Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Orders of iinfinity

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641

    Orders of iinfinity

    This is correct isn't it?

    \forall{n}\in\mathbb{Z^{+}}\text{ }\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(x)}{x^n}=0\Rightarrow{  \ln(x)\prec{x^n}}

    If not could someone point me in the right drection?


    Also, does it suffice to say \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=0 the justification being f(x)\prec{g(x)}

    Or would that be using circular logic?
    Last edited by Mathstud28; June 6th 2008 at 10:30 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathstud28 View Post
    This is correct isn't it?

    \forall{n}\in\mathbb{Z^{+}}\text{ }\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(x)}{x^n}=0\Rightarrow{  \ln(x)\prec{x^n}}

    If not could someone point me in the right drection?


    Also, does it suffice to say \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=0 the justification being f(x)\prec{g(x)}

    Or would that be using circular logic?
    You appear to be using the notation from Hardy's "Orders of Infinity". Not the most common from of representing asymtotics these days.

    But both are correct since this is the definition of the meaning of the relation

    f\prec{g},

    this is (ii) on page 1 of "Orders of Infinity".

    The more common notation for these things is the Landau-like notation shown in the attachment which comes from the Wikipedia article on Big-O notation

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
    You appear to be using the notation from Hardy's "Orders of Infinity". Not the most common from of representing asymtotics these days.

    But both are correct since this is the definition of the meaning of the relation

    f\prec{g},

    this is (ii) on page 1 of "Orders of Infinity"

    RonL
    Thanks Captain Black! I was just wondering though, I do not know this Hardy book you speak of, like Hardy as in relation with Ramajaun Hardy? I am using a Dover book called Advanced Calculus by David Widder

    But I see you say both are correct, but it seems strange that you can justify a limit by order of infinity

    For example

    lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(\ln(x))}{\ln(x)}=0

    How can we say this is true by the fact that \ln(\ln(x))\prec\ln(x) when this is the defintion of orders of infinity?

    It would be like showing

    \frac{d}{dx}\bigg[x^n\bigg]=nx^{n-1}

    But showing it by the difference quotient, and then using L'hopital's, but we cannot do this for we would use the conclusion of our problem in the problem before proving it


    Any clarification would be greatly appreciated
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathstud28 View Post
    Thanks Captain Black! I was just wondering though, I do not know this Hardy book you speak of, like Hardy as in relation with Ramajaun Hardy? I am using a Dover book called Advanced Calculus by David Widder
    Yes that Hardy. The G H Hardy book is almost unobtainable at a sensible price, depending on the edition it goes fro between US$100 and US$500. But I do have a copy as I am trying to collect Hardy's works.

    But I see you say both are correct, but it seems strange that you can justify a limit by order of infinity

    For example

    lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(\ln(x))}{\ln(x)}=0

    How can we say this is true by the fact that \ln(\ln(x))\prec\ln(x) when this is the defintion of orders of infinity?

    It would be like showing

    \frac{d}{dx}\bigg[x^n\bigg]=nx^{n-1}

    But showing it by the difference quotient, and then using L'hopital's, but we cannot do this for we would use the conclusion of our problem in the problem before proving it


    Any clarification would be greatly appreciated
    If you knew that f\prec g you know the limit form is true, and vice versa, which is why they are equivalent statements. You could arrive at f\prec g by a derivation by other means than the limit, so could deduce the limit from this. It only looks peculiar because you have not seen examples of the argument going both ways.

    For instance as we know \ln(x)\prec x we can deduce that \ln(\ln(x)\prec \ln(x) (we actualy need a bit more knowlege about the properties of  \prec and monotonic increasing functions, but lets just suppose we have that knowlege for now), and so:

    \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(\ln(x))}{\ln(x)}=0

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor Mathstud28's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
    Yes that Hardy. The G H Hardy book is almost unobtainable at a sensible price, depending on the edition it goes fro between US$100 and US$500. But I do have a copy as I am trying to collect Hardy's works.



    If you knew that f\prec g you know the limit form is true, and vice versa, which is why they are equivalent statements. You could arrive at f\prec g by a derivation by other means than the limit, so could deduce the limit from this. It only looks peculiar because you have not seen examples of the argument going both ways.

    For instance as we know \ln(x)\prec x we can deduce that \ln(\ln(x)\prec \ln(x) (we actualy need a bit more knowlege about the properties of  \prec and monotonic increasing functions, but lets just suppose we have that knowlege for now), and so:

    \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\ln(\ln(x))}{\ln(x)}=0

    RonL
    So from your workings I can imply that

    if f(x)\prec{g(x)}

    Then obvsiously

    u(f(x))\prec{u(g(x))}

    So it has an equality like tendency?

    Everything is telling me this is correct, but I should probably verify

    Thanks in advance
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathstud28 View Post
    So from your workings I can imply that

    if f(x)\prec{g(x)}

    Then obvsiously

    u(f(x))\prec{u(g(x))}

    So it has an equality like tendency?

    Everything is telling me this is correct, but I should probably verify

    Thanks in advance
    What I was using was:

    if h(x)\prec g(x), and u(x) is monotonic increasing and \lim_{x \to \infty}u(x)=\infty (and we probably only need the latter condition on u(x) ), then:

    h(u(x))\prec g(u(x))

    Then if h(x)=\ln(x),\ g(x)=x and u(x)=\ln(x) we have:

    \ln(x)\prec x implies \ln(\ln(x))\prec \ln(x).

    (what you label as obviously true, may be true, but it is not obviously true to my eye, and I have not checked it)

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Stochastic Orders
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 29th 2009, 02:06 PM
  2. Partial Orders
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 2nd 2009, 08:28 PM
  3. orders of groups
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 19th 2009, 10:58 AM
  4. help with a proof on orders
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 2nd 2009, 09:14 PM
  5. orders of magnitude
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 25th 2009, 05:53 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum