- #1

- 14

- 0

I am at an intermedate step of a larger problem and I need to find the following limit:

lim(k->infinity) k^k/(k+1)^k

I see what this equals (by using computational software) but I am not sure how to show this.

Any help?

- Thread starter mpm166
- Start date

- #1

- 14

- 0

I am at an intermedate step of a larger problem and I need to find the following limit:

lim(k->infinity) k^k/(k+1)^k

I see what this equals (by using computational software) but I am not sure how to show this.

Any help?

- #2

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

Through the epsilon-delta definition of a limit?mpm166 said:

I am at an intermedate step of a larger problem and I need to find the following limit:

lim(k->infinity) k^k/(k+1)^k

I see what this equals (by using computational software) but I am not sure how to show this.

Any help?

Is the limit 0 or 1? I'm just taking a guess here without computing anything. Looks like 0 or 1 to me.

For advice, try writing it like this...

k^k/(k+1)^k = [k/(k+1)]^k

Look at the k and k+1.

Last edited:

- #3

- 14

- 0

It's actually 1/e

- #4

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

Actually it's not 0 or 1, now that I looked at it for a minute.

- #5

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

Yeah, I soon as I realized that it wasn't 0 or 1 it came to me that I saw it before.mpm166 said:It's actually 1/e

Just didn't know where.

- #6

nrqed

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 3,721

- 277

mpm166 said:

I am at an intermedate step of a larger problem and I need to find the following limit:

lim(k->infinity) k^k/(k+1)^k

I see what this equals (by using computational software) but I am not sure how to show this.

Any help?

Can be written as [itex] ({k \over k +1 })^k [/itex] which is [itex] ({ 1 + 1/k })^{-k} [/itex] and this is a well know form...As k goes to infinity it goes to [itex] e^{-1} [/itex]

(it is well known in the form [itex] lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1 + {1 \over n})^n = e [/itex])

Patrick

- #7

- 14

- 0

thanks for the help

- #8

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

How do you prove it though using the definition of a limit?nrqed said:Can be written as [itex] ({k \over k +1 })^k [/itex] which is [itex] ({ 1 + 1/k })^{-k} [/itex] and this is a well know form...As k goes to infinity it goes to [itex] e^{-1} [/itex]

(it is well known in the form [itex] lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1 + {1 \over n})^n = e [/itex])

Patrick

I'll give it a shot myself, but it doesn't seem like something that is pleasant to work with.

- #9

nrqed

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 3,721

- 277

It`s probably not rigorous but one way is to consider instead the natural log of this expression. Setting x=1/n, one has to consider the limit as x goes to zero of ln(1+x)/x, an indeterminate form. Using L`Hospital rule, this gives 1. So the initial limit is e^1.JasonRox said:How do you prove it though using the definition of a limit?

I'll give it a shot myself, but it doesn't seem like something that is pleasant to work with.

Patrick

- #10

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

Yeah, I see what you mean.nrqed said:It`s probably not rigorous but one way is to consider instead the natural log of this expression. Setting x=1/n, one has to consider the limit as x goes to zero of ln(1+x)/x, an indeterminate form. Using L`Hospital rule, this gives 1. So the initial limit is e^1.

Patrick

It's not rigorous in the sense that taking the log doesn't always work.

It would still be nice to see a proof though.

- #11

- 47

- 0

[tex]1+e<k^2/(k^2+k)[/tex]

isn't the the right equation?

- #12

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

That's false though. Try k=1.konartist said:

[tex]1+e<k^2/(k^2+k)[/tex]

isn't the the right equation?

I think using the Squeeze Theorem might provide an answer though.

- #13

- 310

- 3

We can start from the series defintion of eIt would still be nice to see a proof though.

[tex]e = \sum \frac{1}{n!}[/tex]

Let [itex]S_n = 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}[/tex] and [itex]T_n = (1 + \frac{1}{n})^n[/itex]. I'm gonna assume that T = lim T_n exists, although it can be proved by messing around with inequalities and the binomial theorem (if I recall correctly). Let's actually use the binomial theorem:

[tex]

\begin{align*}

T_n &= 1 + n\frac{1}{n} + \frac{n(n-1)}{2!}\frac{1}{n^2} + \cdots + \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)\cdots 1}{n!}\frac{1}{n^n} \\

&= 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!}(1 - \frac{1}{n}) + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}(1 - \frac{1}{n})(1 - \frac{2}{n}) \cdots (1 - \frac{n-1}{n})

\end{align*}

[/tex]

Now notice that if N>n, then:

[tex]

T_N > 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} (1 - \frac{1}{N}) + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}(1 - \frac{1}{N}) \cdots (1 - \frac{n-1}{N})

[/tex]

Hence if we let N tend to infinity, the left side tends to T while the right side tends to S_n. Therefore we have S_n <= T. However we can also see that S_n >= T_n for all n. So we actually have T_n <= S_n <= T. And thus T = lim S_n = e.

Last edited:

- #14

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

When you're taking N approaches infinity, are you assuming n is tagging along just behind it? Or is n fixed?devious_ said:We can start from the series defintion of e

[tex]e = \sum \frac{1}{n!}[/tex]

Let [itex]S_n = 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}[/tex] and [itex]T_n = (1 + \frac{1}{n})^n[/itex]. I'm gonna assume that T = lim T_n exists, although it can be proved by messing around with inequalities and the binomial theorem (if I recall correctly). Let's actually use the binomial theorem:

[tex]

\begin{align*}

T_n &= 1 + n\frac{1}{n} + \frac{n(n-1)}{2!}\frac{1}{n^2} + \cdots + \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)\cdots 1}{n!}\frac{1}{n^n} \\

&= 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!}(1 - \frac{1}{n}) + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}(1 - \frac{1}{n})(1 - \frac{2}{n}) \cdots (1 - \frac{n-1}{n})

\end{align*}

[/tex]

Now notice that if N>n, then:

[tex]

T_N > 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} (1 - \frac{1}{N}) + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!}(1 - \frac{1}{N}) \cdots (1 - \frac{n-1}{N})

[/tex]

Hence if we let N tend to infinity, the left side tends to T while the right side tends to S_n. Therefore we have S_n <= T. However we can also see that S_n >= T_n for all n. So we actually have T_n <= S_n <= T. And thus T = lim S_n = e.

- #15

- 310

- 3

It's fixed of course. Maybe I should have stated that.JasonRox said:When you're taking N approaches infinity, are you assuming n is tagging along just behind it? Or is n fixed?

- #16

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,314

- 3

But, you got 1/n! in your right hand side of that inequality. You replaced 1/N! with a bigger number 1/n!. Also, you replaced N with n for the numerators too, so that makes it smaller. Also, T_N has more terms than the right hand side.

After replacing certain N's with n and subtracting a few terms, how can you justify this inequality holds?

I'm not positive if I did this right, but T_2 = 2.25 so that's T_N. Now, N=2, so n=1 (only option), but on the right side of the inequality I'm getting 2.25.

Maybe it's not strictly larger? Or maybe you don't know the Latex code for it because you say "<=" later. :tongue2:

I'm going to have to write his out and see if I can satisfy myself. Looks right, but I'll just work out the details for myself.

The idea of the Squeeze Theorem is what I thought it would be.

- #17

- 310

- 3

No, I meant strictly larger.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 1K