n → ∞ lim n sin ( 2 π e n ! ) = ?
Bonus: Use this result to prove that e is irrational.
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.
We write
n ! = ∫ 0 ∞ x n e − x d x
So,
e n ! = ∫ 0 ∞ x n e − ( x − 1 ) d x = ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + u ) n e − u d u + ∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n e − u d u
The first term is clearly an integer and the second term tends to 0 as n tends to infinity.
So, the limit can be written in the form
n − > ∞ lim n sin ( 2 π e n ! ) = n − > ∞ lim 2 π n ∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n e − u d u
And by integrating by parts,
∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n e − u d u = n + 1 1 + n + 1 1 ∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n + 1 e − u d u
Hence,
n − > ∞ lim n ∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n e − u d u = n − > ∞ lim n + 1 n + n + 1 n ∫ − 1 0 ( 1 + u ) n + 1 e − u d u = 1
So, the answer is 2 π
Strangely enough I assumed this was a typo and the argument in the sin was devided by n! When you apply the sterling approximation you arrive at the same result:)
It sounds like you mean n → ∞ lim n sin ( n ! 2 π e ) but this equals zero. How did you interpret it?
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
e ⋅ n ! = k = 0 ∑ ∞ k ! n ! = ( k = 0 ∑ n k ! n ! ) + ( k = n + 1 ∑ ∞ k ! n ! ) : = A n + B n
Here, we note that A n is an integer, so sin ( 2 π e n ! ) = sin ( 2 π A n + 2 π B n ) = sin ( 2 π B n ) , and ∣ ( n + 1 ) B n − 1 ∣ = k = n + 2 ∑ ∞ k ! ( n + 1 ) ! ≤ k = n + 2 ∑ ∞ n k − ( n + 1 ) 1 = 1 − n 1 n 1 = n − 1 1 n → ∞ 0 so that n → ∞ lim n B n = n → ∞ lim n + 1 n ⋅ ( n + 1 ) B n = 1 ⋅ 1 = 1 .
Therefore n → ∞ lim n sin ( 2 π e n ! ) = 2 π n → ∞ lim ( n B n ) ( 2 π B n sin ( 2 π B n ) ) = 2 π ( 1 ) ( 1 ) = 2 π ≈ 6 . 2 8
For the Bonus question:
Assume e is rational, so e = N M for some integers M , N with N > 0 . However, then for n ≥ N , we'd have e n ! = M ⋅ N n ! is an integer and therefore sin ( 2 π e n ! ) = 0 . It would then follow that the limit in the question is also 0 . Since it isn't, e must be irrational.