\[\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\frac{n}{\sqrt[n]{n!}}\]
woah hmm \[\frac{1}{\sqrt[n]{\frac{n!}{n^n}}}\]
\[\large\frac{1}{\sqrt[n]{\frac{n(n-1)(n-2)\ldots (n-n)}{\underbrace{n.n.n.n.n.n.n...}_{\text{n times}}}}}\]
geometric mean of 1,2,...,n
\[ \frac{1}{\sqrt[n]{1(1-\frac{1}{n})(1 - \frac{2}{n})\ldots 1}}\]
\[\frac{1}{n} \to 0, n \to \infty\]
these things are usually 'e' :D
what is the answer btw? i think i will have to consider the case when factorial is in the middle \[\frac{n-\frac{n}{2}}{n}\]hmm i get 1 - 1/2 here is it zero? i don't think so i will have to redo it
hmmm, do I want to say the answer? I don't think so, it spoils the fun, no? it's not zero or 1/2 though
a better way would be \[\huge e^{\ln n - \frac{1}{n}*ln n!}\]
yes it would :)
i am only gonna solve the power now \[\ln n - \frac{1}{n} ( \ln n + \ln (n-1) + \ldots + \ln 0!) \]
interesting answer
can't you only do that e^blah trick for certain forms though? is this one of them?
you found the answer imran?
yes, but don't know how to get it
right, my problem exactly Wolfram won't help me differentiate n! much, so I can't do l'Hospital...
product of n terms as n->infinity is candidate for the e^ln(stuff) trick
yes but I think it needs to be of the form\[1^{\infty}\]or something, right? I can't get it like that.
how about ( n^n / n! ) ^ (1/n) = e ^ ln( same ) = e ^ ( (summation ln(k)) / n ) if that makes sense to you.
which summation?
and like I said, I'm not sure of the rules on when you can do the e^(something) trick. not always, right?
turing the trick you are referring to is a special case. \[e^{\log_e{x}} = x \]or \[n^{\log_n x} = x \]is a general case
I know that, I'm asking about Broken's proposed use of it here. Is it allowed yet, or do we need to alter the form first?
\[n / \sqrt[n]{n!} = \sqrt[n]{ n^n / n! } = e^{\ln{\sqrt[n]{ n^n / n! }}} = e^{(\ln({n^n/n!}))/n}\] hasn't actually used any passing of limits through yet
Hence e to the power of \[\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\ln(\frac{N}{k})\]
I think it is easier to see as \[-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\ln(\frac{k}{N})\]
i don't like factorials in limit's problem
compare that to the average value of the natural log between 0 and 1, or the integral of ln(x) from 0 to 1 ... Hence my assertion that the answer to the original limit was e^1 = e.
(Integral of ln(x) using evenly partitioned Riemann sums I mean)
\[+1 = -\int\limits_{0}^{1}\ln(x)dx = \lim_{n->\infty}-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\ln(\frac{k}{n})\] assuming that I typeset that correctly.
Nice, I'm convinced. Did you know the answer beforehand?
Broken you know when you wrote: \[-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\ln \left(\frac{n}{k}\right)\] could you possibly explain why you got this instead of: \[-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\ln \left(\frac{n^n}{k}\right)\] Assuming you derived it from: \[\frac{1}{n} \ln \left(\frac{n^n}{n!}\right)\]
sorry I didn't mean to write the minus there
\[\ln(\frac{n^n}{n!}) = \ln(\frac{n}{n})(\frac{n}{n-1})(\frac{n}{n-2})...(\frac{n}{1})=\ln(\frac{n}{n})+\ln(\frac{n}{n-1})+...+\ln(\frac{n}{1})=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\ln(\frac{n}{k})\]
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!