P = 2 1 ( 2 1 + 1 2 ) × 2 1 ( 3 2 + 2 3 ) × 2 1 ( 4 3 + 3 4 ) × ⋯
The infinite product P can be written as P = a π b for rational numbers a and b . Enter a × b as your answer.
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.
Cool! I didn't know about the Wallis Formula. Yet another thing I've learned from you. :)
Thanks Calculus Laoshi (literally "old (learned) master" in Chinese, meaning teacher) for the Wallis Formula. It is a real bonus trying your problems.
Looking first at the partial products, we have that
P n = k = 1 ∏ n 2 1 ( k ( k + 1 ) k + ( k + 1 ) ) = 2 n ∗ n ! ∗ n + 1 ( 2 n + 1 ) ! ! = 2 2 n ∗ ( n ! ) 2 ∗ n + 1 ( 2 n + 1 ) ! .
Next, we can employ Stirling's Approximation n ! ∼ 2 π n ( e n ) n to find that
P = lim n → ∞ P n = lim n → ∞ 2 π n ∗ e 2 n n 2 n n + 1 2 π ( 2 n + 1 ) ∗ e 2 n + 1 ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 n + 1 =
e π 2 lim n → ∞ n + 1 ∗ n 2 n n + 2 1 ∗ ( n + 2 1 ) 2 n =
e π 2 lim n → ∞ n + 1 n + 2 1 lim n → ∞ ( 1 + 2 n 1 ) 2 n = e π 2 ∗ 1 ∗ e = π 2 .
Thus a b = 2 ∗ ( − 2 1 ) = − 1 .
Very nice (upvote)! It is perhaps a bit "casual" to write that n ! → 2 π n ( e n ) n .... for the benefit of other members, would you mind clarifying?
Log in to reply
Yes, I suppose it is too "casual", as the approximation is an asymptotic formula. More precisely, Stirling's Formula states that
n ! = 2 π n ( e n ) n ( 1 + O ( n 1 ) ) .
Stirling's formula is in turn the first approximation of the Stirling series, which is technically an asymptotic expansion and not a convergent series. But if we were to let this series be g ( n ) and the approximation in my solution be f ( n ) then it is the case that lim n → ∞ g ( n ) f ( n ) = 1 , fitting the definition of an asymptotic formula. So if my solution were to have been less casual, it should have ventured into the realm of asymptotic analysis .
Log in to reply
Thanks for the detailed explanation! A simple solution is to write n ! ∼ 2 π n ( e n ) n , meaning that the ratio goes to 1...it's precise without requiring more writing.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Great! I've changed the → to ∼ in my solution as you've suggested. Thanks. :)
Luckily when I hit that "What do U need to solve the problem?" button, I was directed to Sterling's Formula and thanks to it I can solve the problem. Lol.
Yes, much easier to use Stirling.
P = n → ∞ lim k = 1 ∏ n 2 1 ( k + 1 k + k k + 1 ) = n → ∞ lim k = 1 ∏ n 2 1 ( k ( k + 1 ) 2 k + 1 ) = n → ∞ lim k = 1 ∏ n k ( k + 1 ) k + 2 1 k = 1 ∏ n ( k + 2 1 ) = π 2 Γ ( n + 2 3 ) = n → ∞ lim π Γ ( n + 1 ) Γ ( n + 2 ) 2 Γ ( n + 2 3 ) = 2 π − 2 1
⇒ a × b = 2 ( − 2 1 ) = − 1
Very nice (upvote)!
thanks, you always solve in easiest way.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We will use the Wallis Formula , 1 ∗ 3 ∗ 3 ∗ 5 ∗ 5 ∗ 7 ∗ 7 2 ∗ 2 ∗ 4 ∗ 4 ∗ 6 ∗ 6 ∗ 8 . . . . = 2 π
Now P 2 = k = 1 ∏ ∞ ( 2 k ) ( 2 k + 2 ) ( 2 k + 1 ) 2 = 2 ∗ 4 ∗ 4 ∗ 6 ∗ 6 ∗ 8 3 ∗ 3 ∗ 5 ∗ 5 ∗ 7 ∗ 7 . . . = π 4 so P = 2 π − 1 / 2 and a b = − 1