Can you prove that without using L'Hospital's rule for counting number m and n?
Hint: I did it by using the binomial theorem.
Bonus points if you can prove it for real number m and n, because my proof can't do that and I'd be interested to see it done.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Using the binomial theorem seems overkill. Writing it like this 1−x1−xm∗1−xn1−x makes a much shorter solution apparent.
Log in to reply
How about the extension to real numbers?
It seems like L'Hopital needs to be used.
This solution goes up to rational numbers,
x→1lim1−xn1−xm=x→1lim(1−xk1)(1+xk1+xk2+⋯+xkn)(1−xk1)(1+xk1+xk2+⋯+xkm)foranyk=x→1lim(1+xk1+xk2+⋯+xkn)(1+xk1+xk2+⋯+xkm)=knkm=nm
let S=limit as x tends to 1, (1-x^m)/(1-x^n) =limit as p tends to zero (1-e^pm)/(1-e^pn) ,where e^p=x.
applying expansion for e^pm and e^pn in numerator and denominator, S=lim as p tends to zero, (1-(1 + pm/1 + pm^2/2x1 + .........))/ (1-(1+ pn/1 + pn/2x1 +......)) , 1- 1 =0, in numerator and denominator , then taking ' m 'and 'n' outside from numerator and denominator , and substituting p=0 for rest of values, we get m/n. :) .pls correct me frnds, if there is any mistakes in my proof.
Log in to reply
@ Archit Boobna - " Since 1/kh will tend towards infinity..." You need grouping symbols around kh when it is written out horizontally, because of the Order of Operations:
1/(kh)
"We can easily show these (1+h)^2 = 1 + 2h (1+h)^4 = 1 + 4h (1+(1/2)h)^2 = 1 + h"
The above are not true. You cannot use equalities. You can use the equivalents of "leads to."
well one can easily use taylor series, but a taylor series expansion is in a way equivalent to L'hospital rule when you really think about it, so would you accept that ?
limx−−>11−(1+(x−1))n1−(1+(x−1))m≃1−(1+n(x−1))1−(1+m(x−1))=nm
Log in to reply
I suppose most of math is pretty much equivalent- All this stuff is derived from limits, right? I think that counts.
Let\quad x=1+h\quad where\quad h\quad tends\quad to\quad positive\quad zero.\\ Now\quad let's\quad solve\\ \lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+(n-k)h } } \\ =\lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+nh-kh } } \\ =\lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1+nh-kh+kh }{ 1+nh-kh } } \\ =\lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1+nh-kh }{ 1+nh-kh } } +\frac { kh }{ 1+nh-kh } \\ =1+\lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { kh }{ 1+(n-k)h } } \\ =1+\frac { 1 }{ \lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1+(n-k)h }{ kh } } } \\ =1+\frac { 1 }{ \lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1 }{ kh } +\frac { n-k }{ k } } } \\ Since\quad 1/kh\quad will\quad tend\quad towards\quad infinity,\quad and\quad this\quad limit\quad is\quad independent\quad of\quad other\\ "tending0s\quad or\quad tending\quad infinities",\quad \frac { n-k }{ k } \quad (a\quad finite\quad value)\quad can\quad be\quad neglected.\\ =1+\frac { 1 }{ \lim _{ h\rightarrow 0 }{ \frac { 1 }{ kh } } } \\ =1+kh\\ \\ So,\quad \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+(n-k)h } \sim 1+kh\quad as\quad h\quad tends\quad to\quad 0.\\ So,\quad \frac { 1+ah }{ 1+(a-n)h } X\frac { 1+(a-m)h }{ 1+ah } =\frac { 1+(a-m)h }{ 1+(a-n)h } \\ So,\quad \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+mh } =\frac { 1+(a-m)h }{ 1+(a-n)h } \\ Put\quad a=n,\\ \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+mh } =1+(n-m)h\\ If\quad n-m\quad is\quad constant,\quad then\quad \frac { 1+nh }{ 1+mh } \quad is\quad constant.\\ So\quad \frac { 1+(m+k)h }{ 1+mh } =\frac { 1+(m+2k)h }{ 1+(m+k)h } .\quad Put\quad m=0\\ 1+kh=\frac { 1+2kh }{ 1+kh } \\ { (1+kh) }^{ 2 }=1+2kh\\ Put\quad k=1\\ \\ We\quad can\quad easily\quad show\quad these\\ { (1+h) }^{ 2 }=1+2h\\ { (1+h) }^{ 4 }=1+4h\\ \\ { (1+(1/2)h) }^{ 2 }=1+h\\ So,\quad { (1+h) }^{ 1/2 }=1+1/2h\\ \^ \^ \quad I\quad did\quad this\quad just\quad to\quad show\quad it\quad works\quad for\quad fractions\quad also.\\ \\ So,\quad { x }^{ n }=1+nh\quad as\quad x\quad tends\quad to\quad 1\quad and\quad h\quad tends\quad to\quad 0.\\ So\quad \frac { 1-{ x }^{ m } }{ 1-{ x }^{ n } } =\frac { 1-(1+mh) }{ 1-(1+nh) } =\boxed { \frac { m }{ n } }
Log in to reply
Seems hardcore, but I'm a little confused by how you defined your variables at the beginning of the proof. Am I missing something?
Log in to reply
I am sorry, this is a bit confusing because I used "m" and "n" in the beginning also and the end also, but they have completely different roles