interesting dilemma (1 Viewer)

math man

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
503
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
1 to the power of say n (n is some finite natural number) is 1 of course, and we all are taught 1 to the power of anything is 1.
So it would be obvious to think that 1^(infinity) is 1. Is this correct or not... What do you guys believe?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
No, 1^inf is undefined...you cannot just extrapolate something like that and claim it to be true of the 'object' infinity. I stress the use of the word object here as you have gone from considering a real number with a real exponent to a real number with infinity (not a real number) as a superscript.

Of course you could DEFINE this to be anything you like, but I don't think its particularly useful to do so. You would run into big problems when you tried to define things like (-1)^inf.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
At least thats how I interpret what you are asking, if you are instead referring to some limiting process you might need to be a bit more specific.

Eg If x->1 and y->inf does x^y->1?

The answer is an emphatic no here, as can be seen from the identity (1+1/n)^n->e.
 

Carrotsticks

Retired
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
9,494
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Daniel Daners made special emphasis on that, taking care to highlight this common error:

 

math man

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
503
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Yes I was more referring to the limiting
Process. However this question was just
Designed to see how many people think
It is one as it is commonly mistaken to
Be and I feel as though it is a beautiful
Phenomenon how 1 to the infinity can tak
On any value
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Whenever you do something (which you suspect may be illegal) in mathematics you should be asking yourself why you CAN do it. Steps in your working are invalid until proven valid, not the other way around!

(So if you want a more specific answer on why we cannot say (1+1/n)^n->1 or something similar, you must first play devils advocate and try to "justify" why it IS 1.)
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
idgi why wouldnt 1^inf not equal 1
Why wouldnt 1 to the power of a chair equal 1? Infinity is not a real number, the current definition of exponentiation does not apply to this situation and we cannot extrapolate any information from the fact that 1 to the power of a real number is 1.

In any case the OP meant something different, read my earlier post on limits.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Who would make the though? It's obvious you can't do that lol.
Its not THAT obvious...

If x->a and y-> b, then xy->ab.

This is true for real a,b. It is even true for infinite a,b given suitable definitions.
From this it is natural to 'guess' that:

If x->a and y->b then x^y-> a^b might hold for positive/infinite a,b given suitable definitions. This is not the case.
 

RealiseNothing

what is that?It is Cowpea
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
4,591
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Its not THAT obvious...

If x->a and y-> b, then xy->ab.

This is true for real a,b. It is even true for infinite a,b given suitable definitions.
From this it is natural to 'guess' that:

If x->a and y->b then x^y-> a^b might hold for positive/infinite a,b given suitable definitions. This is not the case.
I thought it was obvious though that since it is approaching infinity (and hence not a real value), that you couldn't use basic methods that you would use on 'real' values.
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
I remember my maths teacher once said that some people think parallel lines meet at the point of infinity

The point being that infinity is a very annoying concept to work with mathematically, philosophically or in any way.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I thought it was obvious though that since it is approaching infinity (and hence not a real value), that you couldn't use basic methods that you would use on 'real' values.
The product law for limits works even if infinity is allowed though. And we could try to define:

x^inf=0 if 0=<x<1
x^inf=inf if x>1
x^inf=? if x=1.

However, no choice of '?' would make our desired exponentiation limit law true.

Many times infinity can be adjoined to the real numbers usefully, but this is not one of those times.</x<1
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I remember my maths teacher once said that some people think parallel lines meet at the point of infinity

The point being that infinity is a very annoying concept to work with mathematically, philosophically or in any way.
They do in projective geometry :).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top