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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the limit of the sequence \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1 + x/n)^n\) exists for all \(x \in \mathbb{R}\) without relying on the definition of the exponential function. The user successfully demonstrates that the sequence is monotonic and bounded for \(x=1\) using the binomial theorem. However, they struggle to generalize this proof for arbitrary \(x\) and express concerns about circular reasoning when attempting to relate the limit to the exponential function. The discussion highlights the need for a rigorous approach to establish the convergence of the power series for \(e^x\) without prior definitions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits and convergence in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the binomial theorem
  • Knowledge of power series and their convergence criteria
  • Basic concepts of exponential functions and logarithms
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the convergence of the power series for \(e^x\)
  • Learn about the ratio test for series convergence
  • Explore the properties of monotonic sequences and boundedness
  • Investigate alternative definitions of the exponential function and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in the foundational proofs of exponential functions and limits.

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 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K