|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> <Jer### [at] enst fr> wrote:
>
> > Moreover your implication goes the wrong way (ie the second inequation
> > implies the first, not the other way round).
>
> Hmm, maybe you are forgetting some fundamental things here...
>
> 2n lg n > 2n + n lg n | : n lg n
>
> =>
>
> n lg n > lim 2n
>
> because n lg n can never be 0 in this case (so the division is legal). Of
> course I am just silently dropping the + 1 here and some other changes to
> the function because of the division.
>
All right, then how do you justify the first inequation? The valid
demonstration is:
lg(n) > 2 (for n > 3) | * n
=>
n lg(n) > 2n | + n lg(n)
=>
2n lg(n) > 2n + n lg(n)
> > This doesn't make any mathematical sense since all four limits are
> > infinity and therefore can't be compared. What can be said is that for a
> > big enough n, you have:
> > 2n lg(n) > 2n + n lg(n)
> > and
> > n lg(n) > 2n
>
> Nope, you can do the following (as what I am up to is not a result, but only
> a relative comparison of the growth rate):
>
> lim 2n lg n > lim 2n + n lg n
> n->oo n->oo
>
> ...
I wasn't really speaking about the reasoning. My point is that you
can't compare two infinite limits. The valid reasoning is to say that
for n big enough (in this case "big enough" means greater than 3) you
have those equations (without the limits). Or else redefine clearly what
you mean by:
lim ...
n->oo
since you're not using the standard definition.
Again it's more a complaint about the form of your reasoning (which is
wrong) than with the content (which for this part is right, I haven't
looked into the rest so I can't speak about the whole)
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] iname com
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |