Results 1 to 12 of 12

Math Help - showing that the limit exists

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    91

    Question showing that the limit exists

    hi i was wondering if anyone could help me with this problem to do with limits. its a real anaylsis subject.

    if g, defined on an interval [0,infinity), is decreasing function and is bounded below

    then i want to show that lim x-> infinity g(x) exists.

    can anyone help? thanks
    Last edited by dopi; September 23rd 2007 at 01:52 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by dopi View Post
    hi i was wondering if anyone could help me with this problem to do with limits. its a real anaylsis subject.

    if g, defined on an interval [0,infinity), is decreasing function and is bounded below

    then i want to show that lim x-> infinity g(x) exists.

    can anyone help? thanks
    do you recall the defintion of a limit? we can say that the function is decreasing and is bounded, which means that there is some g(x) that the value of the function cannot attain, because it is at the boundary. thus we can say that as x is going to infinity, our distance between each g(x) and the boundary is getting arbitrary close. and of course, we can say this more formally (using the \epsilon- \delta definition of a limit) to show that a limit exists and is in fact the boundary
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,615
    Thanks
    1578
    Awards
    1
    The set \left\{ {g(x):x \in [0,\infty )} \right\} is bounded below. So let L = \inf \left\{ {g(x):x \in [0,\infty )} \right\}.
    Now if \varepsilon  > 0 then L + \varepsilon is not a lower bound. So \left( {\exists x_0 } \right)\left[ {L \le g\left( {x_0 } \right) < L + \varepsilon } \right].
    Because g is decreasing we have x > x_0 \quad  \Rightarrow \quad L \le g(x) \le g\left( {x_0 } \right) < L + \varepsilon.

    This means that x > x_0 \quad  \Rightarrow \quad \left| {g(x) - L} \right| < \varepsilon .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    91

    Question can someone pls check this solution

    hi i have another question, which i have attempted fully but i was wondering if someone could check it is right.

    QUESTION:
    Suppose that lim x-> c f(x) = L where L >0, and that lim x-> c g(x) = infinity.

    I want to show that lim x->c f(x)g(x) = infinity

    MY SOLUTION

    Using properties of limits theorem

    let f,g be real functions , lim x-> c f(x)g(x) = L x infinity

    where L x infinity = infinity

    hence lim x-> c f(x)g(x) = inifinity

    as required.

    can someone please check this thanks
    Last edited by dopi; September 25th 2007 at 07:46 AM. Reason: needed a new title diferent question
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by dopi View Post
    hi i have another question, which i have attempted fully but i was wondering if someone could check it is right.

    QUESTION:
    Suppose that lim x-> c f(x) = L where L >0, and that lim x-> c g(x) = infinity.

    I want to show that lim x->c f(x)g(x) = infinity

    MY SOLUTION

    Using properties of limits theorem

    let f,g be real functions , lim x-> c f(x)g(x) = L x infinity

    where L x infinity = infinity

    hence lim x-> c f(x)g(x) = inifinity

    as required.

    can someone please check this thanks
    there is a limit theorem that says \lim f(x)\cdot g(x) = \lim f(x) \cdot \lim g(x), i think you should state that somewhere. (something is nagging me about applying this theorem to infinite limits, but it's probably nothin' ).

    so maybe my proof would go along these lines (i will not be formal):

    we wish to find \lim_{x \to c}f(x)g(x).

    by theorem (so-and-so, whatever it is in your book), \lim_{x \to c}f(x)g(x) = \lim_{x \to c}f(x) \lim_{x \to c}g(x)

    \Rightarrow \lim_{x \to c}f(x)g(x) = L \lim_{x \to c}g(x) = \infty .......i'm pretty sure there's a theorem for this last piece as well

    QED.


    (i would not write something like = L \cdot \infty, that's just awkward)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    91

    Thumbs up

    thanks ..ur theory does make more sense..and i dont think it wud have been as easy as i wrote it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by dopi View Post
    hi i have another question, which i have attempted fully but i was wondering if someone could check it is right.

    QUESTION:
    Suppose that lim x-> c f(x) = L where L >0, and that lim x-> c g(x) = infinity.

    I want to show that lim x->c f(x)g(x) = infinity
    So let I be an open interval containing c for which f,g are defined except possibly at c itself.
    Let x_n be a sequence in I - \{ c\} converging to c. Then we know that the sequence f(x_n) converges to L and the sequence g(x_n) converges (abusing terminology) to \infty. But this means \lim \ f(x_n)g(x_n) = \infty because L>0 by the rule of sequence limits.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    So let I be an open interval containing c for which f,g are defined except possibly at c itself.
    Let x_n be a sequence in I - \{ c\} converging to c. Then we know that the sequence f(x_n) converges to L and the sequence g(x_n) converges (abusing terminology) to \infty. But this means \lim \ f(x_n)g(x_n) = \infty because L>0 by the rule of sequence limits.
    but f(x) is a funtion not a sequence
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by dopi View Post
    but f(x) is a funtion not a sequence
    I know. I am using the following theorem.

    If f(x) is a function defined on the open interval I containing a except possibly at a then \lim_{x\to a}f(x) = L if and only if for every sequence in I - \{ a \} converging to a we have f(x_n) is a sequence coverging to L.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by dopi View Post
    but f(x) is a funtion not a sequence
    i take it that you haven't studied the sequential approach to limits in your class?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    The sequencial approach the is best approach by far. That is one of the important reasons to developing the theory of sequences before learning lanything about functions. (But you should not avoid \delta - \epsilon because it is useful too at times).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    The sequencial approach the is best approach by far. That is one of the important reasons to developing the theory of sequences before learning lanything about functions. (But you should not avoid \delta - \epsilon because it is useful too at times).
    I agree with you. but what i was getting at is that i never saw the sequential approach until i took advanced calculus. maybe the poster is in that positition as well, and so is not familiar with your approach
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Showing that a C-infinity function exists
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 11th 2011, 02:14 PM
  2. Showing that a limit exists
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 16th 2011, 05:07 AM
  3. Showing that the directional derivative exists at a point.
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 20th 2010, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 15th 2009, 04:18 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 10th 2009, 09:53 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum