MHB Proving $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$ with $\lim_{n \to +\infty}f(n)=+\infty$

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Smile)

I want to show that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.

$f(n)=O(g(n))$ means that $\exists c_1>0, n_1 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_1$: $f(n) \leq c_1g(n)$.

$\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ means that $\forall M>0 \exists n_2 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_2$: $f(n)>M$.

We want to show that $\exists c_2>0, n_0 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_0$: $f(n)+c<c_2 g(n)$

That's what I have tried:$$M<f(n) \leq c_1 g(n) \Rightarrow M+c < f(n)+c \leq c_1g(n)+c \Rightarrow \frac{M+c}{g(n)} < \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq \frac{ c_1g(n)+c}{g(n)} \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{M+c}{g(n)}< \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{ c_1g(n)+c}{g(n)} \overset{\star}{\Rightarrow} 0<\lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq c_1 \\ \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)}=a \in (0,c_1] \Rightarrow f(n)+c=\Theta(g(n)) \Rightarrow f(n)+c=O(g(n)) $$$$ \star: f(n) \leq c_1 g(n) \wedge \lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} c_1 g(n)=+\infty \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty}g(n)=+\infty $$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you proved too much. Take $c=0$. The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I think you proved too much. Take $c=0$. The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.

I see (Nod) But it holds for all $c>0$.. Or am I wrong? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
I see (Nod) But it holds for all $c>0$.
What do you see and what holds for all $c>0$?
 
For $c=0$ we don't have to show anything since $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ trivially implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.

For $c>0$ that what I wrote holds, or not? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
For $c=0$ we don't have to show anything since $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ trivially implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.
Slowly exhales. Let's try this again.

Evgeny.Makarov said:
The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.
I said this because you deduced $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$ from $f(n)+c=\Theta(g(n))$.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top