8

$$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac n{2^n}=0. $$

I know how to prove it by using the trick, $2^n=(1+1)^n=1+n+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}+\text{...}$

But how to prove it without using this?

Start wearing purple
  • 53,234
  • 13
  • 164
  • 223
HyperGroups
  • 1,393
  • Related : http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/197522/how-to-prove-that-lim-n-to-infty-n-xn-0-when-0x1 and http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/173061/sequence-limit-lim-limits-n-rightarrow-inftyn-xn – lab bhattacharjee Jun 30 '13 at 15:19
  • @HhyperGroups I wrote an answer that does not uses basic facts about limits only. – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 15:43
  • @Amr welcome---!, SE a good place to manage these questions/answers, I just wanna see many related maths, though some of them I'm not able to understand completely and respond quickly. But we can review whenever the time seems ripe. – HyperGroups Jun 30 '13 at 15:47
  • 1
    It is nice that you have 12 answers (up till now) to your question. – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 16:34
  • @Amr Thanks, so let me accept your answer, of course so many good answers, then I should take time to enjoy them_ :) – HyperGroups Jul 02 '13 at 05:23

12 Answers12

32

Let's do something different!!

Note that the sequence $\{\frac{n}{2^n}\}_{n\geq 1}$ is decreasing ( easy to prove) and bounded from below by $0$, thus $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{n}{2^n}$ exists. Call it $L$.

$$L=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{n}{2^n}=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{(2n)}{2^{(2n)}}=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\frac{n}{2^n})=[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}][\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{n}{2^n}]=(0)(L)=0$$

Amr
  • 20,030
13

Put

$$a_n:=\frac{\sqrt[n]n}2\implies a_n\xrightarrow [n\to\infty]{}\frac12\implies$$

If we take say $\,\epsilon=0.1\;$ then

$$\exists\,N_\epsilon\in\Bbb N\;\;s.t.\;\;n>N_\epsilon\implies \left|a_n-\frac12\right|<0.1\iff \frac25<a_n<\frac35\implies$$

$$\implies \left(\frac25\right)^n<a_n^n=\frac n{2^n}<\left(\frac35\right)^n$$

Now apply the squeeze theorem and get what you want

DonAntonio
  • 211,718
  • 17
  • 136
  • 287
  • Hi I think you might like my answer as well ! – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 15:56
  • Is there a proof of $\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{n}=1$ that doesn't in some form use (or instantly adapt to) the questioner's limit? It is, after all, instantly equivalent by taking logs to $\lim \frac{\log n}{n}=0$ and a quick substitution gives the OP's result... – Steven Stadnicki Jun 30 '13 at 16:38
  • 1
    @Steven, look at my answer here http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/154163/limit-of-the-sequence-lim-n-rightarrow-infty-sqrtnn/154188#154188 – DonAntonio Jun 30 '13 at 16:47
  • @DonAntonio Why didn't you use your very nice trick which I've learned from you of defining $a_n=\frac{n}{2^n}$ then, $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\frac{1}{2} < 1$ so by ratio test the series converges, i.e $a_n \rightarrow 0$ – harlem Mar 31 '18 at 22:16
  • 1
    @harlem This was almost 5 years ago...yet there is another answer by me in then ext answers...maybe there. – DonAntonio Mar 31 '18 at 22:28
10

Let's be original. Let $$ \frac 1{1-x} = \sum_{k \ge 0} x^k, $$ which means the derivative of this series is also convergent with the same radius of convergence (namely, $1$) by Taylor's theorem : $$ x \left( \frac 1{(1-x)^2} \right) = x \left( \sum_{k \ge 0} k x^{k-1} \right) = \sum_{k \ge 0} k x^k. $$ Letting $x = 1/2$, we see that the series $$ \sum_{k \ge 0} \frac{k}{2^k} $$ is convergent, hence $\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{k}{2^k} = 0$.

