Question 1 [6]

1.1 State the associative law for real numbers, axiom (A1). [1]

Solution: 𝑎 + (𝑏 + 𝑐) = (𝑎 + 𝑏) + 𝑐 for all 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐 ∈ ℝ. (1 mark)

1.2 For 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑥 ∈ ℝ and 𝑐 ≠ 0,

𝑎 𝑏 𝑎𝑥 + 𝑏𝑥
𝑥( + ) = .
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
With motivation, prove this statement using the axioms of the real numbers and the
definition of division only. [5]

Solution:
𝑎 𝑏
𝑥 (𝑐 + 𝑐 )

= 𝑥(𝑐 −1 𝑎 + 𝑐 −1 𝑏) Definition of division (1 mark)

= 𝑥𝑐 −1 𝑎 + 𝑥𝑐 −1 𝑏 (D) (1 mark)

= 𝑐 −1 𝑎𝑥 + 𝑐 −1 𝑏𝑥 (M2) (1 mark)

= 𝑐 −1 (𝑎𝑥 + 𝑏𝑥) (D) (1 mark)

𝑎𝑥+𝑏𝑥
= Definition of division (1 mark)
𝑐

Students can write “(M2)” or “Commutative Law” or “𝑎𝑏 = 𝑏𝑎 for all 𝑎, 𝑏 ∈ ℝ” as

motivation.
𝑎 1
• Definition of division: For 𝑎, 𝑏 ∈ ℝ one writes 𝑏 = 𝑎 ÷ 𝑏 ∶= 𝑏 −1 𝑎 where 𝑏 −1 = 𝑏.
• (D) Distributive Law: 𝑎(𝑏 + 𝑐) = 𝑎𝑏 + 𝑎𝑐 for all 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐 ∈ ℝ.
• (M2) Commutative Law: 𝑎𝑏 = 𝑏𝑎 for all 𝑎, 𝑏 ∈ ℝ. ∎
Question 2 [15]

2.1 State the definition of the infimum of a set 𝑆 where 𝑆 ⊂ ℝ. [2]

Solution: Let 𝑆 be a nonempty subset of ℝ. A real number 𝑚 is said to be the infimum or

greatest lower bound of 𝑆, if
(i) 𝑚 is a lower bound of 𝑆, and (1 mark)
(ii) if 𝑙 is any lower bound of 𝑆, then 𝑚 ≥ 𝑙. (1 mark)

2.2 Completely color in the bubble of the correct answer only. [1]
If a set S has an infimum, then it will have a minimum.
o True
o False

Solution: False (1 mark), see for example the set (−4,0].

2.3 Prove the following result: [4]

Let 𝑆 be a nonempty subset of ℝ. If the minimum of 𝑆 exists, then it is unique.

Solution:
Assume that 𝑆 has minima 𝑚1 and 𝑚2 . (1 mark)
We must show 𝑚1 = 𝑚2 .
Since 𝑚1 ∈ 𝑆 and 𝑚2 is a lower bound of 𝑆, we have 𝑚1 ≥ 𝑚2 . (1 mark)
Since 𝑚2 ∈ 𝑆 and 𝑚1 is a lower bound of 𝑆, we have 𝑚2 ≥ 𝑚1. (1 mark)
Hence, 𝑚1 = 𝑚2 . (1 mark)∎

2.4 Completely color in the bubble of the correct definition only. [2]

o If there is a number 𝑀 ∈ ℝ such that 𝑥 ≤ 𝑀 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆, then 𝑀 is said to be the

supremum of 𝑆.
o If 𝑀 is an upper bound of 𝑆, and 𝐿 is any upper bound of 𝑆 implies that 𝑀 ≤ 𝐿, then
𝑀 is said to be the supremum of 𝑆.
o If 𝑆 has an upper bound 𝑀 which is not an element of 𝑆, then 𝑀 is said to be the
supremum of 𝑆.
o None of the above.

