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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on Example 3.4.3 (b) from "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G. Bartle and Donald R. Sherbert, specifically addressing the sequence defined by $$z_n := c^{\frac{1}{n}}$$ where $$c > 1$$. Participants rigorously demonstrate that $$z_n > 1$$ and $$z_{n+1} < z_n$$ for all natural numbers $$n$$. The proof leverages properties of inequalities and induction, confirming the behavior of the sequence without the use of logarithms, as they have not yet been introduced in the text.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sequences and series in real analysis
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Basic knowledge of inequalities and their properties
  • Concept of limits in the context of sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of sequences in "Introduction to Real Analysis" by Bartle and Sherbert
  • Learn about mathematical induction techniques in real analysis
  • Explore the concept of limits and convergence of sequences
  • Review the definitions and properties of logarithmic functions for future applications
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, educators teaching sequences and series, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of mathematical proofs involving sequences.

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