Limits of Sequences .... Bartle and Shebert, Example 3.4.3 (b) ....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding Example 3.4.3 (b) from "Introduction to Real Analysis" by Bartle and Sherbert, specifically focusing on the properties of the sequence defined by $$z_n := c^{\frac{1}{n}}$$ where $$c > 1$$. Participants seek to rigorously demonstrate that $$z_n > 1$$ and that $$z_{n+1} < z_n$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if $$c > 1$$, then it follows that $$z_{n+1} < z_n$$ by manipulating the inequality $$c^n < c^{n+1}$$ and applying the power $$\frac{1}{n(n+1)}$$.
  • Others inquire about the proof that $$z_n > 1$$, with various approaches suggested, including induction and logarithmic reasoning.
  • One participant notes that the logarithm function has not been introduced in the book at this stage, which limits the methods available for proving $$z_n > 1$$.
  • There is a discussion about the rigor of the book's development of real analysis, particularly regarding foundational definitions like $$1 + 1 = 2$$ and whether such definitions are explicitly mentioned.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method to prove that $$z_n > 1$$, as some approaches rely on concepts not yet introduced in the text. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the rigor of the book's foundational definitions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the absence of the logarithm function in the current chapter, which affects the proofs being discussed. Additionally, the discussion touches on foundational definitions that may or may not be explicitly stated in the book.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) b Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: Sequences and Series ...

I need help in fully understanding Example 3.4.3 (b) ...Example 3.4.3 (b) ... reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7230
In the above text from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Note that if $$z_n := c^{ \frac{1}{n} }$$ then $$z_n \gt 1$$ and $$z_{ n+1 } \lt z_n$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$. (Why?) ... "Can someone help me to show rigorously that $$z_n \gt 1$$ and $$z_{ n+1 } \lt z_n$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$ ... ... ?Hope that someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above text from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Note that if $$z_n := c^{ \frac{1}{n} }$$ then $$z_n \gt 1$$ and $$z_{ n+1 } \lt z_n$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$. (Why?) ... "Can someone help me to show rigorously that $$z_n \gt 1$$ and $$z_{ n+1 } \lt z_n$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$ ... ... ?
If $c>1$ then $c^n < c^{n+1}$. Raise both sides to the power $\frac1{n(n+1)}$ to get $c^{1/(n+1)} < c^{1/n}$. In other words, $z_{n+1} < z_n.$
 
Opalg said:
If $c>1$ then $c^n < c^{n+1}$. Raise both sides to the power $\frac1{n(n+1)}$ to get $c^{1/(n+1)} < c^{1/n}$. In other words, $z_{n+1} < z_n.$

Thanks Opalg ... but ... can you indicate how we prove that $$z_n \gt 1$$ ... ?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks Opalg ... but ... can you indicate how we prove that $$z_n \gt 1$$ ... ?

Peter
Suppose that $z_n\leqslant1$. Then $z_n^2 \leqslant z_n \leqslant 1$, $z_n^3 \leqslant z_n^2 \leqslant 1$, ... , and by induction $z_n^k\leqslant 1$ for all $k\in\Bbb{N}.$ In particular, $z_n^n = c \leqslant1$. But that contradicts the fact that $c>1$. So the initial supposition was wrong, and therefore $z_n>1.$
 
Peter said:
Thanks Opalg ... but ... can you indicate how we prove that $$z_n \gt 1$$ ... ?

Peter

$$c>1\Longrightarrow lnc>ln1\Longrightarrow lnc>0\Longrightarrow\frac{1}{n}lnc>0\Longrightarrow lnc^{\frac{1}{n}}>ln1\Longrightarrow c^{\frac{1}{n}}>1 $$
 
solakis said:
$$c>1\Longrightarrow lnc>ln1\Longrightarrow lnc>0\Longrightarrow\frac{1}{n}lnc>0\Longrightarrow lnc^{\frac{1}{n}}>ln1\Longrightarrow c^{\frac{1}{n}}>1 $$
This problem comes from the book by Bartle and Sherbert, which aims to develop real analysis rigorously from first principles. At this stage of the book the logarithm function has not yet been introduced, so it is not available for use.
 
Opalg said:
This problem comes from the book by Bartle and Sherbert, which aims to develop real analysis rigorously from first principles. At this stage of the book the logarithm function has not yet been introduced, so it is not available for use.

In another thread the book asks us in exercise 2.1.12(1) to prove :

$$a>0\Longrightarrow 0<\frac{a}{2}<a$$

To prove that we need the definition 1+1=2

Does the book mention that definition anywhere ?

If the answer is yes then i stop the discussion here

But if the answer is no, then one may wonder how rigorously the book aims to develop real analysis.

However one may say ,but 1+1=2 is so well known that the book may omit such obvious definition.

In the same way lun function is so well known even in high school that we may use it,
although the book examines it in more details in later sections
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K