I Understanding the squeeze theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter chwala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Squeeze Theorem, specifically regarding the conditions under which it applies, particularly for sequences with alternating terms. It is noted that the theorem holds true for values of n greater than 3, as the necessary inequalities are satisfied only in that range. Participants emphasize the importance of logical reasoning and the limits of sequences when determining convergence or divergence. The conversation also touches on the use of L'Hôpital's rule and the transition from discrete to continuous functions, with some members seeking clarification on these applications. The thread concludes with a call for more organized discussions, suggesting that multiple topics should be addressed in separate threads.
chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
415
TL;DR
See attached
1666871362473.png


The theorem is pretty clear...out of curiosity i would like to ask...what if we took ##n-3## factors...then the theorem would not be true because we shall have;

##[n!=6⋅4⋅5⋅6 ... n]##

and

##[2^n = 8⋅2⋅2⋅2 ...2]##

What i am trying to ask is at what point do we determine the number of terms to consider? Is there a general rule when using Squeeze Theorem or is it a matter of one using common sense? :wink: Of course i can see that for ##n## values greater than or equal to ##4## the theorem would be sufficient.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chwala said:
TL;DR Summary: See attached

What i am trying to ask is at what point do we determine the number of terms to consider?
We have ##\dfrac{-1}{2^n}\leq \dfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}\leq \dfrac{1}{2^n}.## In order to squeeze something, we need ##\dfrac{1}{n!}<\dfrac{1}{2^n}## which is equivalent to ##2^n<n!## and this isn't true for ##n\leq 3,## hence ##n>3.##
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and chwala
fresh_42 said:
We have ##\dfrac{-1}{2^n}\leq \dfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}\leq \dfrac{1}{2^n}.## In order to squeeze something, we need ##\dfrac{1}{n!}<\dfrac{1}{2^n}## which is equivalent to ##2^n<n!## and this isn't true for ##n\leq 3,## hence ##n>3.##
That is exactly what I am saying, ...I agree... then it's just a matter of logical thinking ( checking the comparison and so forth) ...what about sequences that may have alternating terms? would the theorem still apply? I may need to explore further. Thanks @fresh_42 .
 
chwala said:
That is exactly what I am saying, ...I agree... then it's just a matter of logical thinking ( checking the comparison and so forth) ...what about sequences that may have alternating terms? would the theorem still apply? I may need to explore further. Thanks @fresh_42 .
Be careful. If ##a_n\leq b_n \leq c_n## - alternating or not - and ##L:=\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n## and ##M:=\lim_{n \to \infty}c_n## then ##L=M## implies ##\lim_{n \to \infty}b_n=L. ## The important condition is ##L=M,## not convergence. If ##L\neq M## then we cannot make any conclusions without further information like e.g. monotony.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and chwala
fresh_42 said:
Be careful. If ##a_n\leq b_n \leq c_n## - alternating or not - and ##L:=\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n## and ##M:=\lim_{n \to \infty}c_n## then ##L=M## implies ##\lim_{n \to \infty}b_n=L. ## The important condition is ##L=M,## not convergence. If ##L\neq M## then we cannot make any conclusions without further information like e.g. monotony.
Nice, i see that it does not matter whether a sequence is alternating or not as the Absolute Value theorem will apply. Cheers mate.
 
Still on this, instead of using a similar sequence...can't we just use limits straightaway? i am asking this in reference to another example;

For this case; we may have

##\lim_{n→∞} \left[(-1)^n \dfrac {1}{n!}\right] =0##

My next example is on determining the divergence or convergence of the sequence;

##b_n = (-1)^n \dfrac{n}{n+1}##

it follows that;

##\lim_{n→∞} \left[(-1)^n \dfrac {n}{n+1}\right] =\left[\lim_{n→∞} (-1)^n\right]⋅\left[\lim_{n→∞} \dfrac {n}{n+1}\right]=∞⋅1=∞##

thus sequence diverges.

i hope i am doing it right...cheers
 
Last edited:
* i do not want to post a new thread as the questions are related...

Also for

##c_n = \dfrac{ \ln (n^2)}{n}##

here i used the L 'Hopital's rule i.e

##\lim_{x→∞} \dfrac {\ln (x^2)}{x}= \lim_{x→∞} \left[\dfrac{2}{x}\right]=0##

The sequence converges to ##0##.
 
