Limit of (-1)^n(2n^3)/(n^3+1) using Absolute Value Theorem

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
Jimbo57
Messages
96
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find the limit of this sequence:

(-1)n(2n3)/(n3+1)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



At first glance I would attempt to use the absolute value theorem which gives an answer of 2 as n approaches infinite. My question is, when the theorem fails ( limit =/ 0) then does that mean the sequence is divergent? I haven't seen any documentation that explicitly states an is divergent if the absolute value theorem doesn't hold.
 
on Phys.org
Jimbo57 said:

Homework Statement



Find the limit of this sequence:

(-1)n(2n3)/(n3+1)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



At first glance I would attempt to use the absolute value theorem which gives an answer of 2 as n approaches infinite. My question is, when the theorem fails ( limit =/ 0) then does that mean the sequence is divergent? I haven't seen any documentation that explicitly states an is divergent if the absolute value theorem doesn't hold.

By taking the absolute value, you're essentially stripping off the factor of (-1)n, which isn't legitimate to do. If you write down 5 or 6 terms of the sequence, you should get an idea of what it is doing.
 
From an analysis point of view assume that there is some limit L. Then, by definition, for any epsilon there must exist some N such that for all n>N. Take a small epsilon, less than the limit if there was no (-1)^n, and then show that the next term is larger than said epsilon.
 
Jufro said:
From an analysis point of view assume that there is some limit L.
Well, that's problemlematic with this limit!

Then, by definition, for any epsilon there must exist some N such that for all n>N. Take a small epsilon, less than the limit if there was no (-1)^n, and then show that the next term is larger than said epsilon.
What I would do is divide both numerator and denominator by [itex]n^3[/itex]. That gives
[tex](-1)^n\frac{2}{1+ \frac{1}{n^3}}[/tex]

If it were not for that "[itex](-1)^n[/itex]" we could immediately say that the limit, as n goes to infinity, is 2. But what does that say about the limit with that "[itex](-1)^n[/itex]"?
 
The question basically boils down to [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(-1)^n[/itex]. Does this limit converge? It was pointed out that with this term removed, the limit converges to the value of 2. This term switches between -1 and +1 every time we increase [itex]n[/itex]. Intuitively what does that mean?
 
Jimbo57 said:
My question is, when the theorem fails ( limit =/ 0) then does that mean the sequence is divergent? I haven't seen any documentation that explicitly states an is divergent if the absolute value theorem doesn't hold.

That's because an arbitrary [itex](a_n)[/itex] might still converge. If [itex]|a_n| \to L > 0[/itex] then the three possibilities are that [itex]a_n \to L[/itex], or [itex]a_n \to -L[/itex], or [itex](a_n)[/itex] diverges, having the property that for any [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there exists [itex]N \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] such that for all [itex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/itex], if [itex]n \geq N[/itex] then either [itex]|a_n - L| < \epsilon[/itex] or [itex]|a_n - (-L)| < \epsilon[/itex].