Why Does the Limit of Sine at Infinity Confuse Mathematicians?

The conversation is about the limit of the function \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \sin \left( 2\pi \sqrt{x^2+1} \right)and whether it exists or not. The original poster is trying to find a proof for the limit being 0, but others in the conversation argue that it does not exist. One person suggests that if x is considered to be a "very large" integer, the limit could be 0, but this is not a valid assumption. Another person suggests that the limit cannot be 0 because it would require the square root to approach a natural multiple of 1/2, which is not possible for very large values of x. The conversation ends
  • #36
dextercioby said:
NO,nonononono,the limit does not exist.I didn't change my mind.
[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi\sqrt{n^{2}+1}) [/tex]

does not exist...

Sorry, but the limit who doesn't exist is
[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sqrt{n^2+1} [/tex]

Take a look:

[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi \sqrt{n^{2}+1}) = [/tex]

[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi (int(\sqrt{n^{2}+1}) + frac(\sqrt{n^{2}+1})) ) = [/tex]

[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi frac(\sqrt{n^{2}+1}) ) = 0[/tex]

:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
dextercioby said:
Yes,that's the function... :tongue2:

It can't b zero,because the sqrt is never an integer,even for natural "n".I'm sure u know that the squares of natural numbers don't form a dense subset in N.

Daniel.

Now, I'm confused. :confused:

Hurkyl asserted this :

[itex] \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \mathrm{frac} \sqrt{x^2+1} = 0[/itex] provided x is allowed to range only over the integers.

I think you're in agreement with Hurkyl's statement above ?

But [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} (\sin {(2\pi(\sqrt{x^2 + 1})} = \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}(\sin{2\pi(\lfloor \sqrt{x^{2}+1} \rfloor + \mathrm{frac} ( \sqrt{x^{2}+1))}}[/tex]

Since [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\mathrm{frac} ( \sqrt{x^{2}+1}) = 0 [/tex], the original limit becomes :

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}(\sin{2\pi(\lfloor \sqrt{x^{2}+1} \rfloor)}[/tex]

which is zero. (for all integral x)
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Yes,i was wrong,for natural numbers,the limit is zero.See the proof above.2 posts above.

Daniel.

PS.Yes,from time to time i am wrong.I try to keep these moments as far apart as possible... :tongue2:
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Curious3141 said:
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}(\sin{2\pi(\lfloor \sqrt{x^{2}+1} \rfloor)}[/tex]

which is zero. (for all integral x)

That is zero for every real,because the function selects the closest natural number in the vecinity of [itex] \sqrt{x^{2}+1} [/itex].

I would say that the initial limit being zero it's true for all integers,but not for all reals,because the fraction part would not approach zero from the positive part...

Daniel.

PS.Analyze this limit
[tex] \lim_{x\rightarrow +\infty} \{\sqrt{x^{2}+1}\} [/tex]
for x real.It goes to zero but with alternating values.So limit of sine would not be defined.
 
  • #40
dextercioby said:
NO,nonononono,the limit does not exist.I didn't change my mind.
[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi\sqrt{n^{2}+1}) [/tex]

does not exist...

However
[tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sin(2\pi [\sqrt{n^{2}+1}]) =0 [/tex]

Do you see the difference?
What do those square paranthesis represent? :wink:

Daniel.

WRONG!Don't mislead people. :mad: The limit exists. It is ZERO.
I advise u read some Calculus.

Rogerio.
 
  • #41
I repeat, the limit only exists when n is constrained to range over integers.
 
  • #42
Yes, of course.

However this assumption is obvius from the question. As you said some posts ago,

"-- the domain is left implicit. It's one of those things you're supposed to infer from context"

and,

"you'll usually see n or m as the dummy variable when it's supposed to range over integers."

:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #43
dextercioby said:
Yes,that's the function... :tongue2:

It can't b zero,because the sqrt is never an integer,even for natural "n".I'm sure u know that the squares of natural numbers don't form a dense subset in N.

Daniel.

What?! :yuck:

It is WRONG AGAIN! Don't mislead people. :mad:

Take the advice and read some Calculus!

:grumpy:
 

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
28
Views
363
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
606
Replies
1
Views
141
  • Calculus
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
601
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
687
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top