Limit of Sequence a_n: Find Limit as n->∞

  • Thread starter Thread starter merced
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the limit of the sequence defined by a_n = 2^n/(3^n + 1) as n approaches infinity, with a focus on the behavior of the term (2/3)^n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to analyze the limit by separating the fraction and questioning the behavior of (2/3)^n as n increases. Other participants inquire about the transformation of the sequence and the context of the problem, including its relevance to calculus or real analysis.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of the limit of (2/3)^n, with some providing insights into general results regarding limits of sequences and geometric series. There is an acknowledgment of the reasoning behind the limit approaching zero, but no explicit consensus has been reached on the overall approach.

Contextual Notes

There is a clarification regarding the sequence's definition, with a correction made by the original poster. The discussion is framed within a Calculus II context, which may influence the level of detail and reasoning expected.

merced
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
[tex]a_n = 2^n/(3^n + 1)[/tex]

Find the limit as n -> infinity

So I separated the fraction into [tex](1/3)(2/3)^n[/tex]

Then limit = 1/3 [tex]lim_(n->infinity) (2/3)^n.[/tex]

So, my question is, how do you find the limit [tex](2/3)^n.[/tex] Is analysis of functions simply enough, i.e. looking at how fast they increase?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you transform a_n into [tex](1/3)(2/3)^n[/tex]?

Btw - is this for a real analysis class or some intro calculus class?
 
Oops, sorry, I guess I didn't look hard enough at my post.

It's really [tex]a_n = \frac{2^n}{3^{n+1}}[/tex]

And it's Calculus II
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cyanide-sun
Oh ok.

Didn't you see the general result that if -1<a<1, then [itex]a^n\rightarrow 0[/itex]?

If not, and if you've seen a little bit of series theory, you can prove it this way: You know that the geometric series [itex]\sum a^n[/itex] converges for -1<a<1 and diverges otherwise. And you've also seen the basic necessary criterion for a series to converge, namely that the general term [itex]a_n[/itex] of any converging series goes to zero in the limit n-->infty.

So you can make use of these two fact by saying "I know that the geometric series of general term [itex]a_n=a^n[/itex] (where -1<a<1) converges, hence it must be that [itex]a_n=a^n\rightarrow 0[/itex] for -1<a<1."
 
Last edited:
Ok, I get what you're saying...but why is -1<a<1 here?
 
I proved that for any real number a btw -1 and 1, the limit of a^n is zero.

In particular, for a=2/3, we have that the limit of (2/3)^n is zero. Which is what you were wondering about.
 
Ooh, ok, I understand now.

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K