F and f problem
> i just made a caps mistake
- for the 0 < 0.5 < 1
> it was because the F(x) = 0.5^x was an example for any function F(x)= a^x, where a is a real number that respects (0 < a < 1)
- for "infinite indice"
> it was just to make short
 
robert Ihnot said:
WE have the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...,obviously the nth term gets as close to zero as we like, and so 0 is the least upper bound and since it is never less than zero, the limit is 0.

No, 0 is the greatest lower bound. 1/2 is the least upper bound.
 
JPC said:
ok then

lim (+infinite) x^4 * 0.99^x = 0

thanks
i just had a little dougth


BTW : arildno ;
- for the F and f problem
> i just made a caps mistake
- for the 0 < 0.5 < 1
> it was because the F(x) = 0.5^x was an example for any function F(x)= a^x, where a is a real number that respects (0 < a < 1)
- for "infinite indice"
> it was just to make short

If you mean \lim_{x\right arrow +\infnty} x^4 * 0.99^x then it is true that 0.99x goes to 0 but it does NOT follow from that alone that the whole thing goes to 0 because x^4 goes to infinity.

It happens that the limit of x40.99x is 0 because 0.99x goes to 0 faster than x4 goes to infinity0- but that has to be shown.

If, as your use of "x" rather than "n" indicates, you intended this to be a continuous limit, then x is not an "index" at all. (There is no such word as "indice" in English. "Indices" is the plural of "index".
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top