n → ∞ lim n 2 + n ( 0 n ) ( 1 n ) ( 2 n ) ⋯ ( n n )
Find the value of the closed form of the above limit to 3 decimal places.
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.
The sequence of steps is quite natural, and doesn't require complex mathematical machinery.
Becuase we are evaluating lim f ( x ) g ( x ) , we have to ensure that lim g ( x ) × ln f ( x ) exists and is finite. Note that we cannot simply apply the product rule here, since lim g ( x ) = 0 , lim ln f ( x ) = ∞ , which results in an indeterminate form. We have to deal with the product of terms together (as in the final step).
I can't understand. It??
Log in to reply
The synopsis here is that the author converted the limit into a Riemann sums by taking its logarithm. An intermediate step involved Stirling's formula .
It's all about rewriting the limit to something that is more familiar/easier to work with.
Note that j = 0 ∏ n ( j n ) = ( ∏ j = 0 n j ! ) 2 ( n ! ) n + 1 = ( n $ ) 2 ( n ! ) n + 1 = G ( n + 2 ) 2 ( n ! ) n + 1 where n $ = ∏ j = 1 n j ! is what Plouffe calls the superfactorial, and G is the Barnes G-function. Thus we are interested in the limit X = N → ∞ lim G ( n + 2 ) n ( n + 1 ) 2 ( n ! ) n 1 Using Stirlings' approximation n ! ∼ 2 π e − n n n + 2 1 and a similar asymptotic result for the Barnes G-function G ( n + 1 ) ∼ A 1 ( 2 π ) 2 1 n n 2 1 n 2 − 1 2 1 e − 4 3 n 2 + 1 2 1 as n → ∞ , where A is Glaisher's constant , we deduce that ( n ! ) n 1 ∼ e n G ( n + 2 ) n ( n + 1 ) 1 ∼ e 4 3 n n → ∞ and hence that X = e = 1 . 6 4 8 7 2 1 2 7 1 .
I never would have thought that we need to use another function called Barnes G function!
I was stuck here trying to crack this limit via Riemann sums and Stolz–Cesàro theorem .
I'm curious: do you think we can interpret this limit as some combinatorial interpretation? It's surprising to see that famous number e pops at the end as well. Can't be a coincidence right?
Log in to reply
yes absolutely we can solve this using using stolz - cesaro ......i think this might be helpful
5x + 2 = f( x ), x ≠ 2.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Here is my solution.
We have the following identity (can be proved by induction, or just tracking the terms)
r = 1 ∏ n ( r n ) = r = 1 ∏ n r 2 r − n − 1 Note that ln r = 1 ∏ n ( r n ) = 2 r = 1 ∑ n r ln r − ( n + 1 ) r = 1 ∑ n ln r
Now, note that by integration by parts k = 1 ∑ n k ln k ∼ ∫ 0 n x lo g x d x = 2 1 n 2 ln n − 4 n 2
Using this and Stirling's approximation that ln n ! ∼ n ln n − n we find 2 r = 1 ∑ n r ln r − ( n + 1 ) r = 1 ∑ n ln r ≈ n 2 ln n − 2 1 n 2 − ( n 2 + n ) ln n + n 2 + n = 2 n 2 − n ln n + n
So n → ∞ lim n 2 + n ln ∏ r = 1 n ( r n ) = n → ∞ lim 2 n 2 + 2 n n 2 − 2 n ln n + 2 n = 2 1
So the desired limit is
n → ∞ lim n 2 + n ∏ ( r n ) = e n → ∞ lim n 2 + n ln ∏ r = 1 n ( r n ) = e 2 1 .