How Can We Mathematically Justify the Limit in a Hard Limit Problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmboh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical limit problem involving sequences and their convergence properties. Participants are exploring how to justify a limit expression related to a sequence defined by terms a_n and b_n, particularly as n approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show a limit involving a sequence by dividing terms and reasoning about their behavior as n increases. They express uncertainty about translating their reasoning into a formal mathematical argument, considering an epsilon-delta approach.
  • Some participants question the validity of the original poster's reasoning, particularly regarding the existence of a smallest value in the sequence and the implications of terms not being close to the limit.
  • Others suggest a method of distributing error across different parts of the sequence to analyze the limit more effectively, indicating a need to balance contributions from terms that are not close to the limit.
  • Further discussion includes attempts to break down the limit expression into manageable parts and to establish bounds for the differences involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights and alternative perspectives on how to approach the limit problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the distribution of error and the structure of the limit expression, but there is no explicit consensus on a definitive method or solution yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of terms in the sequence being both close and far from the limit, and the discussion reflects the complexities of handling sequences in analysis. There are references to epsilon-delta arguments, but the specifics of these approaches remain under exploration.

mmmboh
Messages
401
Reaction score
0
[PLAIN]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2670/hardlimitproblem.jpg

I am having trouble showing this. I figured I would divide both sides by a, and show that
lim n-> infinity [(a1/a)*b1+...+(an-1/a)*bn-1+(an/a)*bn]/(b1+...+bn) = 1.

I can explain in words why I believe this to be true; as n goes to infinity, there are infinitely many terms of ai/a = 1, because as i gets really big it approaches a. Since there are infinitely many of these, and the denominator is infinite, the ai/a terms that don't approach one are negligible. The problem is I can't figure out how to translate this into math. I was thinking of somehow doing an epsilon argument, but I'm not sure how I would do that.

Help please :)

Edit: I think I have managed to bound it below...I'm not sure its legitimate though..
Let an-a = e such that |an-a| is the smallest of the |ai-a| values. Then with some algebra, we find an/a = 1+e/a...replacing all of the ai/a's in my equation with 1+e/a, we get
(1+e/a)*(b1+..+bn)/(b1+..+bn)) = 1+e/a, taking the limit as n goes to infinity, this equals 1, because an converges to a. Since 1+e/a is the smallest of the ai/a values, 1 < lim n-> infinity [(a1/a)*b1+...+(an-1/a)*bn-1+(an/a)*bn]/(b1+...+bn)...
If this is right, then I still need to bound this above by 1, which I can't figure out how to do, since taking the largest of ai/a doesn't work.

I don't think what I did works though, because I think my argument gets messed up if some of the ai/a are negative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You're right that the argument you give doesn't work, because there's no reason why there should be a smallest value of [tex]|a_n - a|[/tex] -- in fact, there won't be one, unless it's zero, because [tex]a_n \to a[/tex] means [tex]|a_n - a| \to 0[/tex].

The pattern of argument you need to use here is a common one in analysis: divide your sequence into a part which is bad one way and a part which is bad a different way, then allocate your available error between the two parts.

Imagine a term [tex]c_N = \frac{a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_N b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N}[/tex] and some cutoff point [tex]n < N[/tex]. In the beginning of the sequence, that is [tex]j < n[/tex], [tex]a_j[/tex] is not very close to [tex]a[/tex], but if you pile enough terms onto the end, you can balance that by the fact that [tex]a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_n b_n[/tex] is small compared to [tex]a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_N b_N[/tex]. In the part where [tex]j > n[/tex], you have a lot of absolute magnitude, but on the other hand you can make it so [tex]|a_j - a|[/tex] is small.
 
ystael said:
In the beginning of the sequence, that is [tex]j < n[/tex], [tex]a_j[/tex] is not very close to [tex]a[/tex], but if you pile enough terms onto the end, you can balance that by the fact that [tex]a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_n b_n[/tex] is small compared to [tex]a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_N b_N[/tex]. In the part where [tex]j > n[/tex], you have a lot of absolute magnitude, but on the other hand you can make it so [tex]|a_j - a|[/tex] is small.

Sorry you lost me there. I get that if j<n, then aj isn't close to a compared to if j>>n, and that to make the side where j>n to equal to the other side we need a lot more terms...but I don't totally get what you're saying, why these sides even have to be equal, or how I should continue.
 
Anything?
 
Sorry, I think my phrasing wasn't clear. You're not trying to make the two parts of the term equal. You're trying to distribute some error evenly between them. Think of wanting to find [tex]\left| \frac{a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_N b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} - a \right| < \epsilon[/tex], and then splitting this up into two differences, each of which is bounded by [tex]\frac\epsilon2[/tex].
 
I think I sort of get what you're saying. I thought of doing something like this, but I'm not SURE that it works.

Suppose [tex] \left| \frac{a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_N b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} - a \right| < \epsilon[/tex] then this equals [tex] \left| \frac{(a_1-a) b_1 + \cdots + (a_j-a) b_j}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right + \left \frac{(a_k-a) b_k + \cdots + (a_N-a) b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right| < \epsilon[/tex]
Choose j such that when n>j, |an-a|<[tex]\delta[/tex] (infinitely many terms),
then when n<j |an-a|>[tex]\delta[/tex] (finite number of terms). Plugging in [tex]\delta[/tex] into our equation the right side of the absolute value, we get [tex] \left| \frac{(a_1-a) b_1 + \cdots + (a_j-a) b_j}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right + \left \frac{(a_k-a) b_k + \cdots + (a_N-a) b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right|< \left|\frac{(a_1-a) b_1 + \cdots + (a_j-a) b_j}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right + \left \frac{(\delta) b_k + \cdots + (\delta) b_N}{b_1 + \cdots + b_N} \right| < \epsilon[/tex]. Since on the left side of the absolute value there are finitely many terms, and the denominator goes to infinity, that side is zero, while the limit of the right side is
[tex]\delta[/tex]. So just choose [tex]\delta < \epsilon[/tex].
Is this kind of close?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
17K
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K