What n is required to make n > a^n

  • Thread starter Thread starter uart
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To establish a bound on n such that n! ≥ a^n, the discussion highlights the use of Stirling's formula, leading to the conclusion that n = ⌈e a⌉ is a valid solution. A simpler bound proposed is n = a^2 for a ≥ 2, which can be proven by comparing terms in the factorial expansion. Each pair of terms on the left-hand side is shown to be greater than or equal to the corresponding terms on the right-hand side. This approach provides an intuitive proof without requiring complex calculations. Overall, the discussion seeks accessible bounds for n in relation to a, emphasizing straightforward proofs.
uart
Science Advisor
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
21
I'm looking for a bound on n ( that is, "n" as a function of "a") to satisfy,

n! \geq a^n

It doesn't have to be the lowest possible bound, preferably one that's relatively easy to prove.

Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
OK I've just found Sterling's formula, looking at that I can deduce that n = \lceil e\, a \rceil will definitely work.

Does anyone have a bound that is very easy proof. Maybe something like n = 3a or even larger.
 
Last edited:
Well, up until n=a, you clearly can't get anywhere (and have a-1 more a's on the RHS than the LHS)

Then you add up an a (actually, a number greater than a against a)for every one added to n until you hit a2

Then you have a-2 a's on the RHS compared to the LHS. From then on, every time you add one to n, you multiply the LHS by something greater than a2, and the RHS by a. So if n=a2+a (so you pick up a extra a's from the a2 and larger terms to mitigate the a-1 you felll behind by at the start), then n! >= an

That should work. If it needs clarification, I'll try to write it out a bit neater
 
Ok good, going as high as sqaures makes it pretty easy.

Take n = a^2 (for a>=2). You can just compare the terms (in the expansion of LHS and RHS) in pairs and show that every chosen pair-product on the LHS is greater than or equal to that of each RHS pair (which is of course always a*a on the RHS).

eg

1 * a^2 = a*a
2 * (a^2-1) > a*a
3 * (a^2-2) > a*a
...
k ^ (a^2+1-k) > a*a : { down to k = floor(a^2 / 2) }

That's the type of thing I was looking for, something that's like a "handwaving + by inspection" type of "proof". ;)
 
Last edited:
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

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