Limit $lim_{xtoinfty}left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}$
I found this example in a textbook, and I understand the author's reasoning and I also reached the same answer using L’Hôpital’s rule. However, I have two issues:
Firstly: For any finite $a$, then as $x rightarrow infty$, $1-frac{a^2}{x^2} rightarrow1$, and 1 to the power of anything is 1, so shouldn't the answer be 1?
Secondly: If I try some form of estimation on my calculator by replacing $x^2$ with $10^{99}$, I also get 1 for any $a$ I use.
limits taylor-expansion infinity estimation
add a comment |
I found this example in a textbook, and I understand the author's reasoning and I also reached the same answer using L’Hôpital’s rule. However, I have two issues:
Firstly: For any finite $a$, then as $x rightarrow infty$, $1-frac{a^2}{x^2} rightarrow1$, and 1 to the power of anything is 1, so shouldn't the answer be 1?
Secondly: If I try some form of estimation on my calculator by replacing $x^2$ with $10^{99}$, I also get 1 for any $a$ I use.
limits taylor-expansion infinity estimation
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
1
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27
add a comment |
I found this example in a textbook, and I understand the author's reasoning and I also reached the same answer using L’Hôpital’s rule. However, I have two issues:
Firstly: For any finite $a$, then as $x rightarrow infty$, $1-frac{a^2}{x^2} rightarrow1$, and 1 to the power of anything is 1, so shouldn't the answer be 1?
Secondly: If I try some form of estimation on my calculator by replacing $x^2$ with $10^{99}$, I also get 1 for any $a$ I use.
limits taylor-expansion infinity estimation
I found this example in a textbook, and I understand the author's reasoning and I also reached the same answer using L’Hôpital’s rule. However, I have two issues:
Firstly: For any finite $a$, then as $x rightarrow infty$, $1-frac{a^2}{x^2} rightarrow1$, and 1 to the power of anything is 1, so shouldn't the answer be 1?
Secondly: If I try some form of estimation on my calculator by replacing $x^2$ with $10^{99}$, I also get 1 for any $a$ I use.
limits taylor-expansion infinity estimation
limits taylor-expansion infinity estimation
edited Dec 9 at 10:59
Martin Sleziak
44.7k7115270
44.7k7115270
asked Dec 9 at 10:10
o c
171
171
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
1
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27
add a comment |
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
1
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
1
1
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
We are using that
$$left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}=e^{x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)}$$
and $x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)$ is an indeterminate form $infty cdot 0$ and since the Taylor's expansion for $ln (1+t)$ as $tto 0$ is
$$ln (1+t)=t-frac12t^2+frac13 t^3-frac14t^4+ldots$$
the result follows.
As an intuitive explanation of the result and for the indeterminate form $1^{infty}$, we need to consider that, in that case, while the base tends to $1^-$ the effect of the exponent is to make the quantity smaller towards zero. The final result is indeed a value in between that is $frac1{e^{a^2}}$.
That's of course not always the case since all depends upon the rate of convergence to $1$ for the base and the rate of divergence for the exponent. We can indeed obtain any result between $[0,infty)$ depending on that. That's why we define that an indeterminate form.
For example as $x to infty$
- $forall ain mathbb{R}quad left(1+frac axright)^xto e^a$
and as a consequence
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to infty quad a>0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 1 quad a=0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 0 quad a<0$
add a comment |
For the sake of simplicity, I will show you a little bit different limit, but It's quite helpful in understanding that your limit is not $1$:
$$x_n:=left(1+frac{a}{n}right)^n$$
We can use Bernoulli's inequaluty to get that
$$x_n geq 1+nfrac{a}{n}=1+a$$
So the limit is at least $1+a$ (if it exists).
And we don't need $n$ to be a natural number, it can be real as well, but it's much easier to prove the Bernoulli's inequality for natural exponents.
