would the proof to show that $1/(n+n^2)$ converges to 0 be the same as for $1/n$












2












$begingroup$


I have started this by doing $mid1/(n+n^2) - 0mid< epsilon$ and I have fixed $epsilon > 0$ which then leads me to $n+n^2 > 1/epsilon$ however I'm not sure if I should leave it like that or make it so only 1 stays on that side. I carried on otherwise and left it like that and by the archimedian property chose a value $N$ where $N>1/epsilon.$ Then for any $n > N$ I have $1/(n+n^2) < 1/N < epsilon.$






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    ' only 1 n stays on that side '
    $endgroup$
    – Micheal smith
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:30
















2












$begingroup$


I have started this by doing $mid1/(n+n^2) - 0mid< epsilon$ and I have fixed $epsilon > 0$ which then leads me to $n+n^2 > 1/epsilon$ however I'm not sure if I should leave it like that or make it so only 1 stays on that side. I carried on otherwise and left it like that and by the archimedian property chose a value $N$ where $N>1/epsilon.$ Then for any $n > N$ I have $1/(n+n^2) < 1/N < epsilon.$






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    ' only 1 n stays on that side '
    $endgroup$
    – Micheal smith
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:30














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I have started this by doing $mid1/(n+n^2) - 0mid< epsilon$ and I have fixed $epsilon > 0$ which then leads me to $n+n^2 > 1/epsilon$ however I'm not sure if I should leave it like that or make it so only 1 stays on that side. I carried on otherwise and left it like that and by the archimedian property chose a value $N$ where $N>1/epsilon.$ Then for any $n > N$ I have $1/(n+n^2) < 1/N < epsilon.$






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have started this by doing $mid1/(n+n^2) - 0mid< epsilon$ and I have fixed $epsilon > 0$ which then leads me to $n+n^2 > 1/epsilon$ however I'm not sure if I should leave it like that or make it so only 1 stays on that side. I carried on otherwise and left it like that and by the archimedian property chose a value $N$ where $N>1/epsilon.$ Then for any $n > N$ I have $1/(n+n^2) < 1/N < epsilon.$






real-analysis




real-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 27 '18 at 10:37









user376343

3,3933826




3,3933826










asked Nov 27 '18 at 10:29









Micheal smithMicheal smith

112




112












  • $begingroup$
    ' only 1 n stays on that side '
    $endgroup$
    – Micheal smith
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:30


















  • $begingroup$
    ' only 1 n stays on that side '
    $endgroup$
    – Micheal smith
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:30
















$begingroup$
' only 1 n stays on that side '
$endgroup$
– Micheal smith
Nov 27 '18 at 10:30




$begingroup$
' only 1 n stays on that side '
$endgroup$
– Micheal smith
Nov 27 '18 at 10:30










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Yes, the proof that $frac1{n+n^2}$ converges can be very similar to the one that $n$ converges. In fact, it will be even simpler, since, in the original proof, you needed to find an $N$ such that $n>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N$, and in this proof, you need to find and $N'$ such that $n+n^2>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N'$. Clearly, since $n+n^2>n$, simply taking the same $N'$ as in the original proof would be sufficient, but even smaller values of $N'$ would also work (but are not required).



An alternative way of proving convergence is to use the fact that $$0leq frac{1}{n+n^2} leq frac 1n$$ and using the squeeze theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    What we could use, if we don't need to use a direct approach, is that



    $$frac1{n+n^2} le frac1n$$



    and then invoke the squeeze theorem.



    Otherwise your way seems fine, from here we can use that



    $$n+n^2 >n >frac1{epsilon}$$



    and then take $N>frac1{epsilon}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
      $endgroup$
      – Micheal smith
      Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










    • $begingroup$
      sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
      $endgroup$
      – Micheal smith
      Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










    • $begingroup$
      @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
      $endgroup$
      – gimusi
      Nov 27 '18 at 10:40











    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015612%2fwould-the-proof-to-show-that-1-nn2-converges-to-0-be-the-same-as-for-1-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    Yes, the proof that $frac1{n+n^2}$ converges can be very similar to the one that $n$ converges. In fact, it will be even simpler, since, in the original proof, you needed to find an $N$ such that $n>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N$, and in this proof, you need to find and $N'$ such that $n+n^2>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N'$. Clearly, since $n+n^2>n$, simply taking the same $N'$ as in the original proof would be sufficient, but even smaller values of $N'$ would also work (but are not required).



