March 19
In a recent thread, if I understand correctly, pma says that
converges pointwise to
as n approaces infinity. How would you prove that? Black Carrot (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Won't the limit depend on what branch of log you choose for negative arguments? Algebraist 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies: I made a misprint there (now corrected): the change of variables was
, with a minus in the exponent (this is consistent with the line below, that had it). So the term
is at the denominator, and the argument of log goes to 1 (actually, in that computation it was always positive). Do you see how to do it now?--pma (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is:
- Write the second order Taylor expansion for
at 0, with remainder in Peano form: so, for all ![{\displaystyle x\in [0,\pi /2)}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/dd470c3fc8d75616e10156a29f44c8e3216661ab)
, as
.
- For any s we only have to consider the integers
. Replace
in the expansion above, getting
, as
, and uniformly for all
.
- Summing over all
![{\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq n}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/78ec00bc2eb99b403bee93def3c12ae87f1e3c3d)
, as
.
- Then you may observe that
is the Riemann sum for the integral of
on [0,1] (or use the formula for
) and conclude that the whole thing is
.
- Warning: I have re-edited this answer, to make it more simple and clear (hopefully) --pma (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should one go about solving this equation.
92.9.236.44 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The right hand side is
. Does that help? —JAO • T • C 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes. It seems to yeild a solution of the form
does that seem correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.236.44 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for yourself - differentiate that a couple of times, substitute everything in and see if the two sides match. If they do, you've got it right, if they don't, you haven't! --Tango (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]