-1

My professor gave us the following proof problem:

Prove that the sequence $a_n=\left ( 1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n$ converges to $e$.

Instruction:

Prove that the sequence is monotonic increasing and bounded above.

Now I understand how to prove that it's increasing and bounded above, but how does proving that entail that the sequence converges to $e$?

Blue
  • 75,673
downmath
  • 329

3 Answers3

3

IF we assume that we know what $e$ is and we're not treating this problem as it's unknown and we're trying to calculate it's numerical value, you can verify it converges to $e$ treating it as a simple limit, as:

$$\lim_{n\to\infty }\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n=\lim_{n\to\infty }e^{n\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)}=\lim_{n\to\infty }e^\frac{\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)}{\frac{1}{n}}=\lim_{x\to 0}e^{\frac{\ln(1+x)}{x}},$$

where we let $x=\dfrac{1}{n}$.

Then, it is

$$\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{\ln(1+x)}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{1}{1+x} = 1,$$

by L'Hospital's rule.

So, all in all:

$$\lim_{x\to 0}e^{\frac{\ln(1+x)}{x}}=e^1=e.$$

On the other hand, if you want a "precise" elaboration on calculating the numerical value via series, the user mathlove has posted a great answer on this post, which I am just pasting below for the sake of completeness of my attempted answer:

\begin{align}\left(1+\frac 1n\right)^n&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left(\frac 1n\right)^k\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{n(n-1)\cdots(n-k+1)}{k!}\left(\frac 1n\right)^k\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{1}{k!}\left(1-\frac 1n\right)\left(1-\frac 2n\right)\cdots\left(1-\frac{k-1}{n}\right)\\&\lt \sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{1}{k!}\\&=1+\frac{1}{1}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3\cdot 2}+\frac{1}{4\cdot 3\cdot 2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{n\cdot(n-1)\cdots 2}\\&\lt 1+\frac{1}{2^0}+\frac{1}{2^1}+\frac{1}{2^2}+\frac{1}{2^3}+\cdots+\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\\&=3-\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\\&\lt 3.\end{align}

After all, it really comes down to what the user Randall said in the comments.

Rebellos
  • 21,324
  • +1 for the second approach but for the first approach for using $\ln$ is little hard to accept. Assume I don't know $\frac{\ln(1+x)}{x}=1$ for small values of x also what is the base of Log it's $e$ then what this $e$ is here doing, how on earth $e$ comes in calculus. – Darshan P. Nov 19 '21 at 18:51
  • @I_don't_know_maths_ They did say that the first approach assumes knowledge of $e$ using a different definition. I think you should look at the Wikipedia page on “characterisations of the exponential”; it shows 6 equivalent definitions and proves how they are all equivalent – FShrike Nov 20 '21 at 10:22
2

$$\begin{align*} \lim_{n\to\infty}a_n &= \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1 + \frac1n\right)^n \\ \text{ Binomial Expansion }\\ \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1 + \frac nn + \frac{n(n-1)}{2!n^2} + \frac {n(n-1)(n-2)}{3!n^3}+...\right) &\implies \lim_{n\to\infty}(1 + \frac11 + \frac {1^2}{2!} + \frac {1^3}{3!} + ...) = \color{blue}{2.7182818284....}\end{align*}$$

I don't know how you conceive this thing but this is how I had done when I hadn't studied calculus and series

  • Let us consider that the above series will keep giving me a different number but then I realized that the factorial increases drastically high dividing poor small number 1. (maybe after that they named it e: )[E for Euler]

  • $$\lim\sum F = \sum\lim F \text{ *same thing }$$

Darshan P.
  • 1,181
  • Also, there is a beautiful story of compound interest It says, "If I deposit $P$ at the rate of interest $r$ for $\frac{100}{r}$ years then my final amount will be $e\times P$ ", I know I'm bad at telling stories.... – Darshan P. Nov 19 '21 at 16:55
  • 3
    This involves swapping a limit and a summutation, which first requires some justification, and second is likely beyond the scope of what OP can prove. – bjorn93 Nov 19 '21 at 17:01
  • @bjorn93 srry, Did I miss smthing? – Darshan P. Nov 19 '21 at 17:03
  • 1
    Your second bullet point is not, in general, true; you need to use a convergence theorem such as dominated convergence or uniform convergence. Historically I believe it was not $e$ for Euler, but rather that Euler liked to use vowels and was already using $a$ for something else in his notes... @bjorn93 Is correct. A counter example to your bullet point is: $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n}=\infty\\sum_{k=1}^\infty\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}=0$$ – FShrike Nov 19 '21 at 17:57
  • @FShrike Honestly, thanks but I still have a doubt $\sum_{k\ge1}\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n$ vanishes the function of n so making no sense to vary $k$....? – Darshan P. Nov 19 '21 at 19:01
  • @I_don't_know_maths_ Well that’s the point; the infinite sum of all zeros is zero, so the second limit is zero, but the first one is, at every stage for every finite $n$, the infinite sum of some positive constant, that is $\infty$, so the limit is the limit of the extended real sequence $(\infty,\infty,\infty,\cdots)$ which is infinity (or you could just say it all diverges) – FShrike Nov 19 '21 at 20:18
  • @FShrike Makes sense! ✌️ – Darshan P. Nov 20 '21 at 10:17
0

The monotone convergence theorem states the following: if $a_n\lt{U}$ for some $U\in\mathbb{R}$ and $a_n\lt{a_{n+1}}$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then $a_n$ converges to some $L\in\mathbb{R}$. By the monotone convergence theorem, the fact that $a_n$ is bounded from above and is monotonic implies that it converges to some real number. $e$ is defined as the real number this sequence converges to.

As for why the monotone convergence theorem is true, that is a separate question in and of itself. I am not going to provide a rigorous proof here, but instead, I want to show that it makes sense intuitively. If $a_n$ is monotonically increasing, then it is mostly well-behaved: it is not oscillating wildly or anything, and if it is bounded, then it is not exploding to $\infty$. Both results combined give you that $a_n\lt{a_{n+1}}\lt{U}$, and as $n\to\infty$, $a_n$ gets bigger, and thus, closer to $U$, thus $a_{n+1}$ is being sort of squished in between. Since it is being squished in between, it has no choice but to approach something, because $U-a_n$ is getting smaller. In particular, you can always choose your upper bound $U$ so that $U-a_n$ gets arbitrarily small.

Angel
  • 3,774
  • 12
  • 14
  • 2
    It does say “I understand how to prove that it’s increasing and bounded above”. – Тyma Gaidash Nov 19 '21 at 22:27
  • @TymaGaidash I am aware it says that, and their question is "How does boundedness from above and monotonicity imply convergence to $e$?", and I answered that question: they imply that because of the monotone convergence theorem. This is the correct answer, and that is the answer I gave. I do not understand what your objection is. – Angel Nov 22 '21 at 12:45