Proof of that a limit -> 0 as n-> infinity

  • Thread starter Jesssa
  • Start date
  • #1
51
0
Hey,

I've been trying to work out the following question,

This is it including what I hope is an ok, or on the way to an ok proof.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6156/proofxq.jpg [Broken]

The book has a hint given that states there exists N in naturals such that |z_n|<ε/2 for all n>N so I kind of tried to use that to find a bound on w_n.

Does this look okay?

Thank you in advance,

Jess
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
I like Serena
Homework Helper
6,577
176
Hey,

I've been trying to work out the following question,

This is it including what I hope is an ok, or on the way to an ok proof.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6156/proofxq.jpg [Broken]

The book has a hint given that states there exists N in naturals such that |z_n|<ε/2 for all n>N so I kind of tried to use that to find a bound on w_n.

Does this look okay?

Thank you in advance,

Jess

Hi Jesssa! :smile:

That looks close...

But why would ##|z_1+z_2+...+z_N| < \frac ε 2##?
I think that will usually not be the case.


Suppose ##z_i=\frac{10}{i}## and ##ε={1\over 10}##.
I don't think your condition will hold for any N... at all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,722
Hey,

I've been trying to work out the following question,

This is it including what I hope is an ok, or on the way to an ok proof.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6156/proofxq.jpg [Broken]

The book has a hint given that states there exists N in naturals such that |z_n|<ε/2 for all n>N so I kind of tried to use that to find a bound on w_n.

Does this look okay?

Thank you in advance,

Jess

Close, but not complete. The point is: (1) you can find K so that the first K terms contribute < ε/2 to sum z/n; and (2) |z_i| ≤ ε/2 for i = K+1, ..., n. What does (2) imply? Hint: it does not imply anything like what you wrote.

RGV
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
SammyS
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
11,368
1,035
Hey,

I've been trying to work out the following question,

This is it including what I hope is an ok, or on the way to an ok proof.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6156/proofxq.jpg

The book has a hint given that states there exists N in naturals such that |z_n|<ε/2 for all n>N so I kind of tried to use that to find a bound on w_n.

Does this look okay?

Thank you in advance,

Jess
The book's hint plus your observation that
[itex]\displaystyle w_n=\frac{z_1+z_2+z_3+\dots+z_{K}}{n}+\frac{z_{K+1}+\dots+z_n}{n}[/itex]​
are both helpful in this proof. Beyond that it seems to me that you are not very close to completing the proof.



What is it that you know?

You know that:
[itex]\displaystyle z_n\ \to\ 0\ \text{ as }\ n\ \to\ \infty[/itex]

What does this tell you about finding some integer, K, such that |zk| < ε/2 for all k > K ?​

What is it that you need to show?

You need to show that:
[itex]\displaystyle w_n\ \to\ 0\ \text{ as }\ n\ \to\ \infty[/itex]

This is true, if given any ε>0, there exists some positive integer, N, such that |wn| < ε for all n>N.​
 
  • #5
51
0
Thanks guys,

i think i got it down now,

the thing that mucked me up was considering the first set of terms,

i asked my teacher and he helped me out =]
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Proof of that a limit -> 0 as n-> infinity

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
767
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
S
Top