Calculating the Limit of (n)^(1/n)

  • Thread starter lockedup
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Limit
In summary: But in this case, I'm not sure if the wording change would make a difference.Glad I could help. But let me offer a resolution to your wording. When I took a class on proofs, I remember the instructor, Steffen Rohde, mentioning that saying that this holds for all x could run you into trouble. It is safer to say, for all x, this holds.Like the difference between f(x) \forall x, and \forall x, f(x). The second one comes off less ambiguously.
  • #1
lockedup
70
0

Homework Statement

Calculate lim (n!)1/n



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Call the limit L.

lim ln(n!)1/n = ln L

ln(n!)1/n = [itex]\frac{1}{n}[/itex]ln(n!) = [itex]\frac{1}{n}[/itex](ln(1) + ln(2) + ... + ln(n)) = [itex]\infty[/itex]/n. So the limit is [itex]\infty[/itex]/0? Which makes L what?

This is for Analysis and we haven't got to series yet and I took calc II eight years ago.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
seems you need to head towards l'Hopital's rule. and you need to get rid of that factorial. Stirling's formula helped me get closer to the idea, but you don't need to know that. you were on the right track, just can't have the number of terms changing is the only thing that's obstructing your current strategy

go for ln(n!)<n*ln(n)

by the way, you didn't have ∞/0, you had ∞/∞, but the number of terms was changing, so you couldn't use l'Hospital's rule
 
  • #3
Does your book or your notes say anything about Stirling's approximation?
 
  • #4
I've never heard of Stirling's Approximation. This problem is tacked on the end of the section on lim sup's and lim inf's.
 
  • #5
You should be able to show that this an unbounded expression. It does however have an asymptotic behavior that can be expressed quite compactly.
 
  • #6
What if you use the fact that n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?
 
  • #7
[STRIKE]i see none of you read my first response above... it is gospel, i am prophet, the year is 2012, i told you so[/STRIKE]
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Bohrok said:
What if you use the fact that n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?

[STRIKE]your a depends on n, it will not work[/STRIKE]

EDIT: er, no it doesn't but something doesn't look right, the onus is on me now?
 
  • #9
algebrat said:
[STRIKE]your a depends on n, it will not work[/STRIKE]

EDIT: er, no it doesn't but something doesn't look right, the onus is on me now?

I tap out, tired
 
  • #10
I think I got it. I looked through my old calc book. I found this little fact: [itex]\int[/itex]ln x dx = x ln x - x + 1 < ln (n!)
 
  • #11
algebrat said:
go for ln(n!)<n*ln(n)
That won't work because all this will say is that (n!)1/n might be bounded. A lower limit is needed. You gave an upper limit.

Bohrok said:
What if you use the fact that n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?
Plugging in n=1, a=2 yields 1>2, which is obviously false.
lockedup said:
I think I got it. I looked through my old calc book. I found this little fact: [itex]\int[/itex]ln x dx = x ln x - x + 1 < ln (n!)
You didn't show the limits, but yep, you're on the right track. This is a good lower bound.
 
  • #12
D H said:
Bohrok said:
What if you use the fact that n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?


Plugging in n=1, a=2 yields 1>2, which is obviously false.

Just to prove that I can be helpful: I think Bohrok meant that for any a, choose n large enough, which is fine since n->∞.
 
  • #13
algebrat said:
Just to prove that I can be helpful: I think Bohrok meant that for any a, choose n large enough, which is fine since n->∞.

Thank you :smile:

It was late for me when I wrote that; what I meant to write was:
What if you use the fact that, for sufficiently large n, n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?

That still may not be the best way of wording it, but you get the idea.


Here's another thread about the same limit.
The OP has an interesting approach (which he didn't finish), but I can't figure out where his teacher was going after that point.
 
  • #14
Bohrok said:
Thank you :smile:

It was late for me when I wrote that; what I meant to write was:
What if you use the fact that, for sufficiently large n, n! > an for all real a, then (n!)1/n > a?

That still may not be the best way of wording it, but you get the idea.Here's another thread about the same limit.
The OP has an interesting approach (which he didn't finish), but I can't figure out where his teacher was going after that point.

Glad I could help. But let me offer a resolution to your wording. When I took a class on proofs, I remember the instructor, Steffen Rohde, mentioned that saying that this holds for all x could run you into trouble. It is safer to say, for all x, this holds.

Like the difference between [itex]f(x) \forall x,[/itex] and [itex]\forall x, f(x)[/itex]. The second one comes off less ambiguously.

When proofs get really confusing, I sort of imagine I'm in a subset after I fix some variable, whether it is by "there is" or "for any".

In the end, I think that's sort of on D H for not interpreting that "naturally". I like to use the word natural in math for when some there is an obvious way to take things.
 
Last edited:

What is the limit of (n)^(1/n) as n approaches infinity?

The limit of (n)^(1/n) as n approaches infinity is equal to 1. This can be seen by taking the natural logarithm of both sides and using the rule of l'Hôpital's to simplify the expression into the indeterminate form of 0/0. Then, using the rule of exponentials, the limit can be evaluated to be 1.

What is the significance of the limit of (n)^(1/n)?

The limit of (n)^(1/n) is significant because it represents the behavior of a sequence as n approaches infinity. It is also known as the "growth rate" of the sequence, as it shows how quickly the sequence is increasing or decreasing as n becomes larger.

How can the limit of (n)^(1/n) be used in real-world applications?

The limit of (n)^(1/n) can be used in various real-world applications, such as in finance, population growth, and natural sciences. In finance, it can be used to model compound interest rates, while in population growth, it can be used to predict the growth rate of a population over time. In natural sciences, it can be used to analyze the decay rate of radioactive elements.

What is the relationship between the limit of (n)^(1/n) and the concept of e?

The limit of (n)^(1/n) is closely related to the mathematical constant e. In fact, as n approaches infinity, the expression (n)^(1/n) converges to e. This can be seen by rewriting e as the limit of (1+n)^1/n and then taking the reciprocal of both sides to get (n)^(1/n).

Can the limit of (n)^(1/n) be evaluated for non-positive values of n?

No, the limit of (n)^(1/n) is only defined for positive values of n. This is because taking the nth root of a negative number is not defined in the real number system. However, the limit can be evaluated for non-negative values of n, where it would equal 0.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
774
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
814
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
820
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top