Optimizing n for ε in a Square Root Expression

  • Thread starter Thread starter peripatein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression
peripatein
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Is there a better way to find n such that for every n>n0 |sqrt(n^2+3)-sqrt(n^2-1)|<ε?
I have tried reformulating the expression on the left side so that only one of the square roots remains, to not much avail. The only way I could solve it was by squaring both sides. I did get the correct expression for ε for every ε<1, but it does not work for larger ε's, hence, alas, it is wrong.
Any word of advice, please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
peripatein said:
Hello,

Is there a better way to find n such that for every n>n0 |sqrt(n^2+3)-sqrt(n^2-1)|<ε?
I have tried reformulating the expression on the left side so that only one of the square roots remains, to not much avail. The only way I could solve it was by squaring both sides. I did get the correct expression for ε for every ε<1, but it does not work for larger ε's, hence, alas, it is wrong.
Any word of advice, please?

I don't see why you would need to worry about ##\epsilon## ≥ 1. In fact, you should probably be able to assume that ##\epsilon## < 1 - the whole goal of this exercise is to show that you can choose n large enough so that the difference of the two square roots is arbitrarily small.
 
Thank you very much for replying.
n0 >= sqrt(epsilon^4-4epsilon^2+16)*1/(2epsilon)
Which not only seems very messy but also yields wrong results for epsilon greater than 1. The question states that epsilon is positive, so I presume my expression must hold for any epsilon, even if greater than 1.
I know that the right answer should probably be 1/(2epsilon), but how may I derive it?
 
My bad, I meant that the right answer should probably be 2/epsilon!
 
peripatein said:
Thank you very much for replying.
n0 >= sqrt(epsilon^4-4epsilon^2+16)*1/(2epsilon)
If ##\epsilon## is suitably small, then ##\epsilon^4## and ##\epsilon^2## can be neglected. This makes the expression on the right side approximately equal to √16/##2\epsilon##, which gives you the (corrected) result below.
peripatein said:
Which not only seems very messy but also yields wrong results for epsilon greater than 1. The question states that epsilon is positive, so I presume my expression must hold for any epsilon, even if greater than 1.

I know that the right answer should probably be (edit: corrected from later post) [STRIKE]1/(2epsilon)[/STRIKE] 2/##\epsilon##, but how may I derive it?
 
But what if epsilon were equal to 40? In that case epsilon^4 and epsilon^2 may not be neglected and 2/epsilon still yields the right value for n0, whereas sqrt(epsilon^4-4epsilon^2+16)*1/(2epsilon) doesn't!
 
peripatein said:
But what if epsilon were equal to 40?
Why would anyone care? ##\epsilon## is almost always used to represent small (close to 0) numbers.
peripatein said:
In that case epsilon^4 and epsilon^2 may not be neglected and 2/epsilon still yields the right value for n0, whereas sqrt(epsilon^4-4epsilon^2+16)*1/(2epsilon) doesn't!
 
peripatein said:
But what if epsilon were equal to 40? In that case epsilon^4 and epsilon^2 may not be neglected and 2/epsilon still yields the right value for n0, whereas sqrt(epsilon^4-4epsilon^2+16)*1/(2epsilon) doesn't!
Since that is a decreasing function of n, and is 2 when n= 1, as soon as \epsilon is larger than 2, you can take n_0= 1.
 
Back
Top