This actually turned out easier than I thought, thanks to Art of Problem Solving user aziiri. This was his solution: \[ \forall\ x\geq 0\ :\ x- \frac{x^2}{2}\leq \ln(1+x)\leq x.\]
Apply to get that the limit equals \( \boxed {1} \) for any real number \( k \).
Yep, that's me.
Note that even if we replace \(k\) with \(-n\) we still get \(1\), because the n-th degree root tends towards one a lot faster that the logarithm and the identity function.
I've never been an expert on limits but i think its 0... if n is realy large, 1/(nlogn) will be 0 pretty much, regardless of the k... then it becomes the nth root of the square root of log(1) which is the nth root of 0 which is 0.. sure theres a way better way of doing this lol
Easy Math Editor
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Sort by:
Top NewestThis actually turned out easier than I thought, thanks to Art of Problem Solving user aziiri. This was his solution: \[ \forall\ x\geq 0\ :\ x- \frac{x^2}{2}\leq \ln(1+x)\leq x.\] Apply to get that the limit equals \( \boxed {1} \) for any real number \( k \).
Log in to reply
Yep, that's me. Note that even if we replace \(k\) with \(-n\) we still get \(1\), because the n-th degree root tends towards one a lot faster that the logarithm and the identity function.
Log in to reply
Can u provide this "Art of Problem Solving" for me ?! is it a book or what ?!
Log in to reply
It is a website: www.artofproblemsolving.com.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Also you can take ln(nat log) and then evaluate it, it would come ln(L)=0 where 'L' is the limit.
Log in to reply
what is nat in ln(nat log)?
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
0
Log in to reply
I've never been an expert on limits but i think its 0... if n is realy large, 1/(nlogn) will be 0 pretty much, regardless of the k... then it becomes the nth root of the square root of log(1) which is the nth root of 0 which is 0.. sure theres a way better way of doing this lol
Log in to reply
1
Log in to reply
it is 1 , m sure :)
Log in to reply
Can you tell me the ans Ahaan?
Log in to reply
Numerically, I have found the answer to be \(1\) for all values of \(k\).
Log in to reply
Yeah, me too.
Log in to reply
Its 0
Log in to reply
\(e^{\frac{-1}{2}}\)
Log in to reply
sin33 in surd form
Log in to reply