Evaluate
x → 0 + lim x + x + x + … .
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.
TL;DR: Prove that the expression is well-defined, giving a closed form, and find the limit of that form.
First, we will prove that x + x + … exists for all positive x .
To see this, let ( a n ) be the sequence defined by a 1 = x , a n + 1 = x + a n for all natural n . Then L = x + x + … is defined as n → ∞ lim a n .
Now, if we know that the limit L exists, we know that it satisfies L = x + L and thus L = 2 1 + 4 x + 1 by simple solving of a quadratic equation. We will use this result as motivation: we will prove that a n < 2 1 + 4 x + 1 for all n , and that a n is increasing, thus proving that a n has a limit (since it's increasing but bounded above ).
First, we prove that it's bounded above by 2 1 + 4 x + 1 by induction. At first, this is trivially true. a 1 = x < 2 1 + 4 x + 1 is true, since it simplifies to 4 x + 1 − 4 x < 1 which is true for positive x . Now suppose that the claim is true for some n = k , and we want to show that it's also true for n = k + 1 .
Observe that a k + 1 = x + a k . From the induction hypothesis, we know that a k < 2 1 + 4 x + 1 , and since x + a k is a monotonically increasing function on a k , we have x + a k < x + 2 1 + 4 x + 1 . Now, we observe the latter:
x + 2 1 + 4 x + 1
= 2 1 ⋅ 4 x + 2 ( 1 + 4 x + 1 )
= 2 1 ⋅ 4 x + 2 + 2 4 x + 1
= 2 1 ⋅ ( 1 + 4 x + 1 )
= 2 1 + 4 x + 1
Thus a k + 1 < x + 2 1 + 4 x + 1 = 2 1 + 4 x + 1 , proving the induction claim. And thus by mathematical induction, a n is bounded above by 2 1 + 4 x + 1 .
Now, we prove that it is increasing; that is, a n < a n + 1 for all natural n . To see this, we assume for the sake of contradiction that a n ≥ a n + 1 for some n and derive a contradiction.
Note that a n + 1 = x + a n . Since a n ≥ x + a n ≥ 0 , we can square both sides to give a n 2 ≥ x + a n , or a n 2 − a n ≥ x . This simplifies to a n ≤ 2 1 − 4 x + 1 or a n ≥ 2 1 + 4 x + 1 . But this is impossible: a n ≤ 2 1 − 4 x + 1 cannot be true as the right hand side is less than 0 , while a n is the square root of some real number and hence not less than 0 . Meanwhile, a n ≥ 2 1 + 4 x + 1 is impossible from our result above. So our assumption was invalid; so a n < a n + 1 for all natural n indeed.
Thus a n is bounded above and increasing, and hence has a limit, which we have computed above as 2 1 + 4 x + 1 . We can now substitute this to the expression:
lim x → 0 + x + x + … = lim x → 0 + 2 1 + 4 x + 1
The latter is straightforward computation. For positive x , the function is continuous, thus the limit is found by substituting the value x = 0 to the expression: 2 1 + 4 ⋅ 0 + 1 = 1 .
yes, that is the rigorous approach to show that the infinite radical has that value as claimed.
For the purpose of this question, I am thinking of another approach to show that the value is 1, by using the squeeze theorem and much less machinery.
I can see how you give a lower bound of 1 to the limit (consider the limit of 0 + 0 + … x for number of radicals going to infinity), but how would you give the upper bound?
It is easy to show by induction that x + x + … + x < 1 + x .
The induction step is x + ( 1 + x ) < 1 + x , which is obvious by squaring.
This is similar to your proof that a n < 2 1 + 1 + 4 x , though much simpler because I have a much wider bound.
@Calvin Lin – Sir,
I'm not an expert in mathematics, so if there is anything wrong in my thinking , kindly reply me the correction please.
Can't we do the question this way?
x → 0 + l im x + x + x . . . . ----(1)
let x = 0 + h , where h is a very small positive quantity.
As x → 0 , then h → 0
Rewriting equation (1) as,
h → 0 l im 0 + h 0 + h 0 + h . . . .
that is,
h → 0 l im h + h + h . . . .
Putting values to h , i.e. h=0 , we get,
0 + 0 + 0 . . . . which is equal to zero,right?
@Anandhu Raj – The issue with "finding the limit by substituting in the value", is that it only works if the function is continuous at that point.
For example, if we want to find lim x → 0 x x 2 , we cannot substitute in 0, to get 0 0 which is undefined. Instead, we have to figure out what the graph actually looks like, to conclude that the limit is 1.