Hope that helps,

  • :nice approach .excellent $\large{+1}$ – M.H Jun 30 '13 at 16:00
  • 2
    Yes. I had that in mind, too. But isn't it not sufficient to check $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} |a_{n+1} / a_n| = \frac 12$. That means $\sum_n a_n$ converges. –  Jun 30 '13 at 16:05
  • @André : Of course, you can prove that the series converges in many different ways. You used D'Alembert's criterion, I used the fact that the geometric series converges (which can be proved by just computing the limit of partial sums for instance) and then Taylor's theorem. It's as you wish – Patrick Da Silva Jun 30 '13 at 16:19
8

Here is a useful result

If $\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=a $ and $|a|<1$, then $\lim_{n\to \infty} a_n = 0.$

6

Here is the argument you did not want to see, in different language.

A set of $n$ elements has $2^n$ subsets. If $n\ge 2$, then it has $\binom{n}{2}$ two-element subsets.

It follows that for $n\ge 2$ we have $$2^n\ge \binom{n}{2}=\frac{n(n-1)}{2}.$$

Thus for $n\ge 2$ we have $$0\le \frac{n}{2^n}\le \frac{2}{n-1}.$$

André Nicolas
  • 507,029
  • +1 Ah This is one is nice as well. I like combinatorial arguments – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 16:11
  • The question is easy , but its getting elegant answers which is a good thing for people who know the answer already. – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 16:11
5

For $n$ large, we have $2^n\ge n^2$. This can be easily proved by induction for $n\ge 4$. I would like to say then that $$ \frac n{2^n}=\frac n{2^{\sqrt n}}\frac1{2^{n-\sqrt n}}, $$ and the first fraction is bounded above by $1$, while the second approaches $0$.

Now, since we used induction, we cannot quite do this as $\sqrt n$ is not an integer. So we adjust, letting $t_n=\lfloor \sqrt n\rfloor$, and $s_n=t_n^2$, then $$ \frac n{2^n}=\frac{s_n}{2^{t_n}}\frac{n/s_n}{2^{n-t_n}}, $$ and the rest is clear, because $n/s_n<2$ and $n-t_n \to\infty$.


Just for fun, my favorite proof of $2^n\ge n^2$ for $n\ge4$, using the binomial theorem (which you have said you prefer to avoid): For $n=4$ we have equality, and if $n>4$ then $n-2>2$, so $$2^n=(1+1)^n> n+\binom n2+\binom n{n-2}=n^2. $$

(Note that similar arguments give that for any fixed $k$, we have $2^n>n^k$ for $n$ large enough.)

5

$2^n \geq n^2,\,n \geq 2$. Hence, $0 \leq \frac{n}{2^n} \leq \frac{n}{n^2} = \frac{1}{n}$. Apply the Cheeseburger (Sandwich, Squeeze) theorem.

Lord Soth
  • 7,750
  • 20
  • 37
3

As $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac n{2^n}$ is of the form $\frac\infty\infty$

we can apply L'Hospital's Rule to get $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac n{2^n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1{2^n\ln 2}=0$$

  • ah, fine, a little advanced for this section of the text. So I haven't thought that. – HyperGroups Jun 30 '13 at 15:17
  • Hi I gave an answer which avoids l'Hospital's rule – Amr Jun 30 '13 at 15:42
  • Please disclose the mistake here – lab bhattacharjee Jun 30 '13 at 15:58
  • Even though it is mentioned nowwhere, but I always have the feeling that $n$ stands for a discrete variable e.g. $n\in \mathbb{N}$. For a discrete variable differentiating doesn't makes sense so maybe you could add some details when this works or what happens when it doesn't work. – Dominic Michaelis Jul 01 '13 at 05:12
  • @DominicMichaelis, why do you assume something not mentioned in the question? Why are you restricting the values of $n$ when the problem is valid for any real $n>0$ – lab bhattacharjee Jul 01 '13 at 05:36
  • In his trick he used that $n \in \mathbb{N}$ didn't he ? – Dominic Michaelis Jul 01 '13 at 05:38
  • @DominicMichaelis, if you are talking about the restriction of http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Binomial_Theorem/General_Binomial_Theorem, this does not imply that $n$ has to be natural number, also observe his comment in this answer – lab bhattacharjee Jul 01 '13 at 05:46
  • But when $n\not\in \mathbb N$, some other answers like induction, or that of OL, or the combinatorial argument, cannot work. Maybe there is a need to justify this? – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 09:34
  • @DominicMichaelis I think that, on a discrete space, there is a measure(I have doubt about this, as, if the space is not finite, it is not compact.) hence we can differentiate that measure, right? Per chance I am talking above my head. :P – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 09:36
3

