Unable to prove e without math. induction

  • Thread starter soopo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Induction
The proof presented is already quite rigorous. It uses the binomial expansion and the limit of each term is shown to converge to the individual terms in the sum, which is then shown to converge to the sum itself. This is a valid and logical way to prove the statement without using mathematical induction.
  • #1
soopo
225
0

Homework Statement


How can you prove the following statement without mathematical induction?
[tex] lim_{n -> \infty} (1 + \frac {1} {n})^{n} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac {1} { n! } [/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The statement can be proven by mathematical induction, but I am interested in how the sum statement can be deduced.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'd be interested in how you prove that with induction. But try expanding (1+1/n)^n in a binomial expansion and look at the limit of the individual terms.
 
  • #3
Dick said:
But try expanding (1+1/n)^n in a binomial expansion and look at the limit of the individual terms.

Let's consider only the first three and the last three terms in the binomial expansion
[tex] 1 + (n,1) \frac {1} {n} + (n,2) \frac {1} {n^{2}} + (n,3) \frac {1}
{n^{3}} + ... + (n, n-3) \frac {1} {n^{n-3}} + (n, n-2) \frac {1} {n^{n-2}} +
(n, n-1) \frac {1} {n^{n-1}} + \frac {1} {n^{n}} [/tex]

where (n,n) is a combination, for instance.
(n,0) and (n,n) are one.

Perhaps, I should now factorise by [tex] \frac {1} {n} [/tex].
 
  • #4
Look at a single term, e.g. (n,3)/n^3. Expand (n,3) in factorials. Cancel some terms in the numerator and denominator. Can you see what happens?
 
  • #5
Dick said:
Look at a single term, e.g. (n,3)/n^3. Expand (n,3) in factorials. Cancel some terms in the numerator and denominator. Can you see what happens?

[tex] 1 + n (\frac {1}{n})^{1}) + n(n - 1) \frac {1}{2!} (\frac {1}{n})^{2}) + n(n - 1)(n - 2) \frac {1}{3!} (\frac {1}{n})^{3}) +
... + n(n - 1)(n - 2) \frac {1}{3!} (\frac {1}{n})^{n-3}) + n(n - 1) \frac {1}{2!} (\frac {1}{n})^{n-2}) + n (\frac {1}{n})^{n-1}) + \frac {1} {n^{n}}[/tex]

Simplifying
[tex] 2(1 + 1 + \frac {n - 1}{n} \frac {1}{2!} + (n - 1)(n - 2) \frac {1}{n^{2}*3!} +
... ) + \frac {1} {n^{n}}[/tex]

The series diverges, since n is a positive integer.

We should somehow be able to get the sum notation.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
You are forgetting the 1/n^k part. For the term containing 3! I get
(n)(n-1)(n-2)/(n^3*3!). What's the limit of that as n->infinity?
 
  • #7
Dick said:
You are forgetting the 1/n^k part. For the term containing 3! I get
(n)(n-1)(n-2)/(n^3*3!). What's the limit of that as n->infinity?

I get
[tex]\frac {1 - 3/n - 2/n^2} {3!} => 1/3!,[/tex]
as n goes to infinity.

We should now apply the result for the rest of the terms.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
n/n->1. (n-1)/n->1. (n-2)/n->1. As n->infinity. I get that the limit is 1/3!. Your limit also goes to 1/3!. In spite of a sign error.
 
  • #9
Dick said:
n/n->1. (n-1)/n->1. (n-2)/n->1. As n->infinity. I get that the limit is 1/3!. Your limit also goes to 1/3!. In spite of a sign error.

I agree with you.

I tried to prove the statement unsuccessfully by the proof of contradiction.
Nevertheless, if we can show that for n = 4 that the sum is 1/4!, we can apparently use mathematical induction to prove the statement.

I do not see any other way to prove the statement.
 
  • #10
The sum isn't 1/3!. A single term converges to 1/3!. You may be confused because the n on the right side of the equation has nothing to do with the n on the left. Try proving lim n->infinity (1+1/n)^n=sum k=0 to infinity 1/k!.
 
  • #11
Dick said:
The sum isn't 1/3!. A single term converges to 1/3!. You may be confused because the n on the right side of the equation has nothing to do with the n on the
left.

Thank you for the clarification!
I had an idea that there is a relation between n's at both sides.

Dick said:
Try proving lim n->infinity (1+1/n)^n=sum k=0 to infinity 1/k!.

The binomial expansion is finally
[tex] 2 + \frac{n-1}{n*2!} + ... + \frac {1}{n^n}(\frac {n^3(n-1)} {2!} + n^2 + 1) [/tex]

We know that each of the coefficients such as n/n -> 1, (n-1)/n -> 1 and (n-2)/n -> 1, as n goes to infinity.
In contrast, the other end of the sequence converges to zero.
1/n^n -> 0, n^(2-n) -> 0, and n^(3-n)(n-1)/2! -> 0,
as n goes to infinity.

We get the following sequence
[tex] 1 + 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + ... [/tex]

Each term in the sequence is in line with the LHS of the equation.
This completes the proof.

---
Is the proof correct?
 
  • #12
Sorry for entering without permition, for i will not be that helpful either. But, without directly using induction, then it can be shown that:

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n=e[/tex]


And also, from the expansion of [tex]f(x)=e^x[/tex] using Taylor series around zero, and also letting x=1, we get


[tex]e=1+\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}+...=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}[/tex]

so from these two results we have that they are equal.
 
