Show lim (as n->inf) of 1/n*{2n/(2n+1)}^2 exists without finding limit

  • Thread starter Thread starter natasha13100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves showing that the limit as n approaches infinity of the expression 1/n*{2n/(2n+1)}^2 exists without actually finding the limit. The context is rooted in sequences and convergence within the realm of calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need for a proof and explore various methods, including induction and the application of Stirling's formula. Some participants suggest simpler algebraic approaches to establish inequalities instead of complex proofs.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants offering different perspectives on how to approach the problem. Some have provided guidance on using algebraic methods to demonstrate the properties of the sequence, while others are still grappling with the proof structure and assumptions.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of constraints regarding the sequence being defined only for positive integers and the necessity of establishing bounds for the sequence to apply convergence theorems. Participants also reflect on the relevance of certain arguments in the context of the proof.

natasha13100
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that lim(n→infinity) 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2 exists without finding the limit.

Homework Equations


probably the following:
Let {xn} be a sequence such that xn≥xn+1 and xn≥M for every n. Then the series is convergent.

The Attempt at a Solution


I know I need to do a proof.
n≥1 (n cannot be 0 because 1/n is undefined and n must be an integer since it's the term number)
{xn}2=22/1*42/32*...*(2n)2/(2n-1)2=2/1*(2*4)/32*(4*6)/52*...*((2n-2)*2n)/(2n-1)2*2n
for any integer n>1, ((2n-2)*2n)/(2n-1)2*2n=((2n-1)2-1)/(2k+1)2<1
Therefore, {xn}2<4n and 1/n*{xn}2<4
(Hence, I can prove n≥1 and n≤4 (for n=1, 1/1*{2/1)^2=4 so I included 4)
for n=1 1/1*{2/1}^2=4 and for n=2 1/2*{2*4/(1*3)}^2=64/18=32/9
thus, n=1>n=2 establishing a basis for an induction proof
assume for n=k that 1/k*{2*4*...*2k/(1*3*...*(2k-1))}^2>1/(k+1)*{2*4*...*2(k+1)/(1*3*...*(2k))}^2 so that 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2>1/(n+1)*{2*4*...*2(n+1)/(1*3*...*(2n))}^2

This is where I am stuck. I want to show that the statement 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2>1/(n+1)*{2*4*...*2(n+1)/(1*3*...*(2n))}^2 holds true for n=k+1 but I can't figure out how to get to that point. I know you can't just replace the n's with k+1's in the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
natasha13100 said:

Homework Statement


Show that lim(n→infinity) 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2 exists without finding the limit.

Homework Equations


probably the following:
Let {xn} be a sequence such that xn≥xn+1 and xn≥M for every n. Then the series is convergent.

The Attempt at a Solution


I know I need to do a proof.
n≥1 (n cannot be 0 because 1/n is undefined and n must be an integer since it's the term number)
{xn}2=22/1*42/32*...*(2n)2/(2n-1)2=2/1*(2*4)/32*(4*6)/52*...*((2n-2)*2n)/(2n-1)2*2n
for any integer n>1, ((2n-2)*2n)/(2n-1)2*2n=((2n-1)2-1)/(2k+1)2<1
Therefore, {xn}2<4n and 1/n*{xn}2<4
(Hence, I can prove n≥1 and n≤4 (for n=1, 1/1*{2/1)^2=4 so I included 4)
for n=1 1/1*{2/1}^2=4 and for n=2 1/2*{2*4/(1*3)}^2=64/18=32/9
thus, n=1>n=2 establishing a basis for an induction proof
assume for n=k that 1/k*{2*4*...*2k/(1*3*...*(2k-1))}^2>1/(k+1)*{2*4*...*2(k+1)/(1*3*...*(2k))}^2 so that 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2>1/(n+1)*{2*4*...*2(n+1)/(1*3*...*(2n))}^2

This is where I am stuck. I want to show that the statement 1/n*{2*4*...*2n/(1*3*...*(2n-1))}^2>1/(n+1)*{2*4*...*2(n+1)/(1*3*...*(2n))}^2 holds true for n=k+1 but I can't figure out how to get to that point. I know you can't just replace the n's with k+1's in the proof.

Try using Stirling's formula, together with
1 \cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdots (2n-1) = \frac{(2n)!}{2 \cdot 4 \cdots 2n} \\<br /> \text{and}\\<br /> 2 \cdot 4 \cdots 2n = 2^n \times 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3 \cdots n = 2^n \, n!
This would prove the existence of a limit by actually finding it. However, how you do the problem will depend on what tools and results you are allowed to use.
 
Sometimes it's easier to show ##\frac{a}{b}\geq 1## or ##\frac{b}{a}\leq 1## than it is to show ##a\geq b## (even though these inequalities are equivalent when ##a,b>0##). This is definitely one of those times. You really don't need to use anything fancy like induction or Stirling's formula here. Simple algebra will suffice.

Also, in order to use the theorem that you're trying to use (the one that says a decreasing sequence that is bounded below must converge), you need to show that the sequence has a lower bound. You gave an argument for why the terms of sequence are only defined when the index is nonzero.

And your argument (which is a little bit difficult to follow) for the fact that the sequence is bounded above by ##4## is not really necessary given the theorem that you're trying to use.
 
gopher_p said:
Sometimes it's easier to show ##\frac{a}{b}\geq 1## or ##\frac{b}{a}\leq 1## than it is to show ##a\geq b## (even though these inequalities are equivalent when ##a,b>0##). This is definitely one of those times. You really don't need to use anything fancy like induction or Stirling's formula here. Simple algebra will suffice.

Thanks for the advice. It really helped. I can't believe I didn't think of such a simple solution. I ended using algebra to show xn>xn+1. Then I hashed out my thoughts about xn<4 and used the theorem I was trying to use.
 
natasha13100 said:
Thanks for the advice. It really helped. I can't believe I didn't think of such a simple solution. I ended using algebra to show xn>xn+1.

It's a standard trick that you want to keep in your back pocket when trying to prove an inequality. Showing ##a-b\geq 0## is another commonly used path towards proving ##a\geq b## that you'll want to keep handy as well.

Then I hashed out my thoughts about xn<4 and used the theorem I was trying to use.

Well, like I said, that fact is completely irrelevant to proving what you're trying to prove. Furthermore, given that your sequence is decreasing (which have now proven), ##x_n\leq 4## for all ##n## follows from ##x_1=4##, which is basic arithmetic.
 
gopher_p said:
It's a standard trick that you want to keep in your back pocket when trying to prove an inequality. Showing ##a-b\geq 0## is another commonly used path towards proving ##a\geq b## that you'll want to keep handy as well.



Well, like I said, that fact is completely irrelevant to proving what you're trying to prove. Furthermore, given that your sequence is decreasing (which have now proven), ##x_n\leq 4## for all ##n## follows from ##x_1=4##, which is basic arithmetic.

Yes, but I wanted to make sure I knew how to prove it if I ever needed to. It seems as I get farther into mathematics I forget about using the basics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K