n → ∞ lim ( n 2 + n + 1 − ⌊ n 2 + n + 1 ⌋ ) = ?
Take the limit over integer values of n .
Submit 0.1729 as your answer if limit doesn't exist.
Note: ⌊ . . ⌋ represents Floor Function .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
We have n 2 + n + 1 = n 2 ( 1 + n 1 + n 2 1 ) , then for positive n , n 2 + n + 1 = n ( 1 + ( n 1 + n 2 1 ) ) 2 1 .
For n to be sufficiently large, n 1 + n 2 1 is very small, so we can apply the binomial expansion ( 1 + x ) N ≈ 1 + N x + 2 N ( N − 1 ) x 2 for small x . In this case, x = n 1 + n 2 1 , N = 2 1 . Then,
n 2 + n + 1 = ≈ = n ( 1 + ( n 1 + n 2 1 ) ) 2 1 n [ 1 + 2 1 ( n 1 + n 2 1 ) + 2 2 1 ( 2 1 − 1 ) 2 1 ( n 1 + n 2 1 ) 2 ] n + 2 1 + O ( n 1 )
Where O ( n ) denote the Big O notation. We're only interested in the fractional part of n 2 + n + 1 , which is simply 2 1 + O ( n 1 ) . Take its limit yields 2 1 as the answer.
Using big O notation correctly can help us deal with limit questions like this.
In this particular case, there is a much simpler approach.
Hint:
Complete the square.
Challenge Master:
n 2 + n + 1 = ( n + 2 1 ) 2 + 4 3 → ( n + 2 1 ) 2 = n + 2 1 , the fractional part is simply 2 1 .
EClearly the limit is somewhere between 0 and 1. If you graph it, you can practically guess that the answer is .5, but here's the algebraic proof.
Begin by working with the floor function half of the equation. It can be observed that for all positive integer values of n , ⌊ n 2 + n + 1 ⌋ = n . Thus our function we are evaluating is n → ∞ lim n 2 + n + 1 − n .
Next, Consider the perfect square polynomials n 2 and n 2 + 2 n + 1 and "average" the two. 2 n 2 + n 2 + 2 n + 1 = n 2 + n + 2 1 . The radical part of the function we are evaluating is the average of two perfect squares (we can ignore the difference in constants because as n achieves large enough values, the constant is negligible). So taking the average of our functions we have
n 2 − n = 0
n 2 + 2 n + 1 − n = 1
2 0 + 1 = 0 . 5
No, this is not a proof.
If we want to follow your approach, you would have to explain why
lim n 2 + n 2 + 2 n + 1 − 2 n 2 + n + 1 = 0
which is the bulk of the work.
n → ∞ lim 2 n + 1 − 2 n 2 + n + 1 = 0
n → ∞ lim 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 − 4 n 2 + 4 n + 4 = 0
n → ∞ lim 4 n 2 + 4 n + 4 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 = 1
@Calvin Lin is this complete?
Log in to reply
Nope, and that is (currently) a flawed argument. You are claiming/hoping that lim a n − b n = 0 ⇔ lim b n a n = 1 . That is true only under certain conditions.
For example, if a n = n 2 and b n = n 1 , then the first limit is 0, but the second limit is 2. Conversely, if a n = n + 1 , b n = n then the second limit is 1, but the first limit is 1.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Note that n < n 2 + n + 1 < n + 1 Hence, ⌊ n 2 + n + 1 ⌋ = n Hence, the given limit is n → ∞ lim n 2 + n + 1 − n = n → ∞ lim n 2 + n + 1 + n n 2 + n + 1 − n 2 = 2 1