Define the sequence { L n } n = 1 ∞ as follows:
L n = n 1 ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + n x ) n e − x d x
Also, let L = n → ∞ lim L n .
Notation : ⌊ ⋅ ⌋ denotes the floor function .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
How do we prove the following? Γ ( n + 1 , n ) ∼ 2 1 Γ ( n + 1 ) n → ∞
Log in to reply
The result was originally proved by Tricomi: "Aymptotische eigenschaften der unvollst\"andigen Gammafunktion", Mathematische Zeitshcrift 53.2 (1950), but is quoted more conveniently here .
Actually, Tricomi proved an asymptotic form for Γ ( a + 1 ) Γ ( a + 1 , a + y a ) as a → ∞ . We only need the result for y = 0 here.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – Out of interest... if you did not have this result, what was your proof?
Log in to reply
@Mark Hennings – I didn't really have my own proof.
This problem was taken from a book (as mentioned in the problem). There another method was given.
I applied integration by parts n times and I got L(n)= ( n ! / n n n
Now after applying stirling's approximation I got answer 0. Please Help.
Log in to reply
Could you show your steps?
It is similar to the result of the second solution? (before starting with the approximations)
You need to be more careful with your integration by parts - there are extra terms... For example ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + n x ) j e − x d x = n j ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + n x ) j − 1 e − x d x + 1 The extra 1 appears because the "cross term" does not vanish at x = 0 .
Log in to reply
Oh! I'm so sorry. But can we proceed after that
Log in to reply
@Aakash Khandelwal – I make it that ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + n x ) n e − x d x = n n n ! j = 0 ∑ n j ! n j If we replace the finite sum by e n , then Stirling's approximation gives the right answer. What you need to do is show something like e − n j = n + 1 ∑ ∞ j ! n j → 0 n → ∞ so that the difference between the finite sum and the exponential does not contribute to the limit of L ( n ) .
Reative to that question
/(/displaystyle e^{-n} /sum_{m=0}^n /frac{n^m}{m!} /)
Please can you tell me how I can proceed to prove that as n tends to infinity, this converges to 1/2 rather than 1 ??
e − n m = 0 ∑ n m ! n m
Please can you tell me how I can proceed to prove that as n tends to infinity, this converges to 1/2 rather than 1 ??
The following is an informal (and imprecise) but elementary explanation as why the result makes sense. For a fixed n , expand the integrand binomially, integrate term-by-term and use the result (which may be derived by integrating by-parts) that for any non-negative integer k : ∫ 0 ∞ exp ( − x ) x k d x = k ! Hence the integral is equal to I n = i = 0 ∑ n k = 0 ∏ i ( 1 − n k ) Now, we will approximate this sum term-by-term. Note that, for "small" k / n , we have exp ( − k / n ) ≈ 1 − n k . Thus, we may write I n ≈ i = 0 ∑ n exp ( − k = 0 ∑ i k / n ) ≈ i = 0 ∑ n exp ( − i 2 / 2 n ) ≈ ∫ 0 n exp ( − x 2 / 2 n ) d x Thus, n I n ≈ n 1 ∫ 0 n exp ( − x 2 / 2 n ) d x = ∫ 0 n exp ( − z 2 / 2 ) d z → ∫ 0 ∞ exp ( − z 2 / 2 ) d z = 2 π
Thanks for this intuition!
The problem is that there are a lot of terms here where k is not small with respect to n , since k can take any value between 0 and n .
If you are going to make this work, you need to show what all those terms are doing...
Log in to reply
The intuition is that only first O ~ ( n ) terms in the sum I n contributes to the sum (for which, of course, the approximation holds). The sum of the rest of the terms goes to zero when divided by n .
Log in to reply
So prove it...
Log in to reply
@Mark Hennings – It is plain High school math ...
Let c n = lo g ( n ) . Then write the integral I n as I n = S n + T n Where S n is the sum of the first c n n terms of I n and T n is the sum of the rest of the terms. Now using the inequality exp ( − x ) ≥ 1 − x , ∀ x ∈ R , T n may be upper-bounded as follows: T n ≤ i = c n n ∑ n exp ( − i 2 / 2 n ) ≤ ∫ c n n ∞ exp ( − x 2 / 2 n ) d x Thus, 0 ≤ n 1 T n ≤ n 1 ∫ c n n ∞ exp ( − x 2 / 2 n ) d x = ∫ c n ∞ exp ( − z 2 / 2 ) d z Hence, n → ∞ lim n 1 T n = 0 Now deal with the first term S n as shown in my original post.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Changing variables, we can write L ( n ) = n n + 2 1 e n ∫ n ∞ y n e − y d y = n n + 2 1 e n Γ ( n + 1 , n ) using the incomplete Gamma function. But Γ ( n + 1 ) Γ ( n + 1 , n ) ∼ 2 1 n → ∞ and hence (using Stirling's approximation) L ( n ) ∼ 2 π n → ∞ Thus L = 2 π . Since π is transcendental, so is L , making the answer ⌊ 1 0 0 0 L ⌋ = 1 2 5 3 .