13

Why is this not correct: $$ \begin{align} \lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{n!} &= \lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)\cdots(1)} \\ &=\lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{n} \cdot \lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{n-1} \cdot \lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{n-2}\cdots \lim_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{1} \\ &=1 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdots 1 \\ &=1 \end{align} $$ Therefore, $\lim_{n\to \infty} \sqrt[n]{n!}=1$.

It is clear that $\lim_{n\to \infty} \sqrt[n]{n}= 1$ as and that $n! = n(n-1)!$

Yet wolframalpha gives me infinity as the limit and not $1$!

If you have Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis refer to Theorem $3.3$ c) and Theorem $3.20$ c)

axin
  • 147
  • 3
    The approach they used in http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/514388/the-nth-root-of-n?rq=1 seems similar and can also be used in your case. In particular $(n!)^{\frac{1}{n}} > (n/2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and is therefore not bounded. – Vincent Jan 27 '14 at 19:58
  • 2
    The problem is the number or one's is infinity and $1^\infty$ is not 1 – Semsem Jan 27 '14 at 20:00
  • Your post reminds me of this question. – Lucian Jan 28 '14 at 02:16

6 Answers6

12

Consider: $\lim_{n \to \infty} 1 = \lim_{n\to \infty} (1/n + \cdots + 1/n) = \sum \lim_{n \to \infty} 1/n = \sum 0 = 0$, and compare that with what you did. Do you understand why your second "equality" isn't correct?

8

An easy way to approach it is Stirling's approximation: $n! \approx (\frac ne)^n\sqrt{2 \pi n}$ so $n!^{\frac 1n} \approx \frac ne \to \infty$

Ross Millikan
  • 374,822
7

I could not understand the accepted answer. But I tried to solve it by constructing an inequality, whose one side is easy to compute and that computation is enough to conclude on the other side.

For any odd natural number $n$, \begin{align*} n!\,n!&=(1\cdot 2 \cdots n)\times (1\cdot 2 \cdots n)\\ &=(1\cdot n)^2\times \{2\cdot(n-1)\}^2 \times \cdots \times \{(\frac{n+1}{2})\cdot (\frac{n+1}{2})\}^2\\ &> \Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^2 \times \Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^2 \times \cdots \Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^2 \,\,\Big[\Big(\frac{n+1}{2}\Big) \,\,\text{times}\Big]\\ &=\Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^{2\big(\frac{n+1}{2}\big)}=\Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^{n+1} \end{align*} Then $(n!)^{\frac{2}{n}}>\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{n+1}{n}} \implies (n!)^{\frac{1}{n}}>\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{n+1}{2n}}=\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}}$

Similarly, for any even natural number $n$, $$n!\,n!>\Big(\frac{n}{2}\Big)^n \,\,\Big[\text{ There will be } \frac{n}{2} \text{ terms}\Big]$$ Then $(n!)^{\frac{2}{n}}>\big(\frac{n}{2}\big) \implies (n!)^{\frac{1}{n}}>\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$

Using the fact that $\lim_{n \to \infty} n^{\frac{1}{n}}=1$, one can obtain $\lim_{n \to \infty} \big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{1}{2n}}=1$

Thus in all cases we have $\lim_{n \to \infty}(n!)^{\frac{1}{n}}\geq\lim_{n \to \infty}\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$

The limit in the R.H.S. diverges. Hence the desired limit (in the L.H.S.) also goes to $\infty$.

2

Let $(a_n)$ be a pozitive sequence. If $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty}\sqrt[n]{a_n}$ both exists then: $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\lim_{n \to \infty}\sqrt[n]{a_n}$ Apply this for $n!$

Actually for a pozitive sequence $(a_n) $ we have: $\liminf\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\leq\liminf\sqrt[n]{a_n}\leq\limsup\sqrt[n]{a_n}\leq\limsup\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}$

Furthermore limit of a sequence $(a_n)$ exists iff $\limsup a_n=\liminf a_n$

Ica Sandu
  • 565
  • This is not true. First of all, one of those sequences may not exist, e.g., if some terms $a_n$ are equal to zero (so $a_{n+1}/a_n$ doesn't exist) or negative (so that they don't have real $n$th roots). Second, even if the sequences exist, the limits may be different. For example, let $a_1 = 1$, let $a_{n+1} = 2 a_n$ when $n$ is odd, and $a_{n+1} = 3a_n$ when $n$ is even, so the sequence is $1,2,6,12,36,72,216\dots$. Then $a_{n+1}/a_n$ alternates between $2$ and $3$ without approaching a limit. But $\sqrt[n]{a_n} \to \sqrt{6}$. – Zach Teitler Feb 27 '20 at 21:17
  • I think now it's okay. – Ica Sandu Feb 27 '20 at 21:45
  • Yes, this is now correct (this is Theorem 3.37 of Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis"). – Alon Apr 12 '22 at 16:15
1

I am sorry for reopening this thread. The sole purpose is to point out what I think is a flawed argument in one of the responses. Since I do not have enough privileges to comment on the post directly, I hope someone here can help me attract the authors attention so that it can be corrected.

In his explanation about how to solve the limit, Sameh Shenawy says,

(3) commute ln and lim and simplify the function to be sum of n terms (4) Apply L'Hopital rule term by term

When applying L'Hopital's rule to the first term we get, $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ln(n)}{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1/n}{1} $$

which tends to $0$ and not $1$. Similarly, all the limits will tend to $0$ leading to $ln(L)$ to also tend to $0$.

ACBlue
  • 11
0

Your solution: The number of terms is n and n goes to infinity and the multiplication of one infinitely many times is not one.

Semsem
  • 7,651
  • Good, this answers how to calculate it

    Now I'd like to know the exact reason why my calculation is wrong. It must have something to do with the limit process and somebody else said 1 to the power of infinite does not equal one, which I find rather interesting as well.

    "The multiplication of one infinitely times is not one." I'm sure I could prove it via induction that it is, though, couldn't I?

    – axin Jan 27 '14 at 20:15
  • 2
    I'm not happy with 1 to the power of infinite is undetermined as an answer, since I have to take it on faith. – axin Jan 27 '14 at 20:35
  • 3
    @axin $1^\infty$ does equal 1. The problem is you are not taking $1^\infty$. You are taking a number that approaches one, to infinity. $\sqrt[n]{n}$ approaches 1. $\sqrt[n]{n-1}$ also merely approaches 1. So you are really taking almost one raised to the infinity. – Jeff Apr 20 '14 at 18:38
  • 1
    Apparently you have in mind taking the log of the product of terms like $\sqrt[n]{n-k}$, which gives $\ln(n-k)/n$ whose limit is zero, not one. So you would arrive at a "limiit" expression $0+0+\ldots$ rather than $1+1+\ldots$. Thus the expression has no definite limit (we cannot claim the limit is infinite from what you did). – hardmath Mar 23 '17 at 15:51
  • @hardmath you are completely right. – Semsem Mar 23 '17 at 16:46
  • Why not simply use $\lim a_n ^{1/n}= \lim \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}$?? – chesslad Feb 06 '19 at 14:22