Can e Be Defined as a Limit with n Approaching Negative Infinity?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PFuser1232
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Limits
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 5K views
PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
I am familiar with the fact that the number e can be defined several ways. One particularly interesting definition is the one based on limits, namely:
e = limn [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] ∞ (1 + [itex]\frac{1}{n}[/itex])n
My question is: wouldn't it be equally true to express e as the limit of the expression above as n goes to NEGATIVE infinity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to WolframAlpha, that is quite correct. The proof below is for positive infinity (WA won't show the step-by-step solution for the negative version unless I buy a pro subscription), but the steps are equally valid for negative infinity in this case.

limits-01.png


(Open the image in a new tab if you see it with a black background.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
"My question is: wouldn't it be equally true to express e as the limit of the expression above as n goes to NEGATIVE infinity?"

Yes it is. The verification is an exercise in algebra and exponent chasing.

If [itex]m[/itex] is a negative integer then [itex]m = -n[/itex] for a positive integer [itex]n[/itex]. For [itex]n > 1[/itex] this gives

[tex]\begin{align*} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m & = \left(1 - \frac 1 n \right)^{-n} = \left(\frac{n - 1}n\right)^{-n} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1}\right)^n = \left(\frac n {n-1}\right) \cdot \left(\frac n {n-1}\right)^{n-1} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1} \right) \cdot \left(\frac{n-1}{n-1} + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1} \right) \cdot \left( 1 + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} = A_n \cdot B_n \text{ (say)}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

Note that [itex]\lim_{m \to -\infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m[/itex] equals [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 - \frac 1 n \right)^{-n}[/itex]

Since
[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( \frac n {n-1}\right) & = 1 \\<br /> \text{and}\\<br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} & = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 n%<br /> \right)^n = e<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

putting everything together gives

[tex] \lim_{m \to -\infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 - \frac 1 n\right)^{-n} = e [/tex]
 
statdad said:
"My question is: wouldn't it be equally true to express e as the limit of the expression above as n goes to NEGATIVE infinity?"

Yes it is. The verification is an exercise in algebra and exponent chasing.

If [itex]m[/itex] is a negative integer then [itex]m = -n[/itex] for a positive integer [itex]n[/itex]. For [itex]n > 1[/itex] this gives

[tex]\begin{align*} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m & = \left(1 - \frac 1 n \right)^{-n} = \left(\frac{n - 1}n\right)^{-n} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1}\right)^n = \left(\frac n {n-1}\right) \cdot \left(\frac n {n-1}\right)^{n-1} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1} \right) \cdot \left(\frac{n-1}{n-1} + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} \\<br /> & = \left(\frac n {n-1} \right) \cdot \left( 1 + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} = A_n \cdot B_n \text{ (say)}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

Note that [itex]\lim_{m \to -\infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m[/itex] equals [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 - \frac 1 n \right)^{-n}[/itex]

Since
[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( \frac n {n-1}\right) & = 1 \\<br /> \text{and}\\<br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 {n-1}\right)^{n-1} & = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 n%<br /> \right)^n = e<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

putting everything together gives

[tex] \lim_{m \to -\infty} \left(1 + \frac 1 m\right)^m = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 - \frac 1 n\right)^{-n} = e [/tex]

But why should we consider the constraint n>1? Isn't it enough to say n>0?
 
"But why should we consider the constraint n>1? Isn't it enough to say n>0?"

For the limit it doesn't matter. But for the steps in my approach to work I need [itex]n > 1[/itex] because
of the introduction of the denominators of [itex]n - 1[/itex] .