Please check my proof (L'hôpital's rule)

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 3K views
QuarkCharmer
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
3
I should have made the title say "using L'h..." rather than what it is, I apologize.

Homework Statement


Prove the compounding interest formula from the following:
[tex]A=A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]A=A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

[tex]lim_{n\to\infty}A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

[tex]A_{0}e^{t lim_{n\to\infty}n ln(a+\frac{r}{n})}[/tex]

let u = [itex]lim_{n\to\infty}n ln(a+\frac{r}{n})[/itex]

So now the desired function is [itex]A = A_{0}e^{tu}[/itex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ln(1+\frac{r}{n})}{\frac{1}{n}}[/tex]

Using L'hôpital's rule gives that:

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\frac{d}{dn}ln(1+\frac{r}{n})}{\frac{d}{dn} \frac{1}{n}}[/tex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{rn^{2}}{n^{2}+rn}[/tex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\frac{rn^{2}}{n^{2}}}{\frac{n^{2}}{n^{2}}+\frac{rn}{n^{2}}}[/tex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{r}{1+\frac{r}{n}} = \frac{r}{1} = r[/tex]

[tex]u = r[/tex]

Now, re-substituting r back in for u yields:

[tex]A = A_{0}e^{rt}[/tex]Which is the typical [itex]Pe^{rt}[/itex] formula we all know and love?

I don't want to look it up and spoil it because I think I am right. Not sure if you can raise e to the ln of something, but I don't see why not. It's not like it changes anything and I figure you have to get an e in there somehow.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Some remarks:

QuarkCharmer said:
[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ln(1+\frac{r}{n})}{\frac{1}{n}}[/tex]

Why did you drop the a?? You have exchanged a by 1. Eventually it won't matter, but I don't see how you can drop it just like that.

Using L'hôpital's rule gives that:

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\frac{d}{dn}ln(1+\frac{r}{n})}{\frac{d}{dn} \frac{1}{n}}[/tex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{rn^{2}}{n^{2}+rn}[/tex]

This is correct, but I don't see where you get it from.

Not sure if you can raise e to the ln of something, but I don't see why not. It's not like it changes anything and I figure you have to get an e in there somehow.

Yes, you can do it, and it's one of the great tricks in working with limits. Did you discover that trick all by yourself?? Great!
 
QuarkCharmer said:
I should have made the title say "using L'h..." rather than what it is, I apologize.

Homework Statement


Prove the compounding interest formula from the following:
[tex]A=A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]A=A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

[tex]lim_{n\to\infty}A_{0}(a+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}[/tex]

[tex]A_{0}e^{t lim_{n\to\infty}n ln(a+\frac{r}{n})}[/tex]

let u = [itex]lim_{n\to\infty}n ln(a+\frac{r}{n})[/itex]

So now the desired function is [itex]A = A_{0}e^{tu}[/itex]

[tex]u = lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ln(1+\frac{r}{n})}{\frac{1}{n}}[/tex]
Why did you set a=1?
 
Oh wow, yeah that "a" should have been a "1" from the start. I typed out the formula I was starting with incorrectly and then copy/paste the errors further into the problem until I finally typed a line by hand and fixed it!

I'm a horrible latex-er?

This is correct, but I don't see where you get it from.
Truth be told, I didn't want to type out the intermediate steps where I took the derivative and simplified. I know that step to be correct and this is not a real "proof" that I am turning into anyone. I am just doing some extra problems from Stuart 6E 7.8 (This one is #85).

Aside from the missing intermediate steps, and the horrid typo (I swear it's correct on my handwritten paper), everything else is okay? More specifically, if I were to document all the steps in a proof based writing (which I have no idea how to do), it would make sense how I came to the conclusion?

Thanks for all the input.
 
QuarkCharmer said:
Aside from the missing intermediate steps, and the horrid typo (I swear it's correct on my handwritten paper), everything else is okay? More specifically, if I were to document all the steps in a proof based writing (which I have no idea how to do), it would make sense how I came to the conclusion?

Yes, everything is clear and correct!
 
micromass said:
Yes, you can do it, and it's one of the great tricks in working with limits. Did you discover that trick all by yourself?? Great!

I thought so but I doubt it. I think I remember a similar tactic used in a proof of something on khanacademy and I just stole the idea.

Thanks for the help!