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
add a comment |
Notice that:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}$$
By using the limit substitution rule ($xto infty$ means $x^2 to infty$)
We know that this is a standard limit of the form:
$$ lim_{prightarrow infty}left( 1+ frac{b}{p}right)^p = e^b$$
So with this reasoning we get for $p =x^2$ and $b=-a^2$:
$$ lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=e^{-a^2}$$
Also see: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5CBigg(1-%5Cfrac%7Ba%5E2%7D%7Bx%5E2%7D%5CBigg)%5E%7Bx%5E2%7D
As for your method of checking, I would generate a table (maybe in matlab or Mathematica) try for $a=2$, so we should get $e^{-4}approx 0.0183$.
$$(1-4)^1=-3$$
$$vdots$$
$$(1-frac{4}{36})^{36} approx 0.01440$$
$$(1-frac{4}{49})^{49} approx 0.01541$$
For larger values the computer will start rounding and behaving weirdly, Wolfram alpa gives amazing fractions, but only up to some point. It will also be like "ehhh how about no" after some point and start rounding and truncating.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B49%7D)%5E%7B49%7D
Actually, wolfram alpha is really amazing, it can easily compute:
$$ (1- frac{4}{1000})^{1000}=0.0181693095355$$
with impeccable accuracy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B1000%7D)%5E%7B1000%7D
At some point it WILL approximate:
add a comment |
I agree with Rebellos on the first point. You can't ignore the exponent and take the limit of the inside first. This reasoning would give you e=1 (since e is a similarly defined limit). On the second point however, I disagree. Plugging in numbers is a completely valid way of estimating a limit. The problem is, calculators are not exact, they'll truncate the actual value to 1, and then raising 1, instead of 1+a, to the "huge number", (where a is some incredibly small number).
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032226%2flimit-lim-x-to-infty-left1-fraca2x2-rightx2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We are using that
$$left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}=e^{x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)}$$
and $x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)$ is an indeterminate form $infty cdot 0$ and since the Taylor's expansion for $ln (1+t)$ as $tto 0$ is
$$ln (1+t)=t-frac12t^2+frac13 t^3-frac14t^4+ldots$$
the result follows.
As an intuitive explanation of the result and for the indeterminate form $1^{infty}$, we need to consider that, in that case, while the base tends to $1^-$ the effect of the exponent is to make the quantity smaller towards zero. The final result is indeed a value in between that is $frac1{e^{a^2}}$.
That's of course not always the case since all depends upon the rate of convergence to $1$ for the base and the rate of divergence for the exponent. We can indeed obtain any result between $[0,infty)$ depending on that. That's why we define that an indeterminate form.
For example as $x to infty$
- $forall ain mathbb{R}quad left(1+frac axright)^xto e^a$
and as a consequence
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to infty quad a>0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 1 quad a=0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 0 quad a<0$
add a comment |
We are using that
$$left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}=e^{x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)}$$
and $x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)$ is an indeterminate form $infty cdot 0$ and since the Taylor's expansion for $ln (1+t)$ as $tto 0$ is
$$ln (1+t)=t-frac12t^2+frac13 t^3-frac14t^4+ldots$$
the result follows.
As an intuitive explanation of the result and for the indeterminate form $1^{infty}$, we need to consider that, in that case, while the base tends to $1^-$ the effect of the exponent is to make the quantity smaller towards zero. The final result is indeed a value in between that is $frac1{e^{a^2}}$.
That's of course not always the case since all depends upon the rate of convergence to $1$ for the base and the rate of divergence for the exponent. We can indeed obtain any result between $[0,infty)$ depending on that. That's why we define that an indeterminate form.
For example as $x to infty$
- $forall ain mathbb{R}quad left(1+frac axright)^xto e^a$
and as a consequence
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to infty quad a>0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 1 quad a=0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 0 quad a<0$
add a comment |
We are using that
$$left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}=e^{x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)}$$
and $x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)$ is an indeterminate form $infty cdot 0$ and since the Taylor's expansion for $ln (1+t)$ as $tto 0$ is
$$ln (1+t)=t-frac12t^2+frac13 t^3-frac14t^4+ldots$$
the result follows.
As an intuitive explanation of the result and for the indeterminate form $1^{infty}$, we need to consider that, in that case, while the base tends to $1^-$ the effect of the exponent is to make the quantity smaller towards zero. The final result is indeed a value in between that is $frac1{e^{a^2}}$.
