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.
I'm not really into limits yet I was able to answer this question correctly(by mistake I suppose) but I wanted to know where I've gone wrong.
So IMO there's no need for all that explanation when n → ∞ then the denominator in n 2 x 2 tends to infinity which means the denominator is zero in the infinity.Hence the answer should be lim n → ∞ ( 1 n ) which is 1.By the way I don't really know much about the e so if the wrong in my answer was anything somehow related to e please explain it noob-friendly xD thanks for the problem.
Log in to reply
That would usually be the case, but the trouble is the exponent is getting larger at the same time, so we to look for convergence. There is a neat proof that lim n → ∞ ( 1 + n 1 ) n monotonically converges to e ≈ 2.718. If you are still not convinced just type in the expression for e as n gets larger.
Log in to reply
Thank you very much Curtis!I think I get it now.And also the reason for the name "Seems familiar ... " :D
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
n → ∞ lim ( 1 − n 2 x 2 ) n = n → ∞ lim ( 1 + n x ) n × n → ∞ lim ( 1 − n x ) n = e x × e − x = 1
This comes from the definition of e: e = n → ∞ lim ( 1 + n 1 ) n which can be generalised to e x = n → ∞ lim ( 1 + n x ) n . . . . . . . . x ∈ ℜ via l'hopital's rule.