Last edited:
...on the highlighted i hope my reasoning is correct any further insight is welcome...refreshing a little bit...

1667044331567.png


On the first highlighted part to arrive there, they made use of;

##Sn= \dfrac{a(1-r^n)}{1-r}= \dfrac{0.5(1-0.5^n)}{1-0.5}=1- \dfrac{1^n}{2^n}= \dfrac{2^n -1 }{2^n}##

on the second highlighted they made use of L'Hopital's rule;

##\lim_{x→∞} \dfrac {2^x-1}{2^x}= \lim_{x→∞} \left[\dfrac{2^x \ln 2}{2^x \ln 2}\right]=1##

Another approach;

Also ...the series is geometric, therefore ##r=\dfrac{1}{2}## because ##0< |r|< 1##, the series converges and its sum is

##S = \dfrac{a}{1-r} = \dfrac {0.5}{1-0.5} = 1##
 
Last edited:
This series;

1667045494871.png
can also be expressed as one fraction i.e

##S_n= \dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}## ...the partial sums converge to ##1##. We have ##[0.5, 0.666, 0.75, 0.8, ...)##

##\lim_{n→∞} \dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}=\lim_{n→∞}\left[ \dfrac{A}{n} + \dfrac{B}{1+n}\right] ##

With

##A=1##

##A+B=0, ⇒B=-1##

then the results given will be realized...this is just but a different way of me looking at the problem...of course the text approach is straightforward no dispute there.
 
  • #10
chwala said:
Still on this, instead of using a similar sequence...can't we just use limits straightaway? i am asking this in reference to another example;

For this case; we may have

##\lim_{n→∞} \left[(-1)^n \dfrac {1}{n!}\right] =0##

My next example is on determining the divergence or convergence of the sequence;

##b_n = (-1)^n \dfrac{n}{n+1}##

it follows that;

##\lim_{n→∞} \left[(-1)^n \dfrac {n}{n+1}\right] =\left[\lim_{n→∞} (-1)^n\right]⋅\left[\lim_{n→∞} \dfrac {n}{n+1}\right]=∞⋅1=∞##

thus sequence diverges.

i hope i am doing it right...cheers
You cannot write it that way. ##\lim_{n \to \infty}(-1)^n## does not exists, and even less is it ##\infty .## To show divergence, you could e.g. simply show that ##|a_n-a_{n-1}|>0.5.## Limit formulas do not help in such a case.
 
  • #11
chwala said:
* i do not want to post a new thread as the questions are related...

Also for

##c_n = \dfrac{ \ln (n^2)}{n}##

here i used the L 'Hopital's rule i.e

##\lim_{x→∞} \dfrac {\ln (x^2)}{x}= \lim_{x→∞} \left[\dfrac{2}{x}\right]=0##

The sequence converges to ##0##.
You need to justify why you can transition from discrete to continuous. Also, how exactly did you apply L'Hôpital? Wikipedia's version is
$$
\lim_{x \to x_0}\dfrac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}=c \Longrightarrow \lim_{x \to x_0}\dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)}=c
$$
Yours seem to be different?!?
 
  • #12
chwala said:
...on the highlighted i hope my reasoning is correct any further insight is welcome...refreshing a little bit...

View attachment 316322

On the first highlighted part to arrive there, they made use of;

##Sn= \dfrac{a(1-r^n)}{1-r}= \dfrac{0.5(1-0.5^n)}{1-0.5}=1- \dfrac{1^n}{2^n}= \dfrac{2^n -1 }{2^n}##

on the second highlighted they made use of L'Hopital's rule;

##\lim_{x→∞} \dfrac {2^x-1}{2^x}= \lim_{x→∞} \left[\dfrac{2^x \ln 2}{2^x \ln 2}\right]=1##

Another approach;

Also ...the series is geometric, therefore ##r=\dfrac{1}{2}## because ##0< |r|< 1##, the series converges and its sum is

##S = \dfrac{a}{1-r} = \dfrac {0.5}{1-0.5} = 1##
Same problem with L'Hôpital as before. See above.
 
  • #13
Sorry, but this thread is getting a mess by discussing four posts in parallel.

Please open new threads. This one is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K