That's of course not always the case since all depends upon the rate of convergence to $1$ for the base and the rate of divergence for the exponent. We can indeed obtain any result between $[0,infty)$ depending on that. That's why we define that an indeterminate form.
For example as $x to infty$
- $forall ain mathbb{R}quad left(1+frac axright)^xto e^a$
and as a consequence
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to infty quad a>0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 1 quad a=0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 0 quad a<0$
We are using that
$$left(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)^{x^2}=e^{x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)}$$
and $x^2 lnleft(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}right)$ is an indeterminate form $infty cdot 0$ and since the Taylor's expansion for $ln (1+t)$ as $tto 0$ is
$$ln (1+t)=t-frac12t^2+frac13 t^3-frac14t^4+ldots$$
the result follows.
As an intuitive explanation of the result and for the indeterminate form $1^{infty}$, we need to consider that, in that case, while the base tends to $1^-$ the effect of the exponent is to make the quantity smaller towards zero. The final result is indeed a value in between that is $frac1{e^{a^2}}$.
That's of course not always the case since all depends upon the rate of convergence to $1$ for the base and the rate of divergence for the exponent. We can indeed obtain any result between $[0,infty)$ depending on that. That's why we define that an indeterminate form.
For example as $x to infty$
- $forall ain mathbb{R}quad left(1+frac axright)^xto e^a$
and as a consequence
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to infty quad a>0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 1 quad a=0$
- $left(1+frac axright)^{x^2}to 0 quad a<0$
edited Dec 9 at 11:06
answered Dec 9 at 10:21
gimusi
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
For the sake of simplicity, I will show you a little bit different limit, but It's quite helpful in understanding that your limit is not $1$:
$$x_n:=left(1+frac{a}{n}right)^n$$
We can use Bernoulli's inequaluty to get that
$$x_n geq 1+nfrac{a}{n}=1+a$$
So the limit is at least $1+a$ (if it exists).
And we don't need $n$ to be a natural number, it can be real as well, but it's much easier to prove the Bernoulli's inequality for natural exponents.
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
add a comment |
For the sake of simplicity, I will show you a little bit different limit, but It's quite helpful in understanding that your limit is not $1$:
$$x_n:=left(1+frac{a}{n}right)^n$$
We can use Bernoulli's inequaluty to get that
$$x_n geq 1+nfrac{a}{n}=1+a$$
So the limit is at least $1+a$ (if it exists).
And we don't need $n$ to be a natural number, it can be real as well, but it's much easier to prove the Bernoulli's inequality for natural exponents.
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
add a comment |
For the sake of simplicity, I will show you a little bit different limit, but It's quite helpful in understanding that your limit is not $1$:
$$x_n:=left(1+frac{a}{n}right)^n$$
We can use Bernoulli's inequaluty to get that
$$x_n geq 1+nfrac{a}{n}=1+a$$
So the limit is at least $1+a$ (if it exists).
And we don't need $n$ to be a natural number, it can be real as well, but it's much easier to prove the Bernoulli's inequality for natural exponents.
For the sake of simplicity, I will show you a little bit different limit, but It's quite helpful in understanding that your limit is not $1$:
$$x_n:=left(1+frac{a}{n}right)^n$$
We can use Bernoulli's inequaluty to get that
$$x_n geq 1+nfrac{a}{n}=1+a$$
So the limit is at least $1+a$ (if it exists).
And we don't need $n$ to be a natural number, it can be real as well, but it's much easier to prove the Bernoulli's inequality for natural exponents.
answered Dec 9 at 11:08
Botond
5,5232732
5,5232732
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
add a comment |
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
That's a valid argument only for $a>0$ if I'm not wrong. In that case we have $a<0$. Am I right or am I loosing something in your reasoning?
– gimusi
Dec 9 at 11:26
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
@gimusi Indeed, the inequality is true for $frac{a}{n} geq -1$ only, and useful when $a>0$. When $a<0$, we would need to get an upper bound for the sequence.
– Botond
Dec 9 at 11:34
add a comment |
Notice that:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}$$
By using the limit substitution rule ($xto infty$ means $x^2 to infty$)
We know that this is a standard limit of the form:
$$ lim_{prightarrow infty}left( 1+ frac{b}{p}right)^p = e^b$$
So with this reasoning we get for $p =x^2$ and $b=-a^2$:
$$ lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=e^{-a^2}$$
Also see: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5CBigg(1-%5Cfrac%7Ba%5E2%7D%7Bx%5E2%7D%5CBigg)%5E%7Bx%5E2%7D
As for your method of checking, I would generate a table (maybe in matlab or Mathematica) try for $a=2$, so we should get $e^{-4}approx 0.0183$.
$$(1-4)^1=-3$$
$$vdots$$
$$(1-frac{4}{36})^{36} approx 0.01440$$
$$(1-frac{4}{49})^{49} approx 0.01541$$
For larger values the computer will start rounding and behaving weirdly, Wolfram alpa gives amazing fractions, but only up to some point. It will also be like "ehhh how about no" after some point and start rounding and truncating.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B49%7D)%5E%7B49%7D
Actually, wolfram alpha is really amazing, it can easily compute:
$$ (1- frac{4}{1000})^{1000}=0.0181693095355$$
with impeccable accuracy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B1000%7D)%5E%7B1000%7D
At some point it WILL approximate:
add a comment |
Notice that:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}$$
By using the limit substitution rule ($xto infty$ means $x^2 to infty$)
We know that this is a standard limit of the form:
$$ lim_{prightarrow infty}left( 1+ frac{b}{p}right)^p = e^b$$
So with this reasoning we get for $p =x^2$ and $b=-a^2$:
$$ lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=e^{-a^2}$$
Also see: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5CBigg(1-%5Cfrac%7Ba%5E2%7D%7Bx%5E2%7D%5CBigg)%5E%7Bx%5E2%7D
As for your method of checking, I would generate a table (maybe in matlab or Mathematica) try for $a=2$, so we should get $e^{-4}approx 0.0183$.
$$(1-4)^1=-3$$
$$vdots$$
$$(1-frac{4}{36})^{36} approx 0.01440$$
$$(1-frac{4}{49})^{49} approx 0.01541$$
For larger values the computer will start rounding and behaving weirdly, Wolfram alpa gives amazing fractions, but only up to some point. It will also be like "ehhh how about no" after some point and start rounding and truncating.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B49%7D)%5E%7B49%7D
Actually, wolfram alpha is really amazing, it can easily compute:
$$ (1- frac{4}{1000})^{1000}=0.0181693095355$$
with impeccable accuracy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B1000%7D)%5E%7B1000%7D
At some point it WILL approximate:
add a comment |
Notice that:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}$$
By using the limit substitution rule ($xto infty$ means $x^2 to infty$)
We know that this is a standard limit of the form:
$$ lim_{prightarrow infty}left( 1+ frac{b}{p}right)^p = e^b$$
So with this reasoning we get for $p =x^2$ and $b=-a^2$:
$$ lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=e^{-a^2}$$
Also see: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5CBigg(1-%5Cfrac%7Ba%5E2%7D%7Bx%5E2%7D%5CBigg)%5E%7Bx%5E2%7D
As for your method of checking, I would generate a table (maybe in matlab or Mathematica) try for $a=2$, so we should get $e^{-4}approx 0.0183$.
