Limit of (x^n + y^n)^(m/n) n->infinity Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianMath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit of the expression (x^n + y^n)^(m/n) as n approaches infinity, specifically proving that it equals (max{x,y})^m for positive x and y. Participants are exploring the nuances of proof writing in the context of calculus and limits.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the structure and clarity of the proof, with some expressing concerns about rigor, particularly regarding special cases like x=0 and x=y. There is also a focus on the level of detail appropriate for proof writing.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided positive feedback on the proof's clarity and detail, suggesting that it is well-structured. Others have pointed out areas for improvement, such as addressing specific cases to enhance rigor. The conversation reflects a mix of validation and constructive critique.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the challenges of writing proofs in a way that balances thoroughness with clarity, particularly in an academic setting where precision is valued. There is an emphasis on the importance of addressing all relevant cases in mathematical proofs.

BrianMath
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that
\lim_{n\to \infty} (x^n + y^n)^{\frac{m}{n}} = (max\{x,y\})^m\;\;\;\forall x,y > 0
where max\{x,y\} outputs the greater of the two.


Homework Equations


\lim_{x\to x_0} (f(x))^n = (\lim_{x\to x_0} f(x))^n


The Attempt at a Solution


It's attached as a pdf file. I think I have the proof right, I would just like to know your opinions on how it is laid out. Is it too wordy, or too informal? I'm still not used to writing proofs in a way to convey information to other people, and I've heard that the only way to pick it up is through practice, so that's what I'm doing. :biggrin:
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
well, your proof is correct and convincing, and I don't think that it is too informal, you've just explained every step carefully in details which is good, that doesn't make it wordy or informal. you can avoid going into such details in your exam paper. you have to consider the case when x=0 separately if you want it to be more rigorous. (you're not allowed to factor out x^n if it's zero)
 
Last edited:
You're missing the case where x=y :smile:
 
micromass said:
You're missing the case where x=y :smile:

Ah, yes, thank you. :smile:
I've taken care of that, how is it now? :biggrin:


The way I like to write my proofs is to explain every step in detail so that even someone with a basic knowledge of calculus could understand. I think it's mostly to convince myself that I know what I'm doing, but I also want to make sure when someone grades what I do that I don't get points taken away for not providing enough steps or justification.:-p
 

Attachments

Last edited:
BrianMath said:
Ah, yes, thank you. :smile:
I've taken care of that, how is it now? :biggrin:

Now it's all fine!

The way I like to write my proofs is to explain every step in detail so that even someone with a basic knowledge of calculus could understand. I think it's mostly to convince myself that I know what I'm doing, but I also want to make sure when someone grades what I do that I don't get points taken away for not providing enough steps or justification.:-p

I think your proof was quite beautiful. If they showed it to me, then I would say that it's from a textbook. I like how you explained what you're doing, instead of just writing the calculation...
Keep writing proofs like this!
 
micromass said:
Now it's all fine!
I think your proof was quite beautiful. If they showed it to me, then I would say that it's from a textbook. I like how you explained what you're doing, instead of just writing the calculation...
Keep writing proofs like this!

Thank you for the compliment! I only ever see proofs that way in textbooks, so I was worried that I might be writing a bit too textbook-stylish (but now I see that's a good thing). I'm self taught for the most part (since I was 13), so I know when I do computations right, but the kind of ambiguity involved in the art of proof writing always made me wary of whatever I write.

Now I'm confident in my proof-writing abilities. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K