Limit of the nth root of (n ln n)

  • Thread starter Thread starter txy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Ln Root
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The limit of the nth root of the expression \( n \ln(n) \) as \( n \) approaches infinity can be evaluated using the Squeeze Theorem without employing L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor Series. The discussion emphasizes taking the logarithm of the expression to simplify the limit calculation, leading to the inequality \( \ln(n) < n \) for all \( n > 1 \). Participants suggest defining the function \( f(x) = x - \ln(x) \) and proving that its derivative \( f'(x) > 0 \) for \( x > 1 \) to establish the necessary inequality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the Squeeze Theorem
  • Basic knowledge of logarithmic functions
  • Concept of derivatives and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Squeeze Theorem in detail
  • Learn about the properties of logarithmic functions
  • Explore the definition and properties of the exponential function \( e^x \)
  • Review the binomial theorem and its applications in limits
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those focusing on limits and inequalities, as well as educators looking for methods to teach these concepts effectively.

txy
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n ln(n)}.
Do not use L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor Series.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I suspect I need to set up some inequality for this and then apply Squeeze Theorem. But I can't find any inequality that can help me do this. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start by taking the log of the expression and trying find the limit of that.
 
You should find something like:

n \ln(L) = ln( n \cdot ln (n) ) = ln(n) + \ln(ln(n))
 
does
n<n log n<n^(1+epsilon)
help?
 
That's great. In either case, I need to use the fact that ln n < n for all n > 1. How do I prove this?
 
txy said:
That's great. In either case, I need to use the fact that ln n < n for all n > 1. How do I prove this?

If you need to prove it I think the easiest way is to define f(x)=x-ln(x). Notice f(1)=1. Now can you show f'(x)>0 for x>1? That would show f(x) is positive for x>1.
 
Dick said:
If you need to prove it I think the easiest way is to define f(x)=x-ln(x). Notice f(1)=1. Now can you show f'(x)>0 for x>1? That would show f(x) is positive for x>1.

But this question that I posed is in the Limits chapter of my textbook, which comes before the chapter on Differentiation. I wonder if there's another way to prove that inequality. Perhaps I could change it to the form x < e^x , but I still can't make any progress.
 
Ok, I think you might be fussing a little to much over this proof, but how about using the definition of e^x. e^x=limit (1+x/n)^n as n->infinity? Can you use that, together with the binomial theorem to prove e^x>x for x>0?
 
Dick said:
Ok, I think you might be fussing a little to much over this proof, but how about using the definition of e^x. e^x=limit (1+x/n)^n as n->infinity? Can you use that, together with the binomial theorem to prove e^x>x for x>0?

Yes now I can prove it. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K