This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Math 3110 Spring ’09 Homework 4: Selected Solutions [5.11 (b)]: Claim : lim n →∞ n 3 2 n 1 ¶ ( 2 n ) = 0 Proof Use linearity, then the quotient rule and finally the product rule for limits: lim n →∞ n 3 2 n 1 ¶ ( 2 n ) = lim n →∞ 1 n ¶ 1 n ¶ n 3 2 n 1 ¶ ( 2 n ) = lim n →∞ 1 3 n 2 1 n ( 2 n ) = 0 [5.14]: Claim : If a n b n → L , b n 6 = 0 for all n and b n → 0, the a n → 0. Proof There were two main ways that students tried to prove this  the first, using the product rule, is very easy whereas the second, using the quotient rule, is a little more involved. I’ll show both versions below. Product Rule Version: Let c n = a n b n . We are given that both c n and b n converge to finite limits, so by the product rule lim n →∞ c n b n = lim c n lim n →∞ b n = L · 0 = 0 . And, of course, c n b n = a n b n · b n = a n , so lim n →∞ a n = 0 Quotient Rule Version: Using the quotient rule directly (without employing the product rule as above) means that we can no longer assume that a n converges at all. The natural way to proceed here is to rule out all possibilities other than lim...
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 11/09/2009 for the course MATH 3110 taught by Professor Ramakrishna during the Fall '08 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).
 Fall '08
 RAMAKRISHNA
 Product Rule, Quotient Rule, Limits

Click to edit the document details