Solution: Option 2. (2 marks)

2.5 Let 𝑆 = [−1, 𝜋). Determine max(𝑆) if it exists. Motivate your answer with the necessary
calculations. [6]

Solution: max(𝑆) does not exist. (1 mark)

Assume to the contrary that 𝑆 has a maximum 𝑀. (1 mark) (Cannot use 𝜋 since 𝜋 ∉ 𝑆.)
Since 𝑀 ∈ 𝑆 by definition, (0.5 mark)
−1 ≤ 𝑀 < 𝜋. (0.5 mark)
𝑀+𝜋
Put 𝑐 = . (0.5 mark)
2

Then,
2𝑀 (1+1)𝑀 𝑀+𝑀 𝑀+𝜋 𝜋+𝜋
−1 ≤ 𝑀 = = = < < = 𝜋. (1 mark)
2 2 2 2 2

Therefore,
−1 ≤ 𝑀 < 𝑐 < 𝜋,
which shows 𝑐 ∈ 𝑆 (0.5 mark)
and 𝑀 < 𝑐, (0.5 mark)
contradicting that 𝑀 = max 𝑆 is an upper bound of 𝑆. (0.5 mark)∎
Question 3 [18]
3.1 Completely color in the bubble of the incorrect definition only. [1]
o A bounded sequence is bounded below and bounded above.
o 𝑎𝑛 → 𝐿 as 𝑛 → ∞ is defined by ∀𝜀 > 0, ∃𝐾 ∈ ℝ, ∀𝑛 ∈ ℕ, 𝑛 ≥ 𝐾, 𝐿 − 𝜀 < 𝑎𝑛 < 𝐿 + 𝜀.
o A monotonic sequence is increasing and decreasing.
o More than one of the above.
Solution: Option 3. (1 mark)

𝑛2 +𝑛−1
3.2 Show that (𝑎𝑛 ) = ( ) → 1 as 𝑛 → ∞ by first principles. [5]
𝑛2

Solution:

Let 𝐿 = 1 and 𝜀 > 0 (0.5 mark). Then,

𝑛2 + 𝑛 − 1
|𝑎𝑛 − 𝐿| = | − 1|
𝑛2
(𝑛2 + 𝑛 − 1) − (𝑛2 )
=| |
𝑛2
𝑛−1
= | 2 | (1 mark)
𝑛
𝑛
< 2
𝑛
1
= . (1 mark)
𝑛
Thus,
|𝑎𝑛 − 𝐿| < 𝜀
1
<𝜀
𝑛
1
∴ 𝑛 > . (1 mark)
𝜀

1
Therefore, let 𝐾𝜀 = , (0.5 mark) then |𝑎𝑛 − 𝐿| < 𝜀 for all 𝑛 > 𝐾𝜀 .
𝜀

Since 𝜀 > 0 was arbitrary (1 mark), the result follows. ∎

3.3 State and prove the Sandwich Theorem. [8]

Solution:

If 𝑎𝑛 ≤ 𝑏𝑛 ≤ 𝑐𝑛 (0.5 mark)
and lim 𝑎𝑛 = lim 𝑐𝑛 = 𝐿, (0.5 mark)
𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞

then lim 𝑏𝑛 = 𝐿. (0.5 mark)

𝑛→∞

Proof:
Let 𝜀 > 0 (0.5 mark)
and choose 𝑘1 and 𝑘2 such that
|𝑎𝑛 − 𝐿| < 𝜀 if 𝑛 ≥ 𝑘1 (1 mark)
and |𝑐𝑛 − 𝐿| < 𝜀 if 𝑛 ≥ 𝑘2 . (1 mark)
In particular, for 𝑛 ≥ 𝐾 = max{𝑘1 , 𝑘2 }, (1 mark)
𝐿 − 𝜀 < 𝑎𝑛 < 𝐿 + 𝜀 (0.5 mark)
and
𝐿 − 𝜀 < 𝑐𝑛 < 𝐿 + 𝜀 (0.5 mark)
gives
𝐿 − 𝜀 < 𝑎𝑛 ≤ 𝑏𝑛 ≤ 𝑐𝑛 < 𝐿 + 𝜀. (1 mark)
Hence, |𝑏𝑛 − 𝐿| < 𝜀 if 𝑛 ≥ 𝐾. (1 mark) ∎

cos(𝑛200 +10𝑛)
3.4 Consequently, find lim . [4]
𝑛→∞ 1+105 𝑛

Solution:

Since −1 ≤ cos(𝑛200 + 10𝑛) ≤ 1, (1 mark)

1 cos(𝑛200 + 10𝑛) 1
− ≤ ≤ (1 mark)
1 + 105 𝑛 1 + 105 𝑛 1 + 105 𝑛
and
1 1
lim − 5
= 0 = lim (1 mark)
𝑛→∞ 1 + 10 𝑛 𝑛→∞ 1 + 105 𝑛

we have by the Sandwich Theorem that

sin(𝑛200 + 10𝑛)
lim = 0. (1 mark) ∎
𝑛→∞ 1 + 105 𝑛
Question 4 [11]

4.1 Let 𝑟 ∈ ℕ and 𝑟 > 1. Show that 𝑛𝑟 − 1 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞ using mathematical induction.

