EDIT: @Holo has kindly pointed out that my concept of ln rules used in this question is wrong. However, the intuition behind using the tangent of a curve to find the sum to infinity of a series still stands. Therefore, I won't be editing the post.
I tried expanding out the equation from the question and got $${a_{n}} = \frac{1}{2} .\frac{3}{4} . \frac{5}{6} ...\frac{2n -1}{2n}$$
I then tried taking the ln of the equation which works out to $$\ln(1 - \frac{1}{2}) + \ln(1 - \frac{1}{4}) + ...$$
Here is my question. I used the rules of ln functions and took $ln(\frac{1}{1/2}) + ln(\frac{1}{\frac{1}{4}})$ + ...
Since ln(1) is 0, shouldn't the limit work out to 0 as n tends to infinity? Then $$ln(L) = 0, where L = limit$$ $$L = e^0$$ $$L = 1$$
However, the limit is actually 0, and my tutor used a method which I couldn't understand as he tried approximating the function $y = ln(x)$ to $y = x - 1$, as he says that the linear equation is actually a tangent to the ln curve. Could someone please explain this intuition behind it? He differentiated the equation, and since the curve cuts the x-axis at x = 1, he got the linear curve $y = x - 1$.
He did mention that the linear equation is just an approximation, but said such an approximation would be more than sufficient.