4

I think the problem I have is due to not being knowledgeable about limits.

If I use binomial expansion to expand $(1+1/n)^n$ to $1 + \frac{n!}{(n-k)!k!}*(1/n)^k + ...$, I can imagine replacing $n$ with $\infty$, so now I have:

$$ 1 + \frac{\infty!}{(\infty-k)!k!}*(1/\infty)^k + ... $$

Clearly by whatever method I don't understand, this reduces to the usually mentioned $1 + 1/k! + ...$

I am struggling to see how the expression is simplified when I can't see any obvious correspondence between the infinity numerators and denominators.

Tom
  • 211
  • Find your answer in Baby Rudin. Or Demidovich's problem set. – Troy Woo Aug 17 '14 at 11:25
  • Related: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/860796/how-to-show-that-sum-n-0-infty-dfrac-1n-e – Ishfaaq Aug 17 '14 at 11:55
  • @TroyWoo I couldn't understand the Rudin proof. I like the pending answer below much better. – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 14:52
  • 2
    @Tom These proofs are flawed. – Troy Woo Aug 17 '14 at 15:08
  • @TroyWoo Can you highlight what's wrong with them, and perhaps create an answer based on the one in Rudin's book so we can discuss? – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 15:39
  • My favorite reason "why" this is true is that $(1+\frac{1}{n})^n$ is what you get by applying Euler's method over the interval $[0,1]$ to the differential equation $\frac{df}{dx}=f(x)$ with initial condition $f(0)=1$, with $n$ equally space subintervals. – Steven Gubkin Aug 17 '14 at 22:49
  • 3
    I've never understood Rudin's proof, either. He asserts use of the binomial theorem when writing an expansion that looks absolutely nothing like the binomial theorem. – zibadawa timmy Aug 18 '14 at 07:41
  • You should add mathjax to the title. – Joao Aug 18 '14 at 07:42

4 Answers4

9

Most of the arguments given in other answers have a curious fallacy. In the binomial expansion of $(1+1/n)^{n}$ the number of terms as well as each term is dependent on $n$ hence taking limits term by term is not justified. A proper proof requires more analysis. I have presented this proof in detailed manner in my blog post.

Update: Upon OP's request (see comments below) I have provided the full proof below. Its a variation on the proof given in blog. But before that a few remarks regarding the fallacy of other answers are in order. Taking limits term by term is valid in two general contexts:

1) When the number of terms is finite and independent of the limit variable $n$.

2) When the number of terms is infinite (case of infinite series, uniform convergence)

The current example is an expression of type $$f(n) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n}g(n, k)$$ so that each term $g(n, k)$ depends on $n$ and total numbers of terms also depends on $n$. Let's have a counter example. Let $g(n, k) = 1/n$ for all $k, n$. And consider $$f(n) = \sum_{k = 1}^{n}g(n, k) = \sum_{k = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{n} = 1$$ If we take limits term by term we get $\lim_{n \to \infty}g(n, k) = 0$ so that term by term limit gives the infinite series $$0 + 0 + 0 + \cdots = 0$$ But since the function $f(n) = 1$ so the limit should have been $1$.

Now I come to the proof of the relation $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^{n} = 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} + \frac{1}{3!} + \cdots\tag{1}$$ Let us put $$f(n) = \left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}, g(n) = \left(1 - \frac{1}{n}\right)^{-n}, E(n) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n}\frac{1}{k!}$$ Note that the series $\sum (1/k!)$ is convergent so that $\lim_{n \to \infty}E(n)$ exists. For $n > 1$ I show that $$f(n) \leq E(n) \leq g(n)\tag{2}$$ The first inequality $f(n)\leq E(n)$ is obvious by the binomial expansion of $f(n)$ as each term in binomial expansion of $f(n)$ is less than or equal to corresponding term in $E(n)$. Since $n > 1$ so that $1/n < 1$ we can therefore apply binomial theorem for general exponents to get $$g(n) = 1 + n\cdot\frac{1}{n} + \frac{n(n + 1)}{2!}\cdot\frac{1}{n^{2}} + \cdots$$ which is an infinite series with positive terms. Now each term in above series is greater than or equal to each corresponding terms in $E(n)$. Moreover terms in $g(n)$ are infinite in number whereas $E(n)$ has a finite number of terms. Thus we have $E(n) \leq g(n)$ for all $n > 1$. So the inequalities mentioned in $(2)$ are established.

Again we know that $\lim_{n \to \infty}f(n) = e$ (I won't discuss the existence of this limit as it is a given assumption in the question, but its existence does require a proof). I now show that $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{f(n)}{g(n)} = 1\tag{3}$$ so that $\lim_{n \to \infty}g(n)$ also exists and is equal to $e$. Once this is done we can apply squeeze theorem on $(2)$ and get $\lim_{n \to \infty}E(n) = e$ or what is the same as equation $(1)$. It thus remains only to show that equation $(3)$ holds.

Clearly we have $$\frac{f(n)}{g(n)} = \left(1 - \frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)^{n} = c(n)\text{ (say)}$$ and since $$0 < 1 - \frac{1}{n^{2}} < 1$$ it follows that $$1 - n\cdot\frac{1}{n^{2}} \leq c(n) \leq 1 - \frac{1}{n^{2}}$$ (note that first inequality follows from $(1 + x)^{n} \geq 1 + nx$ for $n > 1$ and $x > -1$). Applying squeeze theorem on the above inequalities we get $\lim_{n \to \infty}f(n)/g(n) = \lim_{n \to \infty}c(n) = 1$ and thus equation $(3)$ is verified. This completes the proof of $(1)$.

  • Doesn't n simply determine that the number of terms are infinite, and so if you can prove that for any term one part tends to 1 and so leaving 1/k! then any extra terms that were computed would behave the same? Also can you try to digest your content to refer to the exact question, and put it in your answer so we can discuss the relevant points? Thanks – Tom Aug 18 '14 at 11:22
  • @Tom: I have updated my answer in response to your comment. – Paramanand Singh Aug 18 '14 at 16:26
  • Thanks for putting in the effort, now I can see your approach. But in Lolman's answer the product for which he is finding the limit is finite, and only after finding the limit for that product does he then continue with the limit which could also be found. I can see in your counter example that a per-term limit wouldn't work (presumably because the series is dependent on n and infinite), but how is that applicable to Lolman's suggestion? Is it not correct to compose limits in the way that Lolman did? – Tom Aug 18 '14 at 22:12
  • 1
    @Tom: I checked Lolman's answer. He evaluates the limit term by term. Here each term involves $n$ and $k$ and after limit it becomes $1/k!$. Next he makes the number of terms infinite and gets $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}1/k!$. This is exactly the same technique I use in my counterexample. Why this works for this particular series may be difficult to explain. In my view it is better not to use techniques which you don't understand very well. I would say that Lolman technique is intuitive but not rigorous. – Paramanand Singh Aug 19 '14 at 02:06
  • @Tom: in Lolman's answer $$g(n,k)=\frac{n!}{(n-k)!k!}\cdot\frac{1}{n^{k}}$$ whose limit is $1/k!$. – Paramanand Singh Aug 19 '14 at 02:09
  • 1
    @Tom: You can observe an obvious issue in the approach of term by term limits in the following way. The last term of $(1 + 1/n)^{n}$ is $1/n^{n}$ which tends to $0$. On the other hand the series $\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty}1/k!$ has all its terms positive. So where does the $0$ obtained by taking term by term limit go? – Paramanand Singh Aug 19 '14 at 05:52
  • Yes, that's a good observation: I didn't notice that the limit of that product changes depending on how close k is to n (if k is small relative to n then limit seems to be 1, then if k is close to n then limit seems to be 0 -- because in the former the fractions are all close to 1 and in the latter more close to 0). And so I'll flip over to your argument. Thanks for helping me with this. I wonder if anyone can provide references and names of concepts so I can learn more about the related issues of this problem. – Tom Aug 19 '14 at 09:05
  • What's wrong with 'Fly by Night's answer? – Tom Aug 20 '14 at 11:06
  • @Tom: Fly by Night's answer is same as Lolman's. After my comment Lolman has given the proper justification of his method of term by term limits using monotone convergence theorem. Fly by Night also uses the same technique of taking limits term by term. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '14 at 16:21
  • Isn't there a big difference? In Lolman's answer the limit mentioned is different depending on k (and so I don't even see how the monotone convergence theorem is being applied when related to that limit), but in Fly by Night's answer it's clear that there is always $1/k! * (1 - ...)$ where $...$ is some clearly small amount that would limit to being 0. – Tom Aug 20 '14 at 17:52
  • @Tom: Fly by Night also uses the binomial expansion and the last term would be $1/n^{n}$ and its limit would be $0$. He has not tried to calculate the limit of general $k^{\text{th}}$ term, but rather showed it for only first few terms. And the real justification of this approach is monotone convergence theorem. See "Convergence of monotone series" topic in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_convergence_theorem – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '14 at 18:02
  • But for every n and k, there could be a factorization of the form $(1-1/n)(1-2/n)(1-3/n)...$ of the same form as shown couldn't there? – Tom Aug 20 '14 at 18:36
  • @Tom: It seems you don't get the complete picture. It is better if you have a look at the wiki link i gave. without this result we have an issue in finding limit when $k = n$. The result given in wiki also explains why the technique fails with my counterexample and why it works for $(1 + 1/n)^{n}$. – Paramanand Singh Aug 21 '14 at 07:40
  • Thanks. I'm going to go away and learn about the monotone convergence theorem etc, and then come back. – Tom Aug 21 '14 at 11:11
  • 1
    @ParamanandSingh I like how this exact problem is given in the link on monotone convergence. – Simply Beautiful Art Aug 31 '16 at 00:37
  • @SimpleArt: I have not made any contribution to that wiki, but I learnt about this theorem from wiki itself. – Paramanand Singh Aug 31 '16 at 05:58
4

