#Proof sequence is bounded
58 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
- Do not ping the Moderators, unless someone is breaking the rules.
- Do not ping the Helper Moderators, unless there is a conflict between helpers.
- Do not ping other members randomly for help.
- Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
- Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
- If the Helper has answered your question, remember to thank them with the Mathematics Ranks bot and close the thread with:
+close
Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
i think that maybe using the definition of a bounded sequence is wrong (like $\left| w_{n} \right|\le S, S\in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ ) or maybe what I'm doing is right except if i do the triangular inequality
ᚾᛁᚷᚷᛖᚱ
a.k.a $\left| a+b \right|\le \left| a \right|+\left| b \right| ; a,b \in \mathbb{R}$
ᚾᛁᚷᚷᛖᚱ
what is the limit of (5/2)^n as n goes to infinity ?
infinity?
yes, so what is the limit of (5/2)^n-2 as n goes to infinity ?
infinity
yes, so from this, use the definition of lim = infinity to bound 1/((5/2)^n- 2)
what if I don't want to use the definition of a limit
well you can find some n0 so that (5/2)^n-2 is larger than 10-2 for all n > n0
so what is the n0 for the expression to be larger than you're referring to
you get it automatically using the definition of limit, otherwise you can get an explicit one using the logarithm
oh i see, so can you explain how to use the definition of a limit for this case
to bound w_n
there exists an n0 such that for alr n > n0, (5/2)^n- 2 > 8
hence, for all n>n0, wn < 1 + 3/8
thus, wn < max (w0, w1,..., wn0, 1+3/8)
if you really want to do it by hand, then you can also show that the sequence wn is decreasing for n > 3, so that wn <= max(w0, w1, w2, w3)
but seeing the limit is useful for intuition, and then later refine your proof to a simpler one
oh i see so for a n>n0 to satisfy the upper bound we take the maximum of the finite set w0,w1,...,wn0, therefore wn<max(w0, w1,..., wn0, 1+3/8)
yes
oh that's another one but it's complicated but i prefer seeing the limit, thus making the proof simpler
well how about for the left side (lower bound of w_n)
you can show that wn is positive for n => 3
yea that's it?
hence the lower bound is min(w0,w1,w2,0)
oh i see
(actually I just reread it, and wn is only defined for n>=2, so the lower bound is really min(w2, 0)
by the way n>=2
yea
so this makes the lower bound min(w0,w1,w2,...,1)
(you can also use the limit argument, really |(5/2)^n-2| goes to infinity)
yes, also
so as n goes to infinity the denominator I(5/2)^n-2I goes to infinity and thus w_n is 1 + 0 = 1
thus lim wn = 1
yep
but yeah, at some point n0, 1/2 <= wn <= 1+1/2
and then the bound is this + the bound on the first terms
so the key idea is its limit wn = 1
with the limit wn lies on the interval [1/2,3/2]
yes, that wn converges
that makes sense for any convergent series
de rien
Please thank the helpers who assisted you by clicking the buttons below. You can thank each helper only once. Once you're done, click "Close Post" to close this thread.
Thank you for your feedback! pétaire has been awarded 1
. They now have 823
. They have 3
daily left for today.
@slender mason
Hello slimeslice, this is a friendly reminder that your help request has been inactive for more than 24 hours. If you no longer need assistance, please consider closing the thread using the +close command. This thread will be automatically closed in 3 days if it remains inactive.
+close
You have already executed this command; please press "Close Post" to close your help query.