Monday, 10 September 2018

calculus - Proving limlimitsntoinftyfracnacn=0 using L'Hôpital's Rule



I am trying to prove limnnacn=0 using L'Hôpital's Rule, but I'm stuck.




Here's what I have so far:



limnnacn=limnann1cnlnc=limna(a1)na2cn(lnc)2+cn1c



All three limits above seem to evaluate to , so I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Any ideas?




Edit: So, with the help of the hints below, I was able to figure out that



limnnacn=alnclimnna1cn=alnca1lnclimnna2cn=




So, disregarding the constant, it looks like the numerator keeps decreasing, while the denominator stays the same.



I can also see that if I let a=2, for instance, I end up with 0 after applying L'Hopital's 2 times:



limnn2cnLH=limn2ncnlnc=2lnclimnncnLH=2lnclimn1cnlnc=2(lnc)2limn1cn=0



So it seems reasonable to conclude that for an arbitrary a>0, I will end up with 0 after applying L'Hopital's a times.



But I'm not sure how to go about using induction to prove it formally. I've only proven very simple sums by induction so far. Do I have to apply it to a product here?




Answer



I deleted my old answer, as it missed the point a bit (especially given the edits to the question). I'm going to expand on J.G.'s answer, since you seem to need a little extra help.



Let's prove limnnacn=0, for aR and c>1. (if 0<c1, then the sequence does not tend to 0, and for c=0, the expression is undefined). We can tackle this in a number of cases, but the cases reduce back down to one case fairly easily, using the squeeze theorem.



Case 1: aN0={0,1,2,}, and c>1
In this case, we use induction on a (not n, as I originally suggested). When a=0, then
nacn=1cn.


This tends to 0, a fact which you seem happy to assume. If you wished to prove it, observe that the sequence an=1cn satisfies is decreasing, bounded below by 0, and hence convergent. It also satisfies the recurrence relation an+1=anc, so if L is its limit, then taking the limit of both sides yields L=Lc(c1)L=0, and hence L=0, as c1.




You probably could skip the above proof, but either way, the base case is established.



Now, suppose for some kN0 (and c>1), we have
limnnkcn=0.


Then,
limnnk+1cn=limn(k+1)nklnccnL'Hopital's rule=k+1lnclimnnkcn=k+1lnc0=0induction hypothesis.


By induction, we now have limnnacn=0 for all aN0 and c>1. That is, we have completed this case.



Case 2: aR, and c>1
To prove this case, simply choose any natural number k such that ka (we can do this, due to the Archimedean property). Naturally, if we take a negative value of a, then just choose k=0 (or 1, or anything higher really). Then, note that for all n,
0nacnnkcn.


The first case proved that nkcn0. Thus, by squeeze theorem, we have a proof for case 2.



We can even extend to c<1 too!



Case 3: aR, and c<1
We prove this again by squeeze theorem. Note that,
na|c|n0na|c|n,



and by case 2, both bounds tend to 0, proving case 3.



Hope that helps, and sorry for the misleading hint.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...