Proving Natural Number e: Exponential Value Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrywang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Value
henrywang
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
For proving the natural number, e.
(1+1/n)^n As n approches infinite, (1+1/n)^n ----> e
However, wouldn't it become one as n becomes infinite?
(1+1/n)^n=(1+0)^n=1
Could anyone explain this to me please!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you just naively substitute ##n=\infty##, then you would get

(1+0)^\infty = 1^\infty

which is an indeterminate form. Surely, things like ##1^2## and ##1^{100}## equal ##1##. But if the exponent is infinity, then it's an indeterminate form.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
(1+\frac{1}{n})^n = 1 + n\frac{1}{n} +\frac{ n(n-1)}{2!} \frac{1}{n^2} + ... \frac{1}{n^n}

This does not ->1 as n becomes infinite.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
henrywang said:
For proving the natural number, e.
(1+1/n)^n As n approches infinite, (1+1/n)^n ----> e
However, wouldn't it become one as n becomes infinite?
(1+1/n)^n=(1+0)^n=1
Could anyone explain this to me please!

The manipulation here takes a limit involving one variable and turns it into what amounts to a pair of nested limits involving two variables. The original formula was:

<br /> \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n})^n}<br />

The attempted manipulation was to:

<br /> \displaystyle\lim_{{n_1}\rightarrow +\infty} {\displaystyle\lim_{{n_2}\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n_2})^{n_1}}}<br />

which is distinct from:

<br /> \displaystyle\lim_{{n_2}\rightarrow +\infty} {\displaystyle\lim_{{n_1}\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n_2})^{n_1}}}<br />

Those two nested limits give different results. The first one evaluates to 1. The second one does not exist at all. Limits do not always commute.

One way of seeing this is to imagine the formula {(1+\frac{1}{x})^y} as a function of two variables. It is defined everywhere in the first quadrant of the coordinate plane for x and y. You can imagine extending the definition to infinite x and infinite y by tracing a path going off into the distance and looking at the limit of the function values along that path. It then turns out that the limit you get depends on the path you take.

The prescription in the original formulation was for a path running exactly on the 45° line through the middle of the first quadrant.
 
  • Like
Likes 2 people
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top