Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20140124 05:34:23
Fascinating limitHi, everyone. Now, it's fairly obvious that the answer is 0, the question is how to prove it. I had an immediate suggestion, obviously if , then the answer is 0. So, we had to prove that. By definition, Since both and M are positive, I can raise them to the degree of n, which is when I get , which is obviously correct for n>= a certain n0. Now, my teacher told me this was wrong and the class ended before he could elaborate on why, and the test is next class, which worries me a bit. I do a lot of my proofs this way. What she said is that we need to prove , after which we can easily use the squeeze theorem to solve the problem. Unfortunately, I've had no success in proving that statement. Can you point out where I was wrong in my solution, or help me prove the teacher's statement? I keep getting stuck at , but the teacher doesn't want us to use e (or infinite geometric series, which would make the proof fairly straightforward by using the binomial formula). Thank you in advance, I know I'm asking a lot. Last edited by Bezoux (20140124 05:35:27) #2 20140124 19:42:39
Re: Fascinating limitHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #4 20140126 02:20:00
Re: Fascinating limitHi; perhaps you could replace the n! with Stirlings formula. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 