By AM/GM: $$\frac{2^{n}-1}{n}=\frac{2^0+2^1+\ldots +2^{n-1}}{n}\geq \left(2^{0+1+\ldots+(n-1)}\right)^{\frac1n}=2^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$$ Therefore, $$0<\frac{n}{2^n}<\frac{n}{2^n-1}\leq 2^{-\frac{n-1}{2}}\rightarrow 0\quad\text{as}\quad n\rightarrow\infty.$$

Start wearing purple
  • 53,234
  • 13
  • 164
  • 223
3

One more answer with another approach I've used several times in this site and I'm surprised nobody's yet used. Put

$$a_n:=\frac n{2^n}\implies \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\frac{n+1}{2^{n+1}}\frac{2^n}n=\frac12\frac{n+1}n\xrightarrow [n\to\infty]{}\frac12$$

and thus the quotient (D'Alembert's) test gives us that the positive series

$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac n{2^n}\;\;\text{converges}\implies \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac n{2^n}=0$$

DonAntonio
  • 211,718
  • 17
  • 136
  • 287
2

Using exponential and logarithm: $$\frac{n}{2^n}= \exp \underset{\to - \infty}{\underbrace{\left( n \left( \underset{\to 0}{\underbrace{\frac{\ln(n)}{n}}} - \ln(2) \right) \right)}} \underset{n \to + \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$$

Seirios
  • 33,157
  • Excuse me, how could you show that the inner expression $\lim_{n\to\infty}n(\frac{\ln(n)}{n}-\ln2)=-\infty$? Is there a way of doing so without using the original statement? If so, would you like to show it? Thanks in advance. – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 04:51
  • It follows from the classical limit $\frac{\ln(n)}{n} \to 0$, as I mentionned. Do you want more details about this limit? – Seirios Jul 02 '13 at 07:09
  • Yes, if you mind not. Thanks. – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 09:02
  • More generally, you have $\lim\limits_{x \to + \infty} \frac{\ln(x)}{x}=0$; taking $x=e^y$, the previous limit is equivalent to $\lim\limits_{y \to + \infty} ye^{-y}=0$ or $\lim\limits_{y \to + \infty} \frac{e^y}{y}=+ \infty$. To conclude, it is sufficient to notice that $e^y \geq \frac{y^2}{2}$ for $y \geq 0$; for an elementary proof, show that $f(y)=e^y- \frac{y^2}{2}$ is non-negative on $[0,+ \infty)$ by computing $f'$ and $f''$. – Seirios Jul 02 '13 at 09:21
  • So you have to show that $f'\ge 0$ to conclude that the minimal point occurs at $y=0$, right? And this is equivalent with showing that $g(y)=e^y-y$ is non-negative. Since $g$ is convex, the maximum principle implies that the extreme values occur at boundary points, hence its non-negativity. Is this argument right? Or is there some more elementary method? Thanks. – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 09:31
  • You can say that $f''$ is positive, so $f'$ is nondecreasing; because $f'(0)=1$, you deduce that $f'$ is positive hence $f$ is nondecreasing. Finally, $f(0)=1$ implies that $f \geq 0$. – Seirios Jul 02 '13 at 09:58
  • OK, good; it is indeed an elementary way of solving this. Thanks for the clarification thus. :D – awllower Jul 02 '13 at 10:05
0

Let $$ a={\sqrt{2}}-1>0. $$ Then, using Bernoulli's inequality we obtain $$ 0<\frac{n}{2^n}=\frac{n}{(\sqrt{2})^{2n}}=\frac{n}{(1+a)^{2n}} =\frac{n}{\big((1+a)^{n}\big)^2}\le \frac{n}{(1+na)^2}\to 0, $$ and hence $\frac{n}{2^n}\to 0$.