What is the Formal Definition of a Series' Limit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abukadu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Series
Abukadu
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
hi :]

a couple of questions:

1) Using epsilon and N, write in a formal manner the following statement:
L is not a the limit of the general series {an} when n goes from 1 to infinity.

2) prove the next sentence: if a series an is converging into a final limit L, then the arithmetic avareges of the series organs(terms?) are gathering into the same limit. meaning:
lim (an)[n->infinity] = L = = = > lim [n->infinity] (a1+a2+a3..+an) / n = L

excuse my english.. not my strongest side.
I really wish I could write down my attempts to solve the question by they are all in hebrew and are too hard to translate since I'm not sure myself that I'm on the right path..


Thanks,
sharon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Recall the definition of limit:
\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n = L means that \forall \epsilon > 0, \cdots ?

Then for 1 negate that statement:
\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n \neq L means that \neg(\forall \epsilon > 0, \cdots) \Leftrightarrow \exists \epsilon > 0, \cdots ?

For 2, you will somehow need to estimate the arithmetic average (yes, they are called terms, although organs is a nice one as well :smile:). That is, if you know that an comes arbitrarily close to L, then you want to show the same for (a1 + ... + an)/n.
 
thanks, but i didnt really understood (1) ..
 
OK, first step:
what is the definition of
\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n = L
 
the limit exists if for each ε > 0 there exists an R such that qqq |f(x) - L| < ε whenever x > R

so the limit does not exists when |f(x) - L| < ε whenever x < R ?
 
Abukadu said:
the limit exists if for each ε > 0 there exists an R such that qqq |f(x) - L| < ε whenever x > R
Right.

Abukadu said:
so the limit does not exists when |f(x) - L| < ε whenever x < R ?
No. The limit is not L, if it is not true that for each ε > 0 there exists an R such that |f(x) - L| < ε whenever x > R. In a first mathematics course you must have learned how to rewrite such a statement. Things like: if it is not true that all cows eat grass, then there must exist a cow who does not eat grass. In this case, your answer would start with: "the limit is not L, when there exists an ε > 0, ..."
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top