You may use the fact that 𝑛 − 1 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞ without proof. [4]

Solution

Let 𝐴(𝑠) be the proposition “𝑛 𝑠+1 − 1 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞” where 𝑠 ∈ ℕ.

It is given that 𝐴(0) is true. (1 mark)

Now suppose that 𝐴(𝑠) is true, i.e. for every 𝐾 ∈ ℝ there exists 𝑁𝐾 ∈ ℕ such that 𝑛 ∈ ℕ,

𝑛 ≥ 𝑁𝑘 ⇒ 𝑛 𝑠+1 − 1 > 𝐾. (1 mark)

Then, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ and 𝑛 ≥ 𝑁𝑘 implies that

1
𝑛(𝑠+1)+1 − 1 = 𝑛 (𝑛 𝑠+1 − ) ≥ 𝑛(𝑛 𝑠+1 − 1) ≥ 𝑛 𝑠+1 − 1 > 𝐾. (1.5 mark)
𝑛
Hence, by definition 𝐴(𝑠 + 1) is true. By the principle of mathematical induction, 𝐴(𝑠) is
true for all 𝑠 ∈ ℕ which shows that 𝐴(𝑟 − 1) is true, i.e. 𝑛𝑟 − 1 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞. (0.5 mark)
∎

4.2 Let 𝑠 ∈ ℕ\{0}. By referring to 2 theorems from Chapter 2, motivate why 𝑛 𝑠 → ∞ as

𝑛 → ∞. [2]

Solution

Theorem 2.7 (1 mark) states that for (𝑎𝑛 ) with 𝑎𝑛 > 0 for all indices 𝑛 ∈ ℕ, it follows that
1
lim 𝑎𝑛 = ∞ ⇔ lim = 0.
𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞ 𝑎𝑛

Since 𝑛 𝑠 > 0 for all 𝑛 ∈ ℕ, by Theorem 2.7 it follows that

1
lim 𝑛 𝑠 = ∞ ⇔ lim = 0.
𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑠

The latter is true by Theorem 2.5 (1 mark) which states that if 𝑟 > 0, then
1
lim = 0.
𝑛→∞ 𝑛𝑟

The result now follows. ∎

4.3 Let 𝑟, 𝑠 ∈ ℕ with 𝑟 − 𝑠 ≥ 1. Using Question 4.1 and/or Question 4.2, with a theorem from
Section 2.2, show that [5]

lim (𝑛𝑟 − 𝑛 𝑠 ) = ∞.
𝑛→∞

Hint: 𝑛𝑟 − 𝑛 𝑠 = (𝑛𝑟−𝑠 − 1)𝑛 𝑠 .

Solution

Since 𝑟 − 𝑠 ≥ 1, lim (𝑛𝑟−𝑠 − 1) = ∞ by Question 4.1. (1 mark)

𝑛→∞

Case 1: 𝑠 ≠ 0

Let 𝑎𝑛 = 𝑛𝑟−𝑠 − 1 and 𝑏𝑛 = 𝑛. Since 𝑎𝑛 → ∞ and 𝑏𝑛 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞ by Question 4.1, it

follows that 𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑛 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞ by Theorem 2.8. (2 marks)

Case 2: 𝑠 = 0

Let 𝑎𝑛 = 𝑛𝑟−𝑠 − 1 and 𝑐𝑛 = 𝑛 𝑠 = 𝑛0 = 1. Since 𝑎𝑛 → ∞ and 𝑐𝑛 → 1 > 0 as 𝑛 → ∞, it

follows that 𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑛 → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞ by Theorem 2.8. (2 marks)

The result then follows. ∎

If cases were not used, give partial marks.

TOTAL = 50 MARKS