$$(1-4)^1=-3$$
$$vdots$$
$$(1-frac{4}{36})^{36} approx 0.01440$$
$$(1-frac{4}{49})^{49} approx 0.01541$$
For larger values the computer will start rounding and behaving weirdly, Wolfram alpa gives amazing fractions, but only up to some point. It will also be like "ehhh how about no" after some point and start rounding and truncating.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B49%7D)%5E%7B49%7D
Actually, wolfram alpha is really amazing, it can easily compute:
$$ (1- frac{4}{1000})^{1000}=0.0181693095355$$
with impeccable accuracy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B1000%7D)%5E%7B1000%7D
At some point it WILL approximate:
Notice that:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}$$
By using the limit substitution rule ($xto infty$ means $x^2 to infty$)
We know that this is a standard limit of the form:
$$ lim_{prightarrow infty}left( 1+ frac{b}{p}right)^p = e^b$$
So with this reasoning we get for $p =x^2$ and $b=-a^2$:
$$ lim_{x^2toinfty}Bigg(1-frac{a^2}{x^2}Bigg)^{x^2}=e^{-a^2}$$
Also see: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5CBigg(1-%5Cfrac%7Ba%5E2%7D%7Bx%5E2%7D%5CBigg)%5E%7Bx%5E2%7D
As for your method of checking, I would generate a table (maybe in matlab or Mathematica) try for $a=2$, so we should get $e^{-4}approx 0.0183$.
$$(1-4)^1=-3$$
$$vdots$$
$$(1-frac{4}{36})^{36} approx 0.01440$$
$$(1-frac{4}{49})^{49} approx 0.01541$$
For larger values the computer will start rounding and behaving weirdly, Wolfram alpa gives amazing fractions, but only up to some point. It will also be like "ehhh how about no" after some point and start rounding and truncating.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B49%7D)%5E%7B49%7D
Actually, wolfram alpha is really amazing, it can easily compute:
$$ (1- frac{4}{1000})^{1000}=0.0181693095355$$
with impeccable accuracy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B1000%7D)%5E%7B1000%7D
At some point it WILL approximate:
edited Dec 9 at 11:29
answered Dec 9 at 10:52
Wesley Strik
1,494422
1,494422
add a comment |
add a comment |
I agree with Rebellos on the first point. You can't ignore the exponent and take the limit of the inside first. This reasoning would give you e=1 (since e is a similarly defined limit). On the second point however, I disagree. Plugging in numbers is a completely valid way of estimating a limit. The problem is, calculators are not exact, they'll truncate the actual value to 1, and then raising 1, instead of 1+a, to the "huge number", (where a is some incredibly small number).
add a comment |
I agree with Rebellos on the first point. You can't ignore the exponent and take the limit of the inside first. This reasoning would give you e=1 (since e is a similarly defined limit). On the second point however, I disagree. Plugging in numbers is a completely valid way of estimating a limit. The problem is, calculators are not exact, they'll truncate the actual value to 1, and then raising 1, instead of 1+a, to the "huge number", (where a is some incredibly small number).
add a comment |
I agree with Rebellos on the first point. You can't ignore the exponent and take the limit of the inside first. This reasoning would give you e=1 (since e is a similarly defined limit). On the second point however, I disagree. Plugging in numbers is a completely valid way of estimating a limit. The problem is, calculators are not exact, they'll truncate the actual value to 1, and then raising 1, instead of 1+a, to the "huge number", (where a is some incredibly small number).
I agree with Rebellos on the first point. You can't ignore the exponent and take the limit of the inside first. This reasoning would give you e=1 (since e is a similarly defined limit). On the second point however, I disagree. Plugging in numbers is a completely valid way of estimating a limit. The problem is, calculators are not exact, they'll truncate the actual value to 1, and then raising 1, instead of 1+a, to the "huge number", (where a is some incredibly small number).
answered Dec 9 at 10:24
BelowAverageIntelligence
5021213
5021213
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032226%2flimit-lim-x-to-infty-left1-fraca2x2-rightx2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
See brilliant.org/wiki/indeterminate-forms
– lab bhattacharjee
Dec 9 at 10:12
This really looks like a variation on $e^{-a^2}$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:48
Also see wolframalpha.com/input/…
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 10:58
1
See also: About $lim left(1+frac {x}{n}right)^n$ and other posts linked there. (Notice that after substitution $t=x^2$, you limit is $lim_{ttoinfty} left(1-frac{a^2}tright)^t$.
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 9 at 11:04
I think $10^{99}$ might be a bit of an overkill for a computer to not start rounding off. I would try smaller yet still large values like $10^3$, $10^5$, $10^{10}$, this will still give you the convergence you desire, but without computational rounding errors.
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 at 11:27