Finding Smallest Value of N in Infinite Sequence to Satisfy Condition

  • Thread starter Thread starter aceetobee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Sequence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on finding the smallest value of N such that the condition abs((2n)^(1/n) - 1) < 0.01 holds true. Through trial and error, the value of N was determined to be 734. Theoretical exploration suggests that the Lambert's W function may be necessary for a formal solution, as the equation involves n in both the base and the exponent. Additionally, the limit of the sequence (2n)^(1/n) approaches 1 as n approaches infinity, making the search for the smallest N for a specific epsilon unnecessary for proving the limit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with Lambert's W function
  • Knowledge of exponential functions and their properties
  • Experience with sequence convergence concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of Lambert's W function
  • Study the product theorem for limits in calculus
  • Explore advanced techniques for proving limits of sequences
  • Learn about epsilon-delta definitions in limit proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in advanced limit proofs and sequence analysis will benefit from this discussion.

aceetobee
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I want to find the smallest value of N (n > N) such that the following is true:

abs((2n)^(1/n) - 1) < 0.01

So basically, I'm looking for the term of the sequence (2n)^(1/n) which is less than 0.01 from the limit of the sequence... by trial and error, I found it to be 734.

But I'm looking ofr a theoretical solution. Any help as to what I'm missing here?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So you want 0.99< (2n)n< 1.01. That's basically looking for
(2n)n= 1.01 Since that involves n both in the base and the exponent, you won't be able to find any solution in terms of elementary functions. You might be able to use "Lambert's W function":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert's_W_function
 
aceetobee, are you trying to prove that [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (2n)^{\frac{1}{n}} = 1[/itex]? If so, then trying to find the smallest N for each epsilon is not necessary. If you actually do need to find the smallest N then disregard this post.

When proving limits of sequences, we don't care about the smallest possible value of N for a particular epsilon, all we care is that an N exists having the property that n>N implies (insert the rest of the limit definition here). Note if we do have an N that works, we could just as well replace it with any larger number.

To prove this limit, I would use the fact that
[tex](2n)^{\frac{1}{n}} = (2^{\frac{1}{n}})(n^{\frac{1}{n}})[/tex]
and use the product theorem for limits.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
20K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K