Given a sequence of real numbers $r$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n^\frac{1}{n}=1$, then what can we say about $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n$?

If $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n^\frac{1}{n}=0.99$, then $r_n=0.99^n$, so $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n=0$.

And if $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n^\frac{1}{n}=1.01$, then $r_n=1.01^n$, so $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n=\infty$

But in the case of $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n^\frac{1}{n} = 1$, I am not sure what can be concluded about $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n$

  • $\begingroup$ You say that "$r$ is a real number" then how it then becomes $r=0.99^n$ which is not a number but a sequence? $\endgroup$ – A.Γ. Oct 10 '15 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ @A.G. Thanks for correcting. $r$ is a sequence of real numbers. $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Oct 10 '15 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Aniket The notation $r^{\frac{1}{n}}$ is very confusing, since you seem in other expressions to be using $n$ to index $r$, but there you are using it as an exponent. What exactly do you mean by it? Do you mean $r_n^\frac{1}{n}$? $\endgroup$ – AJMansfield Oct 10 '15 at 19:25

Nothing can be said about $\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n$: it may be $+\infty$ as for $r_n=n$, it may be zero as for $r_n=\frac{1}{n}$, it may be any number between as for $r_n=r\in(0,+\infty)$ or it may not exist as for $r_n=2+\sin(n)$.

P.S. To handle the limits above rewrite $r_n^{\frac{1}{n}}=e^{\frac{1}{n}\ln r_n}$ and see that $\lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\ln r_n=0$.

EDIT: To make it clearer let us consider the following class of sequences $r_n$ $$ \frac{c}{n}\le r_n\le C\cdot n $$ with any positive constants $c$ and $C$. It is quite a large class, since $r_n$ can vary from going to zero (as $1/n$) to going to infinity (as $n$), with any limit in between being possible. There are also oscillating sequences in the class that have no limit. Now, take the logarithm of this inequality and divide by $n$ $$ \ln c -\ln n\le \ln r_n\le \ln C+\ln n\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad \underbrace{\frac{\ln c}{n} -\frac{\ln n}{n}}_{\to 0}\le \frac{\ln r_n}{n}\le \underbrace{\frac{\ln C}{n}+\frac{\ln n}{n}}_{\to 0}. $$ Since both sides go to zero as $n\to\infty$, by the squeeze theorem we get that the middle part goes to zero as well, therefore $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}r_n^{\frac1n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{\frac1n\ln r_n}=e^{\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\ln r_n}=1. $$ Conclusion: the limit of $n^\text{th}$ root is equal to one for a huge class of sequences $r_n$ that may themselves have any limit between $0$ and $+\infty$ or none.

  • $\begingroup$ Concise and complete. Excellent!! +1 $\endgroup$ – Mark Viola Oct 10 '15 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ Please show which oscillating sequences you are talking about. $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Oct 22 '15 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Aniket The one I have mentioned above is $r_n=2+\sin n$. Another even simpler is $1,2,1,2,1,2,\ldots$ $\endgroup$ – A.Γ. Oct 22 '15 at 20:09

You actually cannot say about sequences with limit 1, since if we consider x(n)=n, and y(n) = 1/n, we have n^(1/n) and (1/(n^(1/n))) converging to 1. Proof: Consider z(n) = n^(1/n). Define b(n) + 1 = z(n), so n= (1 + b(n))^n, so by the expansion of (a+b)^n, we have (1 + b(n))^n > [n(n-1)/2]*(b(n)^2), so 2/(n-1) > (b(n)^2)>0, so by Archimedian Property, {2/n-1} converges to 0, {0} converges to 0, so by the Sandwich Lemma, we have {b(n)^2} converges to 0, so {b(n)} converges to 0 (Easy to show). Therefore, z(n) converges to 1+0 = 1, by Algebra of Convergent Sequences. Also, w(n)= y(n)^(1/n) now converges to 1/1=1. Therefore, while both obey the hypothesis, x(n) diverges (N is unbounded above), while y(n) converges to 0, by the Archimedian Property.

  • $\begingroup$ y(n) is a divergent sequence. Check the use of words. It does not converge to 0, the terms tend to 0 as $n\to\infty$ $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Oct 31 '15 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Aniket: Please note that y(n) = 1/n. Thus, y(n) will, as you say, "tend to 0 as n tends to infinity". Therefore, y(n) is NOT divergent. Perhaps, you are confusing it with the limit of the partial sums of {1/n}, that is the harmonic series, which diverges. Please explain to me why exactly I should not say y(n) converges to 0. $\endgroup$ – user270212 Nov 12 '15 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.