    An alternative way of proving convergence is to use the fact that $$0leq frac{1}{n+n^2} leq frac 1n$$ and using the squeeze theorem.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      Yes, the proof that $frac1{n+n^2}$ converges can be very similar to the one that $n$ converges. In fact, it will be even simpler, since, in the original proof, you needed to find an $N$ such that $n>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N$, and in this proof, you need to find and $N'$ such that $n+n^2>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N'$. Clearly, since $n+n^2>n$, simply taking the same $N'$ as in the original proof would be sufficient, but even smaller values of $N'$ would also work (but are not required).



      An alternative way of proving convergence is to use the fact that $$0leq frac{1}{n+n^2} leq frac 1n$$ and using the squeeze theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Yes, the proof that $frac1{n+n^2}$ converges can be very similar to the one that $n$ converges. In fact, it will be even simpler, since, in the original proof, you needed to find an $N$ such that $n>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N$, and in this proof, you need to find and $N'$ such that $n+n^2>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N'$. Clearly, since $n+n^2>n$, simply taking the same $N'$ as in the original proof would be sufficient, but even smaller values of $N'$ would also work (but are not required).



        An alternative way of proving convergence is to use the fact that $$0leq frac{1}{n+n^2} leq frac 1n$$ and using the squeeze theorem.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Yes, the proof that $frac1{n+n^2}$ converges can be very similar to the one that $n$ converges. In fact, it will be even simpler, since, in the original proof, you needed to find an $N$ such that $n>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N$, and in this proof, you need to find and $N'$ such that $n+n^2>frac1epsilon$ for $n>N'$. Clearly, since $n+n^2>n$, simply taking the same $N'$ as in the original proof would be sufficient, but even smaller values of $N'$ would also work (but are not required).



        An alternative way of proving convergence is to use the fact that $$0leq frac{1}{n+n^2} leq frac 1n$$ and using the squeeze theorem.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 27 '18 at 10:36









        5xum5xum

        90.2k394161




        90.2k394161























            2












            $begingroup$

            What we could use, if we don't need to use a direct approach, is that



            $$frac1{n+n^2} le frac1n$$



            and then invoke the squeeze theorem.



            Otherwise your way seems fine, from here we can use that



            $$n+n^2 >n >frac1{epsilon}$$



            and then take $N>frac1{epsilon}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
              $endgroup$
              – gimusi
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:40
















            2












            $begingroup$

            What we could use, if we don't need to use a direct approach, is that



            $$frac1{n+n^2} le frac1n$$



            and then invoke the squeeze theorem.



            Otherwise your way seems fine, from here we can use that



            $$n+n^2 >n >frac1{epsilon}$$



            and then take $N>frac1{epsilon}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
              $endgroup$
              – gimusi
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:40














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            What we could use, if we don't need to use a direct approach, is that



            $$frac1{n+n^2} le frac1n$$



            and then invoke the squeeze theorem.



            Otherwise your way seems fine, from here we can use that



            $$n+n^2 >n >frac1{epsilon}$$



            and then take $N>frac1{epsilon}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            What we could use, if we don't need to use a direct approach, is that



            $$frac1{n+n^2} le frac1n$$



            and then invoke the squeeze theorem.



            Otherwise your way seems fine, from here we can use that



            $$n+n^2 >n >frac1{epsilon}$$



            and then take $N>frac1{epsilon}$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 27 '18 at 10:44

























            answered Nov 27 '18 at 10:32









            gimusigimusi

            92.8k84494




            92.8k84494












            • $begingroup$
              im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
              $endgroup$
              – gimusi
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:40


















            • $begingroup$
              im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
              $endgroup$
              – Micheal smith
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:38










            • $begingroup$
              @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
              $endgroup$
              – gimusi
              Nov 27 '18 at 10:40
















            $begingroup$
            im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
            $endgroup$
            – Micheal smith
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:38




            $begingroup$
            im trying to use a direct approach to see is this is provable the same way if you prove 1/n , using the squeeze theorem will not be the same way as in most cases you wont use the squeeze theorem to prove 1/n converges to 0. im just wondering is it ok to leave it as n + n^2 or is that not possible ?
            $endgroup$
            – Micheal smith
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:38












            $begingroup$
            sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
            $endgroup$
            – Micheal smith
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:38




            $begingroup$
            sorry did not see the continued post you made before i typed that comment in
            $endgroup$
            – Micheal smith
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:38












            $begingroup$
            @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
            $endgroup$
            – gimusi
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:40




            $begingroup$
            @Michealsmith Yes indeed after editing I see better your work on that and you are almost done.
            $endgroup$
            – gimusi
            Nov 27 '18 at 10:40


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015612%2fwould-the-proof-to-show-that-1-nn2-converges-to-0-be-the-same-as-for-1-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

            Image
            3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
            Read more

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

            Image
            up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
            Read more

            Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

            Image
            0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
            Read more