MHB Proving limit of a given sequence

  • Thread starter Thread starter issacnewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the limit of the sequence \( \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left((2n)^{1/n}\right) = 1 \). The initial approach involves demonstrating that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 0 \) and attempting to establish \( (2n)^{1/n} > 1 \) through contradiction. A contradiction arises when assuming \( (2n)^{1/n} \leq 1 \), leading to the conclusion that \( n < \frac{1}{2} \), which is impossible for natural numbers. The user seeks guidance on employing basic theorems like Bernoulli's inequality or the Binomial theorem to complete the proof without using logarithms. The discussion emphasizes the need to stay within the scope of fundamental concepts introduced in the text.
issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
HelloI want to prove the following.
\[ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left((2n)^{1/n}\right) = 1 \]
where \( n \in \mathbb{N} \). Now since we have nth root of a positive number,
I used theorem on the existence of nth root to argue that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 0 \).
Next I tried to prove that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 1 \) as following. Assume that
\( (2n)^{1/n} \leqslant 1 \). If \( (2n)^{1/n} = 1 \) then \( 2n = 1\Rightarrow \; n = \frac{1}{2} \) , which is a contradiction since \( n\in \mathbb{N} \). So if \( (2n)^{1/n} < 1 \) then \( 0< (2n)^{1/n} < 1 \).
Then we have
\[ (2n)^{1/n} = \frac{1}{1+a} \]
for some \( a > 0 \). It follows that
\[ 2n = \frac{1}{(1+a)^n} \]
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n = \frac{1}{1+na+\ldots} \]
Since \( a>0 \), we have \( (1+na + \ldots ) > 1 \). So
\[ \frac{1}{1+na+\ldots} < 1 \]
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n < 1 \]
which means \( n < \frac{1}{2} \). Since \( n\in \mathbb{N} \), this
leads to contradiction. So I proved that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 1 \). If this is so,
then it can be written as
\[ (2n)^{1/n} = 1 + k \]
for some \( k > 0 \).
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n = (1+k)^n \]
Till this far I have come. I am thinking of either using Binomial theorem or
Bernoulli's inequality. Any guidance will be helpful. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IssacNewton said:
HelloI want to prove the following.
\[ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left((2n)^{1/n}\right) = 1 \]
where \( n \in \mathbb{N} \). Now since we have nth root of a positive number,
I used theorem on the existence of nth root to argue that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 0 \).
Next I tried to prove that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 1 \) as following. Assume that
\( (2n)^{1/n} \leqslant 1 \). If \( (2n)^{1/n} = 1 \) then \( 2n = 1\Rightarrow \; n = \frac{1}{2} \) , which is a contradiction since \( n\in \mathbb{N} \). So if \( (2n)^{1/n} < 1 \) then \( 0< (2n)^{1/n} < 1 \).
Then we have
\[ (2n)^{1/n} = \frac{1}{1+a} \]
for some \( a > 0 \). It follows that
\[ 2n = \frac{1}{(1+a)^n} \]
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n = \frac{1}{1+na+\ldots} \]
Since \( a>0 \), we have \( (1+na + \ldots ) > 1 \). So
\[ \frac{1}{1+na+\ldots} < 1 \]
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n < 1 \]
which means \( n < \frac{1}{2} \). Since \( n\in \mathbb{N} \), this
leads to contradiction. So I proved that \( (2n)^{1/n} > 1 \). If this is so,
then it can be written as
\[ (2n)^{1/n} = 1 + k \]
for some \( k > 0 \).
\[ \Rightarrow \; 2n = (1+k)^n \]
Till this far I have come. I am thinking of either using Binomial theorem or
Bernoulli's inequality. Any guidance will be helpful. Thanks

May be that Your task is simplified if You try to find...

$\displaystyle \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \ln\ \{ (2\ n)^{\frac{1}{n}} \}\ (1)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Hello

The book I am doing these problems from (Bartle 4ed.), has not introduced any complicated theorems about limits so far (This is section 3.1 in the chapter on limits, which is 3rd chapter). So I am supposed to use some basic machinery developed so far, which is definition of limit, Bernoulli's inequality, Binomial theorem, Archimedes's theorem, Completeness property etc. Using logarithms would be outside of this scope as the author has not used it till this point. I am sure there is some way of handling this within the basic machinery.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K