Prove Sequence: x>0,<n>→x,N s.t. n>N implies xn>0

  • Thread starter Thread starter silvermane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sequence
silvermane
Gold Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that if x>0 and <n> is a sequence with lim\rightarrow \infty = x, then there is a real number N such that whenever n>N we have xn>0.

The Attempt at a Solution


I was trying to prove this by contradiction, but got stuck. Any hints or tips would be greatly appreciated! No answers please :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean this?
Prove that if x>0 and (x_n)_n is a sequence with \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n}=x, then there is a real number N such that whenever n>N we have xn>0.



Try to work with the definition of limits, i.e.

\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n}=x ~\Leftrightarrow~\forall\epsilon:\exists N:\forall n&gt;N: |x_n-x|&lt;\epsilon

Can you find an epsilon small enough such that the above definition garantuees xn>0 for n>N?

If you don't see it immediately, try finding this epsilon for some examples...
 
Oh dear. I don't know what happened after I previewed it, but I meant this:
Prove that if x>0 and (x_n) is a sequence with \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}{x_n}=x, then there is a real number N such that whenever n>N we have (x_n)>0.

That atrocious type-o changed the whole meaning of my problem; I'm terribly sorry :(
 
Hey, it been a while :-).

x-e < x_n < x+e

What happens if he pick e = x/2 ?
 
lol I think I got it!

We have that x>0, and for every E>0, there exists an N such that for every n>N, we have
|xn-x| < E,
and x-E <xn<x+E

Since this is true for any E>0, then it must be true for E =1/2x.
For n>N, we have that xn > x-1/2x = 1/2x >0.
Thus, xn>0, and we are done.

haha, I think just wasn't thinking clearly when I initially looked at the question. It seems soooo easy after doing this :)

Thanks for your help :blushing:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top