Which function has a higher growth rate: n! or 2^n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Klion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Growth
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around comparing the growth rates of the functions f(x) = n! and g(x) = 2^n. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that g(x) grows at a rate less than or equal to that of f(x) for large n, specifically for n > 3.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various mathematical expressions and definitions to compare the two functions, including recursive definitions and Riemann products. There is a discussion about the validity of using induction and the nature of variables in the functions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have suggested using a ratio of the functions to analyze their growth rates, while others have proposed using L'Hôpital's rule as a potential method for proving the relationship. The conversation reflects a mix of interpretations and approaches, with no clear consensus on the simplest method to demonstrate the growth comparison.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that this is for a 200-level class, which may influence the expected complexity of the proof. There is also mention of uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of induction for this level of coursework.

Klion
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Alright problem is pretty simple, I have two functions

f(x) = n!
g(x) = 2^n

Question is to show that g(x) = Of(x) through mathematical expression

that is show the growth rate of g(x) <= that of f(x)

The fact that this is true is fairly obvious, it's bigger for n>3.

Anyway my problem is I only know how to define n! as a recursive definition, so I'm not really sure how to demonstrate this truth in any kind of mathematical way. If you put both as a reiman product or whatever it's called (ie n-i for i=0 to n and 2 for i=0 to n) you have a function compared to a number.

like

2*2*2*2*...*2 (n terms)
1*2*...*(n-1)*(n) (n terms)

I don't really want to use induction since I don't think it's necessary or expected, and I don't really know how to do the inductive step since one of the functions has no variables.

Anyway any ideas? Or anyone know a non recursive definition for factorial so I can compare it to 2^n? heh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"2*2*2*2*...*2 (n terms)
1*2*...*(n-1)*(n) (n terms)"

But don't both have variables? Consider a function h(x) = g(x)/f(x) = 2^x/x!

isn't h(x+1) just h(x) * 2/(x+1) ? That would be your induction.. h(x+1)/h(x) obviously converges to 0 as x approaches infinity so you know that the denominator is growing faster than the numerator of h(x) as x gets very large.

Edit: Sorry I don't know what level of class this is for so I don't know whether to make this proof look nicer or not. Tell me if this is not what you are looking for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I meant 2^n doesn't have a variable when expressed as a reiman product or whatever.



Well since I couldn't get a non-recursive definition of n! I couldn't do n!/2^n or 2^n/n!


This is for a 200 level class, and I don't really think we're expected to do induction in it (at least not yet) though I could be mistaken.

Anyway how do you figure

"isn't h(x+1) just h( x) * 2/(x+1)" ?? boggle
 
Last edited:
Oh so you're trying to do something with Riemann product notation? (pi?) Edit I see why you're saying there's no variable attached. Heh the only thing I can think of is that (n+1)! is (n+1)*pi(i, for i = 1 to n) and 2^(n+1) being 2 * pi(2, for i = 1 to n) but I don't get why this is such an impediment.

Edit again: ok so I defined h(x) to be 2^x / x! right?

h(x+1) can be expressed as h(x)*2/(x+1) because

h(x)*2/(x+1) = 2^x/x! * 2/(x+1)

= 2 * 2^x / (x! * (x+1))

= 2^(x+1)/(x+1)!

that h(x+1) = h(x) * 2/(x+1) would be sufficient to prove x! increases faster than 2^x but you keep indicating that induction is too complicated for the question and that there is a simpler way. Sorry I can't see one :\
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I was trying that to remove the recursion problem but it didn't seem to help.

I was just trying different types of math expression to try to show this silly thing is true, reimann product seemed best suited for factorials.

I edited reply btw, but the part where you do

h(x+1) just h( x) * 2/(x+1)

... you sure about that? boggle.
 
Read edit :)

Edit: I am very sure.

Well look at it this way: If you can understand the induction and pull it off, it will establish you as more clever in the class. I really can't see any way other than induction for this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aha! Can do it with le hospital's rule. Friend just figured it out, cuz


g(x) / f(x) = 2/n * 2/ (n-1) ... etc and as x approaches infinite 2/n = 0

0x = 0 so g(x) / f(x) = 0 which means f(x) = og(x)

woo. Annoying question mutter, thanks for help :)
 
Klion said:
le hospital's rule

BTW I used to annoy the heck out of my calc professor saying that :) Sorry I couldn't help much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K