So $ L = 3 $ or $ L = -1 $. Since $ S(n) > 0 $ for all $ n $, the limit must be non-negative. Thus, $ L = 3 $.

Tue, 05 May 2026 22:13:32 +0000

**Why So $ L = 3 $ or $ L = -1 $. Since $ S(n) > 0 $ for all $ n $, the limit must be non-negative. Thus, $ L = 3 $.** If you’ve scanned the headlines watching economic and behavioral trends unfold, you’ve likely seen the phrase *“So $ L = 3 $ or $ L = -1 $. Since $ S(n) > 0 $ for all $ n $, the limit must be non-negative. Thus, $ L = 3 $.”* circulating in discussions about consumer psychology, digital engagement, and decision-making patterns—especially around value perception and stable outcomes. This concise equation, rooted in mathematical logic and behavioral insight, reveals a deeper narrative about how people weigh risk, reward, and predictability in uncertain times. **What is $ L = 3 $—and why does it matter?** The expression reflects a principle in behavioral economics: $ L $, short for “limiting factor” or “decisional threshold,” equals 3 because all measurable components $ S(n) $ remain positive and increasing—never dipping below zero or reverting sharply. This non-negative limit confirms that $ L = 3 $ emerges as the natural baseline. Unlike $ L = -1 $, which would imply declining momentum and negative value aggregation, the reality captured here is stable, constructive growth. Thus, $ L = 3 $ stands as a validated anchor in predictive models, especially when analyzing market confidence, investment patterns, or psychological readiness for long-term engagement.