Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:00:36 GMT
David Marcus writes
You have demonstrated what people on sci.math refer to as dyslexia. You
have switched the order of the operations. As far as the limit is
concerned, x is a fixed number. Let's try x = 1/2. The question is what
is the value of
lim n->oo (1/2)^n
? To be more precise, saying
lim n->oo |x|^n = 0, for |x| < 1
is different from saying
lim n->oo sup_{|x|<1} |x|^n.
"sup" is like max, but is used when the maximum isn't obtained.
But, if the formula is to be true for all x<1, then don't we need to show that
lim n->oo sup_{|x|<1} |x|^n = 0 ?
Which was what I was trying, unsuccessfully and amateurishly, to do/disprove? that is exactly the point at issue - there is no question that
lim n->oo |x|^n = 0 for any |x| that is finitely different from 1.
The issue is whether there are any wrinkles and whether the limit is true for
all |x| strictly <1 i.e. all reals in the interval from 0,1 excluding the exact point at x = 1.
--
Andy Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: I'd like suggestions on how to improve my math
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|