Evaluate the limit by recognizing that it is a Rieman's sum

  • Thread starter skyturnred
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Limit Sum
In summary, the student is trying to solve a problem in which they mistook f(x_1*) for Δxi. They then extend the method to find x_2 and so on.
  • #1
skyturnred
118
0

Homework Statement



lim n[itex]\rightarrow[/itex][itex]\infty[/itex] [itex]\frac{16}{n}[/itex]([itex]\sqrt{\frac{16}{n}}[/itex]+[itex]\sqrt{\frac{32}{n}}[/itex]+[itex]\sqrt{\frac{48}{n}}[/itex]+...+[itex]\sqrt{\frac{16n}{n}}[/itex])

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So by recognizing it is a Rieman's sum, I got to the following conclusion.

[itex]\frac{64}{n}[/itex][itex]\sum[/itex][itex]\sqrt{\frac{i}{n}}[/itex] (with i=1 under the sigma, and n above it)

But I don't know if I am right, and even if I am, I don't know how to continue with this! Also, does this replace the lim as n approaches infinity (or rather a better wording would be, does this take care of it?)

Thanks so much in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Right now, all you have shown is that the limit above is

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{\sqrt{\frac{i}{n}}\frac{64}{n}}[/tex]

You have yet to recognize it as a Riemann sum (and you did not eliminate the limit yet).

So, can you find a function f such that the above limit equals

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\Delta x_i}[/tex]

Finding such f and such xi is the clue to this problem.
 
  • #3
micromass said:
Right now, all you have shown is that the limit above is

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{\sqrt{\frac{i}{n}}\frac{64}{n}}[/tex]

You have yet to recognize it as a Riemann sum (and you did not eliminate the limit yet).

So, can you find a function f such that the above limit equals

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\Delta x_i}[/tex]

Finding such f and such xi is the clue to this problem.

I know that in a Rieman sum,

delta x=(b-a)/n
so delta x=16/n
I know that f(xi)=(delta x)(i)
So f(xi)=(16i)/n

I am very confused.. I am not even clear on what the steps to solving a problem like this would even be. I think that if I knew such steps I could solve this though.. so it's not the arithmetic.

Am I trying to show that the original question can be rewritten in terms of


[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\Delta x_i}[/tex]

?
 
  • #4
skyturnred said:
I know that in a Rieman sum,

delta x=(b-a)/n
so delta x=16/n
I know that f(xi)=(delta x)(i)
So f(xi)=(16i)/n

I am very confused.. I am not even clear on what the steps to solving a problem like this would even be. I think that if I knew such steps I could solve this though.. so it's not the arithmetic.

Am I trying to show that the original question can be rewritten in terms of


[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\Delta x_i}[/tex]

?

Yes, you are trying to rewrite your sum into one of the form

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\frac{x_i-x_{i-1}}{n}}[/tex]

It seems obvious that we should try [itex]\frac{x_i-x_{i-1}}{n}=\frac{16}{n}[/itex]. So what are [itex]x_1,...,x_n[/itex] here?
 
  • #5
micromass said:
Yes, you are trying to rewrite your sum into one of the form

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)\frac{x_i-x_{i-1}}{n}}[/tex]

It seems obvious that we should try [itex]\frac{x_i-x_{i-1}}{n}=\frac{16}{n}[/itex]. So what are [itex]x_1,...,x_n[/itex] here?

OK, so after looking at your responses and reading over the book yet again, I discovered I was mistaking that f(x[itex]_{i}[/itex]*)=Δxi, when it is actually just x[itex]_{i}[/itex]* itself that equals Δxi

I am extremely dense when it comes to the most simple math.. I can see how

[itex]\frac{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}{n}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{b-a}{n}[/itex], and I already know b to be 16 and a to be 0. So.. x[itex]_{i}[/itex] should be 16, and x[itex]_{i-1}[/itex] should be 0. But I don't quite know how to find x[itex]_{1}[/itex] or x[itex]_{n}[/itex].
 
  • #6
No, [itex]x_1,...,x_n[/itex] are all different! That's what you do when making a Riemann sum: you divide a certain interval into n (equal) pieces. These pieces are [itex][x_0,x_1], [x_1,x_2],...[/itex].

You are right that [itex]x_1=0[/itex]. And you also know that [itex]\frac{x_2-x_1}{n}=\frac{16}{n}[/itex]. So, can you now find out what [itex]x_2[/itex] is??

Can you extend this method to find [itex]x_3[/itex] and so on??
 
  • #7
micromass said:
No, [itex]x_1,...,x_n[/itex] are all different! That's what you do when making a Riemann sum: you divide a certain interval into n (equal) pieces. These pieces are [itex][x_0,x_1], [x_1,x_2],...[/itex].

You are right that [itex]x_1=0[/itex]. And you also know that [itex]\frac{x_2-x_1}{n}=\frac{16}{n}[/itex]. So, can you now find out what [itex]x_2[/itex] is??

Can you extend this method to find [itex]x_3[/itex] and so on??

Yes, I get x[itex]_{2}[/itex]=16, x[itex]_{3}[/itex]=32, x[itex]_{4}[/itex]=48, and so on and so forth. So [itex]\frac{x_{t}}{n}=\frac{16+x_{t-1}}{n}[/itex].

