If a sequence converges, then its limit is unique.
Suppose and with .
Let .
By definition:
For :
This gives , a contradiction. Therefore .
If converges, then is bounded.
Let . Take .
:
Let .
Then for all .
The converse is FALSE. is bounded (all terms between -1 and 1) but divergent because it oscillates forever.
If , then such that for : .
Take . Then :
If for all and , then .
Problem: Show that if , then for sufficiently large .
Solution:
By sign preservation with , there exists such that for :
Let and . Then:
| Operation | Result | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Sum/Difference | None | |
| Product | None | |
| Scalar Multiple | c ∈ ℝ | |
| Quotient | b ≠ 0, yₙ ≠ 0 | |
| Power | k ∈ ℕ |
We show .
Since is convergent, it is bounded: for some .
Given , choose such that for :
Then .
These laws require BOTH sequences to converge. For indeterminate forms like:
Further analysis is needed (covered in CALC-2.3: Stolz theorem).
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Divide numerator and denominator by :
Using limit laws (sum, quotient, and ):
Problem: Find .
Solution:
We have (bounded) and (infinitesimal).
By the domination principle: .
Problem: If and , find .
Solution:
Using the power rule and sum rule:
If and , then .
Step 1: By sign preservation, since , there exists such that for .
Step 2: Estimate the difference:
Step 3: Using triangle inequality and :
Both terms can be made arbitrarily small for large .
If , then .
The following limits are fundamental and should be memorized:
❌ Don't apply limit laws to divergent sequences
(the right side is undefined)
❌ Don't divide when the denominator's limit is zero
The quotient rule requires
✓ Always verify convergence first
Before using any limit law, ensure all sequences involved converge
If and both converge, and such that for all , then:
Even if for ALL , the limits may be EQUAL.
Counterexample:
Let and .
Problem: If for all , what is ?
Solution:
We have . Taking limits:
By order preservation: , so .
(This is actually the Squeeze Theorem, covered in CALC-2.3)
If , then .
By the reverse triangle inequality:
Given , choose such that for .
Then .
The CONVERSE is FALSE!
Counterexample:
This equivalence holds ONLY for zero limits.
(⟹) Follows from Theorem 2.6 with , giving .
(⟸) If , then for any , : .
But , so .
Problem: If , find and .
Solution:
By Theorem 2.6:
By the power rule (Theorem 2.4):
If is bounded and , then:
Since is bounded, such that for all .
Given , since , such that for .
Then .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
We have (bounded) and (infinitesimal).
By Theorem 2.8: .
If and , then:
Let for . Using the factorization:
Since , the denominator is bounded away from 0 for large .
As , we get .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
First, find the limit inside the root:
By Theorem 2.9 (root limit):
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Rationalize by multiplying by the conjugate:
Divide by :
Divide by highest power of , then apply sum/quotient rules
Rationalize (multiply by conjugate), or use root limit theorem
Use bounded × infinitesimal principle (Theorem 2.8)
Verify convergence first, then apply product/quotient rules
The following growth comparison is fundamental (from slowest to fastest):
Here means .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
By the growth hierarchy, polynomial exponential.
Since , the exponential dominates any polynomial .
Therefore: .
Problem: Let , . Find if it exists.
Solution:
Step 1: Assume limit exists and solve :
Step 2: Compute first few terms:
The sequence is increasing and bounded above by 3.
Step 3: Prove boundedness: If , then ✓
Step 4: Prove increasing: (since )
By Monotone Bounded Theorem, .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Rationalize:
Divide by :
Problem: If and , find .
Solution:
First, .
By the product rule:
If and is continuous at , then:
Problem: Find .
Solution:
First,
Since is continuous:
If for all and , then .
Given . Since , such that for .
For : .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
By dominated convergence: .
For sequences involving differences, rewrite as telescoping sums:
This is useful when the differences have a pattern.
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Using partial fractions:
As : .
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Divide numerator and denominator by :
Problem: Find .
Solution:
As : , so .
By quotient rule: .
If and , then:
The following forms require careful analysis:
Algebraic Properties
Order Properties
Convergent ⟹ Bounded
Problem: Find .
Solution:
This is form. Rewrite as:
Let . Then .
If and , then .
Limit laws require all component limits to exist. Be careful with:
Problem: Let , . Find .
Solution:
Both and , but:
Polynomial ratio: Divide by highest power
With square roots: Rationalize (multiply by conjugate)
Exponential form: Use definition
Indeterminate: Algebraic manipulation first
Problem: Find .
Solution:
Rationalize by multiplying by :
Divide by : .
Convergent sequences approach a specific value, so terms can't 'escape to infinity.' However, bounded sequences like {(-1)^n} can oscillate forever without settling down. Boundedness is necessary but not sufficient for convergence.
If lim xₙ = a > 0, then xₙ > a/2 > 0 for large n. This lets us 'transfer' the positivity of the limit to the sequence terms. It's crucial for proving inequalities and for quotient rules (ensuring denominators stay away from zero).
Yes! If xₙ < yₙ for all n, we only get lim xₙ ≤ lim yₙ. Example: 1 - 1/n < 1 for all n, but lim(1 - 1/n) = 1 = lim 1. Strict inequalities become non-strict in the limit.
For divergent sequences, expressions like ∞ - ∞ or 0 · ∞ are indeterminate. Example: xₙ = n and yₙ = n give xₙ - yₙ = 0 → 0, but xₙ = n and yₙ = n + 1 give xₙ - yₙ = -1 → -1. Same ∞ - ∞ form, different results.
xₙ → a implies |xₙ| → |a| (by reverse triangle inequality), but NOT vice versa. Exception: when a = 0, they're equivalent. Example: (-1)^n diverges but |(-1)^n| = 1 → 1.
No! You must first establish that both sequences converge (with finite limits). Only then can you apply the laws. A common error is writing 'lim(xₙ + yₙ) = lim xₙ + lim yₙ' when one of the limits doesn't exist.