7

Let $x>0$. Find $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n^{x}}{(1 + x)^{n}}.$$

What I was thinking involved an inequality, by reason of considering the fact that $$(1 + x)^{n} > C(n, k) x^{k}$$ for some $k$ such that $n>k$. Expanding the binomial coefficient and taking the $n$ common from each bracket, we have something like $$(1 + x)^{n} > C(n, k) x^{n} > \frac {x^{k}n^{k}}{k! 2^{k}}.$$ But now, I am totally clueless. By intuition, I know that the limit has to be zero, so I just want to prove using the concept of inequalities that what I thought was the right approach (being the sandwich theorem). Any help would be appreciated!

Mars Plastic
  • 4,239
28ADY0901
  • 706

2 Answers2

2

Take the logarithm, $$ \ln \frac{n^x}{(1+x)^n} = x \ln n - n \ln (1+x) \to_n -\infty, $$ thus, $$ \frac{n^x}{(1+x)^n} \to_n 0. $$

Cryme
  • 514
  • 1
    Or simply, $n^x$ is polynomial, compared to $(1+x)^n$ which is exponential. – Cryme Aug 01 '19 at 15:26
  • The OP asked for help with a specific approach, not for an entirely different solution. – Mars Plastic Aug 01 '19 at 15:27
  • 1
    Not the thing I asked for but still great ! I Appreciate your work ;-) but I already did that. You see I don't like logarithms though ! Could you improvise? – 28ADY0901 Aug 01 '19 at 15:31
  • This is technically equivalent to saying that $n^x/(1+x)^n$ goes to $0$, and doesn't really introduce anything. Just poses the problem in a different shade. – Jakobian Aug 01 '19 at 15:33
  • Well technically yes, but both facts are well-known compared-growths results. For a quick proof, we immediately get from the integral definition of $\ln$ that $\ln x \leq x$ for all $x \geq 0$, then, $$ \frac{\ln n}{n} = \frac{2\ln(\sqrt{n})}{n} \leq \frac{2\sqrt{n}}{n} \to_n 0. $$ Therefore, $$ x \ln n - n \ln(1+x) \sim_n - n \ln(1+x) \to_n -\infty. $$ Let me think of a quick one with the exponentials. – Cryme Aug 01 '19 at 15:59
2

@Aditya Garg. You can still go ahead with your proof that does not involve exponential or logarithmic functions. First, fix a $k$ to be determined later. Then, for all $n>2k$ \begin{aligned} (1+x)^n\geq\binom{n}{k}x^k=\frac{n(n-1)\cdot\ldots\cdot(n-k+1)}{k!}x^k>\frac{n^k}{2^k}\frac{x^k}{k!} \end{aligned} This is because each factor in $n(n-1)\cdots(n-k+1)$ is of the form $n-j$ for $0\leq j\leq k<\frac{n}{2}$. From this, you obtained that \begin{aligned} \frac{n^x}{(1+x)^n}\leq \frac{2^kk!}{x^k}n^{x-k} \end{aligned} Then, you can see that by taking a fix $k$ with $k>x$ you get that $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{n^x}{(1+x)^n}=0,\qquad (x>0) $$ The argument is a beautiful one. You can replace $n^x$ by $n^a$ for a fix number $a$ and you get the notable limit $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{n^a}{(1+x)^n}=0,\qquad (x>0) $$ The advantage of this type of argument is that you do not need to define yet (properly) the exponential and/or logarithmic function and requires very few properties of numbers. Rudin's baby book page 57, has other notable limits that used this type of arguments.

Of course, if you have already gone through Calculus and just need to determine the limit, by all means, use the properties of the exponential, logarithms, L'Hospital rules, etc.


Here is another elementary answer that does not involve logarithms not exponentials. It only requires the fact that $a^n\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0$ for any $0<a<1$.

Let $a_n=\frac{n^\alpha}{(1+p)^n}$, where $\alpha>0$ and $p>0$. Then $$ \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\big(1+\frac{1}{n}\Big)^\alpha\frac{1}{1+p} $$

Since $\Big(1+\frac{1}{n}\Big)^\alpha \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}1$, there is $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $n\geq N$ implies that $\big(1+\frac{1}{n}\Big)^\alpha<1+\frac{p}{2}$. Let

Then, for all $n\geq N$

$$a_{n+1}\leq \frac{2+p}{2+2p} a_n$$

This implies that $$ a_{n+N}\leq \Big(\frac{2+p}{2+2p}\Big)^na_N\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0 $$ since $0<\frac{2+p}{2+2p}<1$.

Mittens
  • 39,145
  • A quick question: it is possible to choose $k> x$ be the Archimedian property and the above method works because the limit of the sequence does not depend on the starting index, right? – Karthik Kannan Aug 01 '19 at 16:40
  • 1
    Yes, the only nuanced order property of numbers that we are using is that given any real number $x$, there is an positive integer $k$ such that $k>x$. – Mittens Aug 01 '19 at 17:17
  • Hmmm nice !!! A sure +1 – 28ADY0901 Aug 01 '19 at 18:10