Prove that sinhkt is of exponential order |k|?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicsfan24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
physicsfan24
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that sinh(kt) is of exponential order |k|.
Find M>0, c>=0 and T>0 to show that
|f(t)|= Me^(ct), t>T


Homework Equations


|f(t)|= Me^(ct), t>T


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm looking at the graph of sinhkt (i graphed a few values of k) and indeed it is of an exponential order.

Now,
|sinhkt|<=Me^(ct), t>T

sinhkt isn't bound. So c=/=0=/=t


oh boy... help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sinh(kt)=(exp(kt)-exp(-kt))/2. Think about it.
 
Sigh...ok so,

|e^kt-e^-kt|<=2Me^ct
|e^kt-1/e^kt|<=2Me^ct
|(e^3kt-e^kt)/(e^2kt)|<=2Me^ct
|e^3kt-e^kt|<=2Me^[t(c+2k)]
...

ln|e^3kt-e^kt|<=ln|2Me^[t(c+2k)]|
ln|e^2kt - 1|+ tk <= (c+2k)*t+ln|2M|
ln|[e^2kt - 1]/(2M)]| <= (c+2k)t+kt
ln|[e^2kt - 1]/(2M)]| <= (c+3k)t


OK...? uhh... now what?
 
Last edited:
physicsfan24 said:
Sigh...ok so,

OK...? uhh... now what?

heh...its interesting how you were able to express emotion in your posts.
 
Gear300 said:
heh...its interesting how you were able to express emotion in your posts.

Its late...and I've been bashing ny head against my desk thinking about this problem
 
physicsfan24 said:
Its late...and I've been bashing ny head against my desk thinking about this problem

All that head bashing in vain, sigh. When you are trying to prove 'order of' questions you are allowed to make generous estimates. All you need is SOME M,c,T. Not a set that is in any sense optimal. I'll walk you through it. |sinh(kt)|=sinh(|kt|) which is equal to sinh(|k|t) for t>0. Now that's |exp(|k|t)-1/exp(|k|t)|/2. Which is
(1/2)*exp(|k|t)*|(1-exp(-2|k|t)|. Since the last factor goes to 1 as t->infinity there is a value of T such that for t>T, (1-exp(-2|k|t))>(1/2). Can you explicitly find such a T? So for t>T, |sinh(kt)|>(1/4)exp(|k|t). All done.
 
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