1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Hard sequence queston (calculus)

  1. Sep 27, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    if {An} converges and lim {An}=L L[tex]\neq[/tex] 0
    and {Bn} diverges then does {An X Nn} diverge? prove formally


    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution
    IMG2.jpg

    can anyone give me a hint or show a solution?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 28, 2010 #2

    hunt_mat

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Examine the sequences:
    [tex]
    a_{n}=1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}},\quad b_{n}=n
    [/tex]
     
  4. Sep 28, 2010 #3
    i dont see how that helps
     
  5. Sep 28, 2010 #4

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You'll probably find it easier to organize your proof as a proof by contradiction. Assume {a_n*b_n} converges, say to M, and a_n converges to a nonzero L. Can you show that means b_n would converge to M/L?
     
  6. Sep 28, 2010 #5
    yeah i thought of proof by contradiction to day, but i end up getting (M/(L+[tex]\epsilon[/tex]1)) < Bn< (m+[tex]\epsilon[/tex]2)/L

    and how do you get it converges to M/L? do i need to let epsilon = something?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  7. Sep 28, 2010 #6
    L<An<L +[tex]\epsilon[/tex] [tex]\leftrightarrow[/tex] [tex]\frac{1}{L +epsilon}[/tex] <[tex]\frac{1}{An}[/tex] < [tex]\frac{1}{L}[/tex]

    and M<AnBn<M+ε

    then i get [tex]\frac{M}{L+epsilon}[/tex] <Bn< [tex]\frac{M+epsilon}{L}[/tex]

    now what do i do?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  8. Sep 28, 2010 #7

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You could stop being so sloppy for one thing. What you actually want to say is for every e>0 there is an N such that for all n>N, L-e<=An<=L+e. Now if you pick e small enough so that L-e>0 (assuming L>0) then you can say 1/(L+e)<=1/An<=1/(L-e). Same sort of thing for An*Bn. Finally you want to show that you can make |Bn-M/L| as small as you want by picking e small enough. You could skip all of this epsilon-delta business if you have a theorem that says if an->A and bn->B and B is nonzero then an/bn->A/B.
     
  9. Sep 28, 2010 #8
    wait how do you get to |Bn-M/L|<e?
     
  10. Sep 28, 2010 #9

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You write down an expression like ...<Bn<... and subtract M/L. Then take the absolute value and show you can make the upper and lower bounds as small as you want. Are you sure you don't have a theorem about the quotient of limits?
     
  11. Sep 28, 2010 #10
    so some thing like this?
    and for the quotient of limits you need both An and Bn to converge to use that, but Bn does not converge so i cant use that


    IMG_0002.jpg
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  12. Sep 28, 2010 #11

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No. For one thing |an-L|<e becomes L-e<an<L+e. It doesn't imply L<an. And choosing your epsilons to be L and M doesn't help at all. One more time with the question, you don't have a theorem about lim an/bn when lim bn is not zero?
     
  13. Sep 28, 2010 #12
    for the quotient of limits you need both An and Bn to converge to use that, but Bn does not converge so i cant use that. and i dont understand how to get the upper and lower bounds, can you please explain it?
     
  14. Sep 28, 2010 #13

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    |An-L|<e means -e<An-L<e. And if you have the limit of quotients theorem, apply it to an*bn/an. The numerator and denominator of that both converge if you are assuming an*bn->M. Applying the theorem will save you from all this epsilon monkey business, which you don't seem to have a very good handle on. No offense.
     
  15. Sep 28, 2010 #14
    then is this right ?
    and that says DNE not one in the picture

    IMG4.jpg
     
  16. Sep 28, 2010 #15

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's basically it. You should maybe mention you can apply the theorem because lim (an)=L and L is not zero.
     
  17. Sep 28, 2010 #16
    ok thanks , just out of curiosity how would you prove it with epsilons
     
  18. Sep 28, 2010 #17
    is this right using epsilons?

    Untitled.jpg
     
  19. Sep 28, 2010 #18
    Use reductio ad absurdum.
     
  20. Sep 28, 2010 #19
    please explain how you would do the contradiction
     
  21. Sep 28, 2010 #20
    1. If [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}{\{a_{n}\}} = L, \; L \neq 0[/itex] show that, starting from some [itex]n_{0}[/itex], [itex]|a_{n}| > 0, \forall n \ge n_{0}[/itex];

    2. Assume the opposite is true, namely [itex]c_{n} \equiv a_{b} \, b_{n}[/itex] converges;

    3. Because of 1, it makes sense to define the sequence [itex]c_{n}/a_{n}, \; \forall n \ge n_{0}[/itex]. Because both [itex]\{a_{n}\}[/itex] and [itex]\{c_{n}\}[/itex] are convergent, what can we say about their quotient?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook