Exploring Limits with Irrational Exponents

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of limit proof for irrational exponents. The question is whether the limit inside a power with an irrational exponent is equal to the limit of the base raised to that exponent. The conversation explores this question for both sequences and functions, and mentions that the proof for natural numbers is simple but may not hold for irrational exponents. It also suggests using the definition of an irrational exponent (exp{p logx}) and the continuity of logarithms and exponentials to find a proof for irrational exponents. The participants also express gratitude for the help and mention the possibility of returning for further discussions in the future.
  • #1
sutupidmath
1,630
4
limit proof??

well what i am trying to understand,actually proof is if we can get with the limit inside a power (exponent) if the exponent is irrational.
Say we have any sequence (a_n) or any function f(x), let p be irrational then can we do the following, if yes why, if not why?

1. for the sequence

l
[tex]\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} (a_n)^{p} =(\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} a_n)^{p}[/tex] ?
and
2.[tex]\lim_{\substack{\\x\rightarrow x_o}} (f(x))^{p} =(\lim_{\substack{\\x\rightarrow x_o}} f(x))^{p} [/tex]

I know how to prove this but only when p is from naturals. HOwever i have never come across any such a problem. Only today suddenly this idea crossed my mind, so i thought i might get some suggesstions here.
So what is the proper answer to this??


thnx in advance

P.S if you could tell me where i could find a proof for this, i would be really grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
(Sorry, this post isn't planning to add much, I'm just rambling a little to see what I come up with).

So for natrual numbers it's pretty simple assuming that:

[tex] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_na_n = \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right) \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)[/tex]

First of all, I want to point out that this may not be true, take the sequence an = (-1)n

So do you have to make a simmilar assumption with p as an irrational? I think so, I also think you have to clearly define what you're talk about when you mean anp where p is irrational, it's probabily wise to go back to that definition and try and build it up from there, clearly stating any assumptions.
 
  • #3
Zurtex said:
(Sorry, this post isn't planning to add much, I'm just rambling a little to see what I come up with).

So for natrual numbers it's pretty simple assuming that:

[tex] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_na_n = \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right) \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)[/tex]

First of all, I want to point out that this may not be true, take the sequence an = (-1)n

So do you have to make a simmilar assumption with p as an irrational? I think so, I also think you have to clearly define what you're talk about when you mean anp where p is irrational, it's probabily wise to go back to that definition and try and build it up from there, clearly stating any assumptions.

I am assuming that the limit of the sequence (a_n) actually exists, when p is natural, but what for example when p is irrational, this is what i am trying to show. let say a_n=(2n-1)/(n+1), so what can we say now for the limit

[tex]\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} (a_n)^{p} =(\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} a_n)^{p}[/tex]

when p is natural i can clearly go like this, as u stated

[tex]\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} (a_n)^{p} =\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_na_na_n ...a_n = \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right) \left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)\left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)\left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)...\left( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n \right)=(\lim_{\substack{\\n\rightarrow \infty}} a_n)^{p}[/tex]

But again i cannot figure out how to do it when we have p irrational?? I can clearly not performe the same thing as i did above assuming that p natural.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Follow Zurtex's advice: what is x^p for p irrational? It is exp{p logx}, and log is continuous, multiplication by p is continuous, and exp is continuous.
 
  • #5
matt grime said:
Follow Zurtex's advice: what is x^p for p irrational? It is exp{p logx}, and log is continuous, multiplication by p is continuous, and exp is continuous.

ohoho

I think i need to be much more vigilent in the future. I think i got it now.

Many thanks to u guys.

P.s. If by any chance,in the future, i might encounter any other problems, or need further clarifications, concerning these kind of problems, i will be back. I hope u won't mind.
 

Related to Exploring Limits with Irrational Exponents

What are irrational exponents?

Irrational exponents are exponents that cannot be expressed as a rational number, meaning they cannot be written as a fraction of two integers. They are typically represented by a decimal or radical form, such as √2 or 3.14.

Why do we use irrational exponents?

Irrational exponents are used to represent quantities that cannot be written as a whole number or fraction, such as the area of a circle or the volume of a sphere. They also allow for more precise calculations and can be used to solve certain mathematical problems.

How do we calculate with irrational exponents?

To calculate with irrational exponents, we use the properties of exponents. For example, to multiply two numbers with irrational exponents, we add the exponents. To divide, we subtract the exponents. For powers of irrational numbers, we use the rules of exponents, such as (a^m)^n = a^(m*n).

What are some real-world applications of irrational exponents?

Irrational exponents are used in various fields such as physics, engineering, and finance. They can be used to calculate compound interest, measure rates of change, and solve problems involving curved shapes or volumes.

What are some common misconceptions about irrational exponents?

One common misconception is that irrational exponents always result in irrational numbers. However, this is not always the case. For example, √9 = 3, which is a rational number. Another misconception is that irrational exponents are always negative, but they can also be positive, such as √4 = 2.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
751
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
238
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
984
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top