In otherwords.. I basically just re wrote the original [itex]\frac{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}{n}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{16}{n}[/itex]. I don't really understand what this is supposed to be helping me to find though..
 
  • #8
Oh, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It turns out that we want

[tex]x_i-x_{i-1}=\frac{16}{n}[/tex]

Doing the same thing, we find

[tex]x_0=0,~x_1=\frac{16}{n},~x_2=\frac{32}{n},...[/tex]

Why do we do this, well, we wish to find f and [itex]x_i[/itex] (that we just found) to rewrite

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{\sqrt{\frac{16i}{n}}\frac{16}{n}} = \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})}[/tex]

The right hand side is a Riemann sum. So the limit of that would be an integral. This is why we are doing this. We want to calculate the original sum by calculating the integral.
 
  • #9
micromass said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It turns out that we want

[tex]x_i-x_{i-1}=\frac{16}{n}[/tex]

Doing the same thing, we find

[tex]x_0=0,~x_1=\frac{16}{n},~x_2=\frac{32}{n},...[/tex]

Why do we do this, well, we wish to find f and [itex]x_i[/itex] (that we just found) to rewrite

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{\sqrt{\frac{16i}{n}}\frac{16}{n}} = \sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})}[/tex]

The right hand side is a Riemann sum. So the limit of that would be an integral. This is why we are doing this. We want to calculate the original sum by calculating the integral.

Ok that makes a lot of sense! So We have to find a function f in which to plug the value that we found for x[itex]_{i}[/itex], and then multiply it by the value that we found for Δx.
But I have no idea how to find the function f. I know that somehow I must relate what we found Δx and x[itex]_{i}[/itex] to be to the original question, but how?
 
  • #10
Plug in the values you found for [itex]x_i[/itex] in

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})}[/tex]

and it will become obvious what f is.
 
  • #11
micromass said:
Plug in the values you found for [itex]x_i[/itex] in

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n{f(x_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})}[/tex]

and it will become obvious what f is.

OK, I did that, and I think I found f(x)=√xi

OK so I found f, x[itex]_{i}[/itex], and Δx. But now what do I do? I still have no idea..

Thanks for all of your help by the way, I am just SO frustrated with my prof for rushing over the hardest topic in 15 minutes!
 
  • #12
Ok, so you have found [itex]f(x)=\sqrt{x}[/itex] and [itex]x_i=\frac{16}{n}[/itex].

Now, I claim that you can write

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \sum_{i=1}^{n} f(x_i)(x_i-x_{i-1}) = \int_a^b f(x)dx[/tex]

and that integral can be easily calculated. Do you see why you can write it as an integral? It's the very definition of Riemann integrals.

Ok, so try now to write your original limit as an integral.
 
  • #13
Wait.. would it make sense to just plug what I found for f(x) into the integral with lower limit 0 and upper limit 16? In my mind that would solve the problem.. but then that would mean I found the wrong value for f(x)
 
  • #14
skyturnred said:
Wait.. would it make sense to just plug what I found for f(x) into the integral with lower limit 0 and upper limit 16? In my mind that would solve the problem.. but then that would mean I found the wrong value for f(x).

Yes, that is correct. Why do you think that you have found the wrong value??
 
  • #15
micromass said:
Yes, that is correct. Why do you think that you have found the wrong value??

OK, thanks! Yes I see how that is equal to the integral. But can you please just go over very quickly how f(x)=sqrt(x)? I get it to be f(x)=sqrt(xi) (not x sub i but actually x times i) which OBVIOUSLY makes no sense and is wrong. It HAS to be wrong, I don't see how I can take the integral of xi.
 
  • #16
Why do you have x TIMES i?

Isn't it simply because [itex]x_i=\frac{16i}{n}[/itex]??
 
  • #17
Oh I see it now! Thanks so much for sticking with me through all of that, I can understand how frustrating it is to try and teach someone something that you find so simple and they refuse to get it. I am pretty sure I understand the steps now.. I am going to try it again on my own.

Thanks again!
 

FAQ: Evaluate the limit by recognizing that it is a Rieman's sum

What is a Riemann's sum?

A Riemann's sum is a method used in calculus to approximate the area under a curve by dividing it into smaller rectangles and adding up their individual areas. It is named after mathematician Bernhard Riemann.

Why is it important to recognize that a limit is a Riemann's sum?

Recognizing a limit as a Riemann's sum allows us to use the properties of Riemann's sums to evaluate the limit. This can make the calculation easier and more efficient.

What are the steps to evaluate a limit using a Riemann's sum?

The steps are as follows: 1) Divide the interval into smaller subintervals, 2) Choose a point within each subinterval, 3) Calculate the width of each subinterval, 4) Write the Riemann's sum formula, 5) Take the limit as the number of subintervals approaches infinity.

What happens if the number of subintervals is increased in a Riemann's sum?

As the number of subintervals increases, the approximation of the area under the curve becomes more accurate. This is because the smaller the subintervals, the closer they are to the actual curve.

Can a Riemann's sum be used to evaluate any limit?

No, a Riemann's sum can only be used to evaluate limits where the function is continuous on the interval being divided into subintervals.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
695
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top