Proving the Existence of m for (1-1/m)^n > 1-ε in Real Analysis

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the existence of a positive integer m such that \((1 - \frac{1}{m})^n > 1 - \varepsilon\) for given integers n and ε in the context of real analysis. Participants are exploring the implications of the problem without using nth roots.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning whether solving for m directly is a viable approach, considering the restriction against using nth roots. Some suggest using inequalities derived from calculus, while others explore binomial expansions to express the left-hand side of the inequality.

Discussion Status

There are multiple lines of reasoning being explored, with some participants suggesting potential approaches involving calculus and binomial expansions. However, there is no explicit consensus on the best method to proceed, and further clarification on certain steps is being sought.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the constraint of not using nth roots, which influences their proposed methods and reasoning. There is also a focus on the definitions and assumptions related to the inequality being discussed.

BrownianMan
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Let n ≥ 1 be an integer and ε > 0 a real number. Without making reference or use of nth roots, prove that there exists a positive integer m such that

[tex]\left (1- \frac{1}{m} \right )^{n}> 1-\varepsilon[/tex]

How would I go about proving this? Would I just solve for m?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi BrownianMan! :smile:
BrownianMan said:
How would I go about proving this? Would I just solve for m?

Yup! :biggrin:
 
BrownianMan said:
Let n ≥ 1 be an integer and ε > 0 a real number. Without making reference or use of nth roots, prove that there exists a positive integer m such that
[tex]\left (1- \frac{1}{m} \right )^{n}> 1-\varepsilon[/tex]
How would I go about proving this? Would I just solve for m?
Just solving for m would require use of an nth root, right ? ... So, "No." to that.
 
BrownianMan said:
Let n ≥ 1 be an integer and ε > 0 a real number. Without making reference or use of nth roots, prove that there exists a positive integer m such that

[tex]\left (1- \frac{1}{m} \right )^{n}> 1-\varepsilon[/tex]

How would I go about proving this? Would I just solve for m?

What are you allowed to use? For example, using Calculus you can derive the inequality [tex](1-x)^n > 1-nx ,[/tex] for [itex]0 < x < 1.[/itex]

RGV
 
Can't I say

[tex]\left ( 1-\frac{1}{m} \right )^{n} =1-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left ( \frac{1}{m} \right )^{k}=1-\frac{1}{m}\left (\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k} \left (\frac{1}{m} \right )^{k-1} \right )[/tex]
[tex]\geq 1-\frac{1}{m}\left (2^{n}-1 \right )[/tex]

So then

[tex]1-\frac{1}{m}\left (2^{n}-1 \right ) > 1 - \varepsilon[/tex]
[tex]\frac{2^{n}-1}{\varepsilon }<m[/tex]
 
^Would this be right?
 
Hi BrownianMan! :smile:
BrownianMan said:
Can't I say

[tex]\left ( 1-\frac{1}{m} \right )^{n} =1-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left ( \frac{1}{m} \right )^{k}=1-\frac{1}{m}\left (\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k} \left (\frac{1}{m} \right )^{k-1} \right )[/tex]
[tex]\geq 1-\frac{1}{m}\left (2^{n}-1 \right )[/tex]

(Your ∑ needs a (-1)k inside it. :wink:)

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but where does your 2n come from? :confused:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K