Proving Natural Number e: Exponential Value Explained

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter henrywang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Value
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 3K views
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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex](1+\frac{1}{n})^n = 1 + n\frac{1}{n} +\frac{ n(n-1)}{2!} \frac{1}{n^2} + ... \frac{1}{n^n}[/tex]

This does not ->1 as n becomes infinite.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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:

[itex] \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n})^n}[/itex]

The attempted manipulation was to:

[itex] \displaystyle\lim_{{n_1}\rightarrow +\infty} {\displaystyle\lim_{{n_2}\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n_2})^{n_1}}}[/itex]

which is distinct from:

[itex] \displaystyle\lim_{{n_2}\rightarrow +\infty} {\displaystyle\lim_{{n_1}\rightarrow +\infty} {(1+\frac{1}{n_2})^{n_1}}}[/itex]

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 [itex]{(1+\frac{1}{x})^y}[/itex] 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   Reactions: 2 people