Proving Limit of sin (n!*R*π) for Rational R

  • Thread starter Thread starter happyg1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the limit of sin(n!*R*π) approaches zero for rational R. The user rewrites R as a/b and identifies that for n=b, all subsequent terms will be zero, indicating convergence. They initially struggle with the definition of a limit and how to relate epsilon to their variables. Eventually, they realize that including b in their calculations is crucial for understanding convergence. The conversation highlights the importance of algebraic manipulation in limit proofs.
happyg1
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Here is my dilemma: I am to prove that sin (n!*R*pi) has a limit, where R is a rational number. I rewrite R as a/b and I can see that whenever n=b, every subsequent term will be zero. I have tried to write this out using the definition of a limit, but I can't seem to break it down. I have been looking at these problems for a long time and I am blocked on this one.
Thanks in advance,
CC
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a sequence a_n, we say that a_n \rightarrow L if for every \epsilon > 0 we can find an N(\epsilon) such that | a_n - L | < \epsilon for n > N(\epsilon).

You have guessed correctly that the limit is 0. Now I give you an \epsilon and ask you to tell me where I should start looking so that the terms of the sequence are always closer than \epsilon to the limit. Tell me where to look by giving me N. You've already pointed out that the terms of the sequence equal the limit beyond a certain point ...
 
Last edited:
hey,
I think I got it. I wasn't including my b in the expansion of the n! as the spot where the sequence converges. I couln't relate the epsilon to the b or the n. It's just the algebra. That's what was giving me the headache. I had been doing the ones that are all polynomials and my brain was fried.

CC
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top