The infinite radical x + x + … has a similar issue, namely that it is not continuous as x = 0 . This is not immediately apparent, but arises because the infinite radical is actually the limit of a sequence.
What you have actually done is interchanged the order of limits (ie. taking x → 0 first ), which is not justified under this scenario. For a similar example, see this problem .
@Calvin Lin – Now, we are in soup.
We define the function to be continuous at a point if the limit there is equal to its value.
How do we know that the function is discontinuous before finding its limit?
@Agnishom Chattopadhyay – A function is continuous at a if f ( a ) = lim x → a f ( x ) .
Most of the time, to show that a function is continuous, you have to evaluate the limit in one form or another. There are other theorems that describe what makes a function continuous, but they all essentially boil down to the epsilon-delta definition .
Without finding the exact limit, there can be other ways of showing that a function is
discontinuous
. Examples are
-
f
(
a
)
does not exist
- Show that the limit does not exist
- Show that
f
(
a
)
<
f
(
x
)
−
c
for some constant
c
, in a neighborhood of
a
.
@Agnishom Chattopadhyay – You don't know that, hence why in general you cannot just substitute for computing limits.
What I don't understand is- how do you get L = (1 + root(1 + 4x))/2 from L = root( L + x) in the first place? At that stage you don't know whether (L - 1/2) is greater than zero, and therefore the "+" sign is to be taken. It could also be L = (1 - root(1 + 4x))/2........ What's the logic behind that, sir? #Ivan_Koswara
For x > 0 , 2 1 − 1 − 4 x < 0 . Meanwhile, L = L + x is the square root of a real number, which is either non-negative or imaginary. Thus 2 1 − 1 − 4 x cannot be the sought value as it's negative, while we're looking for non-negative solution.
Let root(x+ root(x +root(x...... =y
So, squaring on both sides,
x + root(x +root(x ..... =(y^2)
=> (y^2) - y -x=0
As x --> 0+ ,
(y^2) - y ~ 0
So, y = 0 , 1
As x --> 0+ ,
root(x) --> 0+
so, x + root(x) --> 0+, but != 0
Therefore y=1 !!!
Not quite.
1) You have not shown that the limit exists as yet. Assuming that the limit exists and is finite (equal to y), then you have shown that the limit is either 0 or 1.
2) I don't understand why " x + root (x) --> 0+, but ! = 0 ". I can think of many sequences of strictly positive numbers which tend to 0. E.g
n
1
.
simple answer.. good job (y)
If we equate the limit to
y
we get
y
2
=
x
+
y
. Letting
x
= 0 gives
y
(
y
-1) = 0, so y=0 or 1. Now we have to use a reasoned argument as to which value to use. Well as we get close to 0,
x
>
x
, so as we continue the square roots the expression becomes bigger, but always stays close to 1. However, there is a better, more algebraic way of looking at it. Let
x
= 0.1 to give:
y
2
-
y
- 0.1 = 0, so
y
1
~1.09. Now let
x
= 0.01, which gives
y
2
~1.001. Clearly
y
--> 1, as
x
-->
∞
Is this what you were looking for Calvin?
Close, but not quite.
1) You have not shown that the limit exists.
2) You have not shown that the limit is finite. E.g. "
∞
2
=
x
+
∞
" is still a true statement.
3) You need to justify what "always stays close to 1" means. For example,
lim
x
→
0
x
=
0
, and the rest of your argument is equally valid.
4) You need to justify why
0
.
1
+
0
.
1
+
…
=
1
.
0
9
. Yes, I know that most people take this for granted, but this is a crucial part of understanding the proof.
If the function is discontinuous at 0 so how can a limit exist ?
Hmm... well the continuity of a function doesn't affect the existence of limits. If the lateral limits are different, then the limit doesn´t exist, but if the discontinuity is because of f(0) not being defined, then the limit could exist. Continuity garantees the existence of a limit, but discontinuity does not necesseraly affect the existence of a limit. For example, the function f(x)=(x^2)/2x has a discontinuity at x=0, but the limit exists, and it is equal to 0.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
I t c a n b e d o n e m u c h m o r e s i m p l y y = x + x + x + . . . . . . . . . . . ∴ y 2 = x + x + x + x + . . . . . . . . . . . ∴ y 2 = x + y ∴ y 2 = 0 + + y S o t h e s q u a r e o f y i s a b i t g r e a t e r t h a n y , i f w e c h a n g e i t a b i t . I f y i s v e r y c l o s e t o z e r o , y 2 w i l l b e l e s s t h a n y . S o o n l y s o l u t i o n i s 1