Understanding 1^∞ as an Indeterminate Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Infinitum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that 1^∞ is considered an indeterminate form despite the common belief that it equals 1. This is due to limits, such as lim_{n→∞} (1 + 1/n)^n, which approaches a form that does not converge to 1. The reasoning involves the behavior of functions f(n) converging to 1 and g(n) approaching infinity, leading to the limit expression e^{g(n) log(f(n))}. As log(f(n)) approaches 0, the product g(n) log(f(n)) results in the indeterminate form 0·(+∞). Thus, defining 1^∞ requires a careful understanding of these limits and their behaviors.
Infinitum
Messages
880
Reaction score
40
I am sure that x^{\infty} as x\to1 is an indeterminate form.

But can someone please explain how 1^{\infty} is indeterminate? I always thought it is equal to 1.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
We choose 1^\infty to be indeterminate. The reason we do this, is because of the limit

\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n

This will converge to "1^\infty" in a certain sense, but it will not converge to 1. The reason that it does not converge to 1 is that 1+\frac{1}{n} converges to 1 too slow and that n converges to infinity too fast.

Another explanation is the following, say that f(n) converges to 1 and that g(n) converges to infinity, then

\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} f(n)^{g(n)} = \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} e^{g(n) log(f(n))}=e^{\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} g(n) log(f(n))}

But as f(n) converges to 1, we have that log(f(n)) converges to 0. So g(n)log(f(n)) converges to "0\cdot (+\infty)" and this is a known indeterminate form.

So if we want to define 1^\infty and if we want to let it behave like we want it to, then we would have to define 0\cdot (+\infty) a well!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aha! That clears it up.

Thank you.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top