Proof that lim sup cos(n) is 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter tt2348
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 7K views
tt2348
Messages
141
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that the lim sup cos(n)=1

Homework Equations



given any [itex]α\in\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q} , \exists P_n,Q_n\in\mathbb{N}.\ni.\frac{P_n}{Q_n} \rightarrow {a}[/itex] and by definition, [itex]\frac{1}{Q_n} \rightarrow 0[/itex]

Also, [itex]cos^{2}(x)=\frac{1+cos(2x)}{2}[/itex]

My attempt

I first consider [itex]lim\:sup\:cos^{2}(n)[/itex]
We know that [itex]\exists P_n,Q_n\in\mathbb{N}.\ni.\frac{P_n}{Q_n} \rightarrow {\pi}[/itex] which means [itex]\forall \epsilon>0 \: \exists{N} \: .\ni. \forall{n}>N, \: |\frac{P_n}{Q_n}-\pi|<\epsilon[/itex]
pick [itex]N.\ni.\:\epsilon<\frac{1}{Q_{n}^2}[/itex]
So it follows that [itex]|\frac{P_n}{Q_n}-\pi|<\frac{1}{Q_{n}^2}[/itex]
and therefore [itex]|P_n-Q_n\pi|<\frac{1}{Q_n}[/itex], am I allowed to make assume by continuity that [itex]|cos^{2}(P_n)-cos^{2}(Q_n\pi)|=|cos^{2}(P_n)-1|<ε[/itex] and since [itex]P_k = a_{n_{k}}[/itex] where [itex]a_n=n[/itex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would you do all of that? You know that [itex]cos(x)\le 1[/itex] for all x and that cos(0)= 1. Therefore the maximum value of cos(x) is 1 and so is "lim sup".

(Strictly speaking "lim sup" is defined for sets, not functions, but I assume that by "lim sup cos(x)" you mean "lim sup {y| y= cos(x) for some x}".)
 
It's not for a function... but the sequence cos(n)
where n=1,2,3... and so on
obviously I know that cosine is max at 1, but i have to prove that the lim sup is 1 over natural numbers
 
to clarify, I need to show that
[itex]\stackrel{limit}{N \rightarrow{\infty}}\:sup\left\{cos(n):n\in\mathbb{N} \wedge n>N\right\}=1[/itex]
 
also... having a maximum value of 1 at 0 is not the same as having the lim sup being 1...
max value of 1/n is 1 (n=1)... but the lim sup {1/n:n is a natural number and n>N}=0
 
but as far as my proof, is it a correct assumption?