MHB Is sequence 2^n/n increasing or decreasing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dethrone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
Click For Summary
The sequence defined by S_n = 2^n/n! is being analyzed for its behavior as n increases. It is established that n! grows significantly faster than 2^n, leading to the conclusion that the sequence approaches 0 as n approaches infinity. The discussion suggests using discrete differencing to analyze the sequence's behavior, indicating that the denominator increases faster than the numerator. Although S_1 and S_2 are equal, the sequence is deemed nonincreasing and decreasing for n ≥ 2. Thus, the overall conclusion is that the sequence is decreasing.
Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
I'm starting sequences and series, and I have to prove that the following is increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, or nondecreasing.

$$S_n = \frac{2^n}{n!}$$

I've tried $S_{n+1}-S_n >$ or $<$ than $0$, $\frac{S_{n+1}}{S_n}$, and I don't think I've learned differentiating factorials so I won't even attempt that. Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rather than continuous differentiation, I would look at discrete differencing. :D
 
What do you mean by discrete differencing? :eek:
 
Suppose we define:

$$S_n\equiv\frac{a_n}{b_n}$$

where:

$$a_n=2^n,\,b_n=n!$$

And so we could observe that $n$ is not continuous, but is presumably the natural numbers, so look at:

$$\frac{\Delta a_n}{\Delta n}=\frac{a_{n+1}-a_{n}}{n+1-n}=2^{n+1}-2^n$$

and

$$\frac{\Delta b_n}{\Delta n}=\frac{b_{n+1}-b_{n}}{n+1-n}=(n+1)!-n!$$

What is the ratio of the differences?
 
Rido12 said:
What do you mean by discrete differencing? :eek:

Notice that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} 2^n = 2 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 \cdot \dots \cdot 2 \end{align*}$ (n times), while $\displaystyle \begin{align*} n! = n \cdot (n - 1) \cdot (n - 2) \cdot \dots \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 \end{align*}$.

Since it is clear that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} n! >> 2^n \end{align*}$, that means that the bottom grows much faster than the top.

Thus the limit of the sequence must be 0 and so the sequence must be decreasing.
 
The ratio of the differences is
$$\frac{2^{n+1}-2^n}{(n+1)!-n!}$$
but I'm not sure how I can simplify the denominator:
$$\frac{2^n}{(n+1)!-n!}$$
 
Rido12 said:
The ratio of the differences is
$$\frac{2^{n+1}-2^n}{(n+1)!-n!}$$
but I'm not sure how I can simplify the denominator:
$$\frac{2^n}{(n+1)!-n!}$$

Hint:

$$(n+1)!=(n+1)n!$$
 
Prove It said:
Notice that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} 2^n = 2 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 \cdot \dots \cdot 2 \end{align*}$ (n times), while $\displaystyle \begin{align*} n! = n \cdot (n - 1) \cdot (n - 2) \cdot \dots \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 \end{align*}$.

Since it is clear that $\displaystyle \begin{align*} n! >> 2^n \end{align*}$, that means that the bottom grows much faster than the top.

Thus the limit of the sequence must be 0 and so the sequence must be decreasing.

I thought about that too, but I thought there was a more mathematical way of presenting it.@Mark,

$$\frac{2^n}{n!(n)}$$

Are we suppose to conclude now that for discrete differences, the denominator increases much faster than the numerator, meaning that sequence must be decreasing? Or is that statement premature?
 
Rido12 said:
I thought about that too, but I thought there was a more mathematical way of presenting it.@Mark,

$$\frac{2^n}{n!(n)}$$

Are we suppose to conclude now that for discrete differences, the denominator increases much faster than the numerator, meaning that sequence must be decreasing? Or is that statement premature?

To use English to explain logical conclusions IS mathematical!
 
  • #10
My suggestion would be to write out elements of the sequence until a pattern becomes clear. About 5 or 6 of them should do. Then you should also be able to say why (plain English will do).
 
  • #11
Rido12 said:
I thought about that too, but I thought there was a more mathematical way of presenting it.@Mark,

$$\frac{2^n}{n!(n)}$$

Are we suppose to conclude now that for discrete differences, the denominator increases much faster than the numerator, meaning that sequence must be decreasing? Or is that statement premature?

Prove It's suggestion is a good way to look at it. Simple and neat.

Perhaps a better approach than the one I initially suggested would be to look at:

$$\frac{\Delta S_n }{\Delta n}$$
 
  • #12
ILY, I thought that would work too, but believed there must have been a better, less mundane way of doing it.

Also, for completeness, I say that the sequence is nonincreasing because $S_1 = S_2 = 2$ and it is decreasing only when $n \ge 2$
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K