  • #13
soopo said:
Thank you for the clarification!
I had an idea that there is a relation between n's at both sides.



The binomial expansion is finally
[tex] 2 + \frac{n-1}{n*2!} + ... + \frac {1}{n^n}(\frac {n^3(n-1)} {2!} + n^2 + 1) [/tex]

We know that each of the coefficients such as n/n -> 1, (n-1)/n -> 1 and (n-2)/n -> 1, as n goes to infinity.
In contrast, the other end of the sequence converges to zero.
1/n^n -> 0, n^(2-n) -> 0, and n^(3-n)(n-1)/2! -> 0,
as n goes to infinity.

We get the following sequence
[tex] 1 + 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + ... [/tex]

Each term in the sequence is in line with the LHS of the equation.
This completes the proof.

---
Is the proof correct?

I think so. Each term in binomial expansion (n,k)*(1/n)^k converges to 1/k!. So it's plausible that the sum converges to the sum of 1/k! which is e. It's not horribly rigourous, but I've guessing that's what you are supposed to come up with.
 
  • #14
sutupidmath said:
Sorry for entering without permition, for i will not be that helpful either. But, without directly using induction, then it can be shown that:

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n=e[/tex]


And also, from the expansion of [tex]f(x)=e^x[/tex] using Taylor series around zero, and also letting x=1, we get


[tex]e=1+\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}+...=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}[/tex]

so from these two results we have that they are equal.

All true. But I think this 'proof' maybe supposed to bypass the knowledge that lim n->infinity (1+1/n)^n=e.
 
  • #15
Dick said:
I think so. Each term in binomial expansion (n,k)*(1/n)^k converges to 1/k!. So it's plausible that the sum converges to the sum of 1/k! which is e. It's not horribly rigourous, but I've guessing that's what you are supposed to come up with.

How would you do the proof more rigorous?
 
  • #16
soopo said:
How would you do the proof more rigorous?

You'd have to come with with some kind of error estimate for the sum of all of the parts that still contain n. But I wouldn't bother, because as stupidmath said, you know the limit is e and you know that the sum of 1/k! is also a convergent series summing to e from the Taylor series expansion of e^x.
 
  • #17
soopo said:
How would you do the proof more rigorous?

Here is your rigorous proof. Using L'Hôpital's Rule,

[tex]Let y = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}[/tex]

Take the natural logarithm of both sides of this equation.

[tex]ln(y) = ln\left[lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[ln\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[nln\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[\frac{ln \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)}{\frac{1}{n}}\right][/tex]

If we try to solve the above limit using direct substitution, we'll obtain the indeterminant form [tex]0/0[/tex]. Thus, we apply L'Hôpital's Rule to attempt to find the limit by taking the derivative of the numerator and denominator and finding the limit of that ratio.

[tex]ln(y) = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[ln\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{n}}{\frac{1}{n}}\right)\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[\left(\frac{-1/n^{2}}{1+\frac{1}{n}}\right)/\left(-1/n^2\right)}\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[1+\frac{1}{n}\right][/tex]
[tex]= 1[/tex]

Therefore [tex]ln(y) = 1[/tex] which implies y = e by definition of logarithms.

By comparison, since we let y = the original limit expression, then:

[tex]e = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}[/tex]

This completes the proof and shows why y converges to e as n gets larger and larger (approaches [tex]\infty[/tex]).
 
  • #18
JJBladester said:
[tex]ln(y) = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[ln\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{n}}{\frac{1}{n}}\right)\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[\left(\frac{-1/n^{2}}{1+\frac{1}{n}}\right)/\left(-1/n^2\right)}\right][/tex]

[tex]= lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[1+\frac{1}{n}\right][/tex]
[tex]= 1[/tex]

There is perhaps something wrong in the statements following the expression

[tex]ln(y) = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[ln\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{n}}{\frac{1}{n}}\right)\right][/tex]

The problem seems to be in the derivate.
I get
[tex]ln(y) = lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[\left(\frac {1/n} {1 + \frac{1}{n}})\right][/tex]
 

FAQ: Unable to prove e without math. induction

Why is it important to prove e without math and induction?

Proving e without relying on math and induction is important because it allows for a deeper understanding of the concept. It also opens up the possibility of using alternative methods of reasoning and logic, which can lead to new insights and discoveries.

Is it possible to prove e without math and induction?

Yes, it is possible to prove e without relying on math and induction. There have been several successful attempts to do so using different approaches, such as philosophical arguments and empirical evidence.

What is the significance of proving e without math and induction?

The significance of proving e without math and induction lies in the fact that it challenges the traditional view that math and induction are the only valid methods of proving a concept. It also encourages critical thinking and promotes a more diverse and innovative approach to problem-solving.

How does proving e without math and induction impact the scientific community?

Proving e without math and induction can have a significant impact on the scientific community by promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and fostering a more open-minded and inclusive approach to scientific research. It can also lead to the development of new theories and ideas that may have been overlooked by traditional methods of proof.

Are there any limitations to proving e without math and induction?

While proving e without math and induction can bring about many benefits, it is not without its limitations. Some may argue that it is not as rigorous or reliable as traditional methods, and it may also be challenging to convince others of the validity of the proof. Additionally, some concepts may be inherently difficult to prove without the use of math and induction.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
961
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
868
Back
Top