The Binomial Expansion is given by $$\begin{eqnarray*} \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\!n} &=& 1+n\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+\frac{n(n-1)}{2!}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\!2}+\frac{n(n-1)(n-2)}{3!}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\!3}+\cdots \\ \\ &=& 1+1+\frac{n(n-1)}{n^2}\cdot\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{n(n-1)(n-2)}{n^3}\cdot \frac{1}{3!}+\cdots \\ \\ \end{eqnarray*}$$ The key thing to notice is that each or these coefficients in $n$ tend to $1$ as $n \to \infty$: $$\begin{eqnarray*} \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n(n-1)}{n^2} &=& \lim_{n \to \infty} 1-\frac{1}{n} &=& 1 \\ \\ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)}{n^3} &=& \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\!\left(1-\frac{2}{n}\right) &=& 1 \end{eqnarray*}$$ It follows that $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\!n} = 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!} + \frac{1}{3!} + \cdots = \mathrm{e}$$

Fly by Night
  • 32,886
  • I see what you're saying here, and it's another interesting way of looking at it. Thanks. I would highlight that in the coefficient there is always a numerator and denominator that divides to 1, and then the remaining terms will always be divided by n and so will be negligible. – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 22:16
  • also there's a minor error on the first line of limits: should be 1 - 1/n. I can't edit it – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 22:21
3

I understood nothing of what you have written, but: $$\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{n!}{(n-k)!k!}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^k=\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{1}{k!}\prod_{i=n-k+1}^n \frac{i}{n}\leq e$$ Because: $\frac{n!}{n-k!}=\prod_{i=n-k+1}^n i$ are exactly $k$ terms, so I can bring in the $\frac{1}{n^k}$.

If we take the limit with $n\to\infty$ then $$\prod_{i=n-k+1}^n \frac{i}{n}=\prod_{i=1}^k \frac{i+n-k}{n}\to 1$$

Edit: $$a_k(n)=\frac{1}{k!}\prod_{i=n-k+1}^n \frac{i}{n}\qquad k\leq n$$ $$a_k(n)=0\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\,\, k>n$$ $a_k(n)$ is an increasing sequence of elements in $l^1$ i.e. $a_k(n)\leq a_k(n+1)$ for all $k$ and $n$, then for the monotone convergence theorem we can conclude that: $$\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n\to\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!} \quad .$$

Have fun.

Lolman
  • 1,818
  • Can you explain how you transitioned to the right-most equivalent? – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 12:41
  • Edited for you. – Lolman Aug 17 '14 at 13:02
  • Thanks, that's very interesting. But if 1/k! is multiplied by 0 or a very small number won't that then be very small, and not 1/k! ? – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 13:45
  • I think the first limit in this answer tends to 1, because i is going to be only a little less than n, and so the fractions will be close to 1. If you can clarify this I'll mark this as the correct answer. Thanks. – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 14:36
  • Sorry, my mistake... edited – Lolman Aug 17 '14 at 21:25
  • Thanks very much. I think this is an elegant perspective. – Tom Aug 17 '14 at 22:09
  • @Lolman: I have provided an answer and some comments in the answer which shows some deep flaws in your proof. It is a good intuitive argument but needs to be made rigorous. – Paramanand Singh Aug 19 '14 at 04:39
  • @ParamanandSingh Deep flaws would mean that the proof is wrong, but there aren't, or the reasoning behind the implication is wrong, but it isn't. As if it wouldn't converge. I edited in a way you would understand. Hope my vision isn't too biased. – Lolman Aug 19 '14 at 13:03
  • @Lolman: Perhaps "deep flaws" was too harsh! Sorry for that. Your current proof looks rigorous, but it uses some really high level result like monotone convergence theorem. Also it seems your first line is a reference to my answer. Let me know if you have something specific in my answer which you find difficult to understand and I will edit it accordingly. – Paramanand Singh Aug 19 '14 at 14:15
  • @ParamanandSingh if by "first line" you mean "I understood nothing..." then that is for the OP, because of the messy way he wrote his question, it was there way before your answer. If you talk about the $\leq e$ (or just bounded) part then that is either taken for granted or may be deduced by bounding $1/(k!)\leq 1/(k-1)^2$... – Lolman Aug 19 '14 at 21:42
0

Note that $$\frac{n!}{(n-k)!n^{k}}=\frac{n(n-1)(n-2)....(n-k+1)}{\underbrace{n\cdot n \cdots n}_{\text{$k$ times}}}$$

So, as $n$ tends to infinity, it becomes $1$. I think you can figure out the rest.

Mårten W
  • 3,550
  • 4
  • 27
  • 42
VigneshM
  • 428