Limit of (3/4)^(n+1) as n approaches infinity

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter seal308
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity Limit
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The limit of (3/4)^(n+1) as n approaches infinity is definitively 0. This conclusion is reached by recognizing that (3/4) is a continuous function, allowing the limit to be brought inside, leading to (3/4)^(∞) = 0. Additionally, using the exponential form, e^(-n ln(4/3)) also confirms that the limit approaches 0 as n approaches infinity. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the behavior of sequences where |c| < 1, which leads to the conclusion that c^n approaches 0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with continuous functions
  • Basic knowledge of exponential functions
  • Concept of sequences and their convergence
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of limits and continuity in calculus
  • Learn about exponential decay and its applications
  • Explore theorems related to composite functions and limits
  • Investigate sequences and series, particularly convergence criteria
USEFUL FOR

Students learning calculus, educators teaching limits and sequences, and anyone interested in mathematical analysis and its foundational concepts.

seal308
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I was just wondering how to solve this limit: Limit of (3/4)^(n+1) as n approaches infinity

My attempt:
(3/4)^(n+1) = (3^ (n+1) ) / (4 ^ (n+1))
Top goes to infinity and bottom goes to infinity to use l'hopital rule.
lim = ( ln(3) * 1 * 3^(n+1) ) / ( ln(4) * 1 * 4^(n+1) )

But the correct answer is apparently 0.
Not sure if I'm totally wrong or if I'm just halfway there.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think this requires l'hopital's rule. We have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^{n+1}=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^n$.
Because $(3/4)^n$ is a continuous function, we can bring the limit inside to get $(3/4)^{\infty}=0$.

EDIT:

I suppose you could also do it this way:

$e^{\ln(3/4)^n}=e^{n \ln(3/4)}=e^{-n\ln(4/3)}$
Hence, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}e^{-n\ln(4/3)}=e^{-\infty}=0$
 
Last edited:
Rido12 said:
I don't think this requires l'hopital's rule. We have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^{n+1}=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^n$.
Because $(3/4)^n$ is a continuous function, we can bring the limit inside to get $(3/4)^{\infty}=0$.

I'm just learnign about sequences right now.
What does making the limit inside mean?
Do you mean something like it becomes lim(3^(n+1) / lim(4^(n+1))
and because the denominator is bigger than the numerator it goes to zero?
 
For any $$|x|<1,\quad\lim_{n\to\infty}x^n=0$$
 
seal308 said:
Do you mean something like it becomes lim(3^(n+1) / lim(4^(n+1))
and because the denominator is bigger than the numerator it goes to zero?

This is essentially the intuition behind why the limit goes to zero. For example, if we take a number $c$ such that $|c|<1$, then obviously $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}c^{n}=0$. In this case, $c=3/4$.

There is a theorem that states for a composite function $f(g(x)$, that $\lim_{{x}\to{a}}f(g(x)=f(\lim_{{x}\to{a}}g(x))$ if $f$ is continuous at $g(a)$. In this case, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^n=(3/4)^{\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}n}=(3/4)^{\infty}=0$.
 
Last edited:
Rido12 said:
This is essentially the intuition behind why the limit goes to zero. For example, if we take a number $c$ such that $|c|<1$, then obviously $c^{\infty}=0$. In this case, $c=3/4$.

There is a theorem that states for a composite function $f(g(x)$, that $\lim_{{x}\to{a}}f(g(x)=f(\lim_{{x}\to{a}}g(x))$ if $f$ is continuous at $g(a)$. In this case, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}(3/4)^n=(3/4)^{\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}n}=(3/4)^{\infty}=0$.

Wow thanks, that makes so much sense.
Ty everyone.
 
$c^{\infty}$ is not really defined notation. It's much clearer to write that:
$$\lim_{n \to \infty} c^n = 0$$
Which can be proven for $\lvert c \rvert < 1$ through e.g. sequences and stuff.
 
Bacterius said:
$c^{\infty}$ is not really defined notation. It's much clearer to write that:
$$\lim_{n \to \infty} c^n = 0$$
Which can be proven for $\lvert c \rvert < 1$ through e.g. sequences and stuff.

I thought that would be an issue, but thought the OP would understand it better if written in a more explicit fashion. Anyway, I have edited it to reflect this.
 
The OP needs to realize that when multiplying an amount by a small fraction (i.e. with a size less than 1) you get a SMALLER number as a result. So continually multiplying by a small fraction will continually result in a smaller amount.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K