How to prove definition of exponential function as limit of powers converges

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the limit of the sequence (1 + x/n)^n as n approaches infinity exists for all real x, without relying on the definition of the exponential function. The user has established that the sequence is monotonic and bounded for x=1 but struggles to extend this proof to general x. They also inquire about proving a related limit involving o(x/n) and express concern over circular reasoning when using properties of the exponential function in their proofs. The conversation highlights the challenges of defining real powers without prior knowledge of the exponential function, suggesting that a series expansion using the binomial theorem may provide a pathway to the proof. Overall, the thread emphasizes the difficulty of establishing foundational limits in real analysis without circular definitions.
brian44
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I've tried and searched for a long time, and I haven't been able to prove or find a proof that the following sequence converges (without using another definition of the exponential function):

\forall x \in \mathbb{R}. Prove that:

\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1+ x/n)^n exists.

I can prove that it is monotonic and using binomial theorem I can show that it is bounded for x=1. However if I try to use the same approach for general x, I get the power series for e^x and can only say it is bounded if I can prove the power series converges, which I don't know how to do. But even if I did is there any way to prove this limit exists without proving the power series converges (the other definition of e^x)?


Another related question I can't figure out is, how can I prove that


\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1+ x/n + o(x/n))^n = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}(1 + x/n)^n

where o(x/n) is any function that goes to 0 more quickly as (x/n) \rightarrow 0 than (x/n)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I admit I don't know much real analysis. However if we have the proof for x =1 can't we let u= n/x. Then u goes to inf. as n does, x/n = 1/u and n = u*x. If we call the result for x=1 e, we get (lim u->inf (1 + 1/u))^x = e^x.
 
Last edited:
The problem with such an approach is that it uses the exponential function and its properties in the definition of the exponential function itself - so I would consider it circular reasoning.

Before defining e^x we have definitions for integer powers as products, but without defining the exponential function and logarithms, we can't say what something^x, where x is a real number, means, specifically I believe we define these general powers as a\in \mathbb{R^+} x\in\mathbb{R}, a^x := e^{x \log(a)}
 
Without ever knowing anything about the exponential function you can expand the limmand into a series using the binomial theorem and show that series is bounded by \sum \frac{x^n}{n!} which converges for all x by the ratio test.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K