torquerotates
- 207
- 0
Now this is an example in my book that I don't really understand. It says prove that the limit of (4n^(3)+3n)/(n^(3)-6))=4 as n goes to infinity.
Basically the definition of a limit of a sequence as n->infinity is as follows.
Lim{a}=L
For any epsilion>0 there is a N>0 such that n>N=> |{a}-L|<epsilion
So here's the book's solution. I just don't know why they found upper bounds.
|(4n^(3)+3n)/(n^(3)-6) - 4|=|(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)|<epslion
but if n>or=2, (3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion.
(3n+24)<or =30n
& (n^(3)-6)>or =(1/2)n^(3)
So, (3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<or= (30n)/( (1/2)n^(3))<epsion
=> 60/n^(2)<epslion
=> (60/epslion)^(-1/2)<n
so this implies that we make N=max{2, (60/epslion)^(-1/2)}
Now here's my much more simplistic solution.
I never found a reason why they used an upper bound. Wouldn't a lower bound work just as well?
(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion. { still given that n>or=2}
n/(n^(2)) <(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion. Now I chose the denominator,n^2, arbitaritly just to make just sure that the denominator becomes smaller.
So solving, 1/epslion<n. This implies that we make N=max{2, 1/epsilion}.
See how simple this is. I didn't even use equal to or greater than/ less than. I just used a straightforward inequality. But is it correct? I have no clue why the book did it with upper bounds.
Basically the definition of a limit of a sequence as n->infinity is as follows.
Lim{a}=L
For any epsilion>0 there is a N>0 such that n>N=> |{a}-L|<epsilion
So here's the book's solution. I just don't know why they found upper bounds.
|(4n^(3)+3n)/(n^(3)-6) - 4|=|(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)|<epslion
but if n>or=2, (3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion.
(3n+24)<or =30n
& (n^(3)-6)>or =(1/2)n^(3)
So, (3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<or= (30n)/( (1/2)n^(3))<epsion
=> 60/n^(2)<epslion
=> (60/epslion)^(-1/2)<n
so this implies that we make N=max{2, (60/epslion)^(-1/2)}
Now here's my much more simplistic solution.
I never found a reason why they used an upper bound. Wouldn't a lower bound work just as well?
(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion. { still given that n>or=2}
n/(n^(2)) <(3n+4)/(n^(3)-6)<epslion. Now I chose the denominator,n^2, arbitaritly just to make just sure that the denominator becomes smaller.
So solving, 1/epslion<n. This implies that we make N=max{2, 1/epsilion}.
See how simple this is. I didn't even use equal to or greater than/ less than. I just used a straightforward inequality. But is it correct? I have no clue why the book did it with upper bounds.