Skip to main content

calculus and analysis - Difficulty with computing a limit


I meet some difficulties when trying to compute this limit,


Limit[1/n*Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}],   n -> Infinity,Assumptions -> n \[Element] Integers]

The output is,


Limit::cas: Warning: Contradictory assumption(s) (n\[Element]Integers&&(Re[n]<=1/2||n\[NotElement]Reals))&&n>4096 encountered. >>

The limit is finite though.




Answer



Break it up:


int = Assuming[Element[n, Integers],
          Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}]]
(*  (n*Pi)/2  *)

now


Limit[1/n*int, n -> Infinity]
(* Pi/2 *)


You do not even need limit.


(1/n)*int

(*  Pi/2 *)

To do it as you did, you need to put the Assuming first, so it covers the integral part, like this


Assuming[Element[n, Integers], 
 Limit[1/n*Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}],n -> Infinity]]

(* Pi/2  *)


What you had is this:


Limit[1/n*Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}],   
      n -> Infinity,Assumptions -> n \[Element] Integers]

So, the Integrate part never knew that n was an integer ! This is important. Since without this information, integrate will generate an answer this like this:


int = Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}]
(* 1/2 (-ArcTan[2] + ArcTan[2 (1 + Tan[n Pi])]) *)

Assuming[Element[n, Integers], Limit[1/n*int, n -> Infinity]]

(* 0 *)

Compare the result on Integrate when it sees the assumption on n being integer:


Assuming[Element[n, Integers], Integrate[1/(Cos[x]^2 + 4 Sin[2 x] + 4), {x, 0, Pi*n}]]
(* (n Pi)/2  *)

big difference


1/2 (-ArcTan[2] + ArcTan[2 (1 + Tan[n Pi])])

vs



(n Pi)/2

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more