Prove lim na^n = 0 when 0 < a < 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that the limit of \( na^n \) approaches 0 as \( n \) approaches infinity, given that \( 0 < a < 1 \). This falls within the subject area of limits in calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various methods to prove the limit, including using L'Hospital's rule and transforming the expression into a continuous form. Some question whether simpler approaches exist, while others suggest using inductive reasoning or logarithmic properties.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with multiple approaches being explored. Participants are sharing different methods and questioning the simplicity and effectiveness of their proposed solutions. There is no explicit consensus on the best method yet.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about their mathematical skills and the complexity of the problem, indicating a potential need for clarification on foundational concepts.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Prove lim na^n = 0 when 0 < a < 1.

The attempt at a solution
Without danger, we change from the discrete n to the continuous x so that now we have to prove that lim xa^x = 0. Let e > 0. We have to find an N such that xa^x < e for all x > N. Now if xa^x < e is the same as 1 < eb^x/x, where b = 1/a. Using L'Hospital's rule, we have that lim eb^x/x = lim e(ln b)b^x = oo, so there is an N such that 1 < eb^x/x. QED

Is this the simplest way to prove this limit. For some odd reason, I feel that there is a simpler solution. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Apply L'Hopital's rule in the limit \lim x.a^x after writing x.a^x = \frac{x}{a^{-x}}.
 
My first inclination is not to use calculus at all!

Let a < u < 1. Prove that, eventually, (n+1)/n < u/a. Then, an easy inductive proof shows that 0 < n a^n < C u^n for some constant C.

I suppose technically I've used some amount of calculus in that I invoke the Archimedean property, the squeeze theorem, and knowledge that u^n converges to 0.


Come to think of it, the inductive step isn't really going to be conceptually much different from taking a derivative or a logarithmic derivative. (Though the analogy might seem opaque if you're just learning this stuff)
 
I would do it by showing log(n*a^n)/n goes to log(a) using l'Hopital. Hence log(n*a^n) approaches -infinity.
 
Thank you for the suggestions. I'm a little rusty on this stuff.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K