13
$\begingroup$

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)

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The approach they used in 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. $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 19:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The problem is the number or one's is infinity and $1^\infty$ is not 1 $\endgroup$
    – Semsem
    Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ Your post reminds me of this question. $\endgroup$
    – Lucian
    Commented Jan 28, 2014 at 2:16

6 Answers 6

12
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just curious, do you happen to be a relative of Robert Millikan? $\endgroup$
    – Troy Woo
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 22:02
7
$\begingroup$

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 $\infty$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I agree the Accepted Answer does not make sense, and I downvoted it accordingly (with a Comment). $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. I will edit it later $\endgroup$
    – Semsem
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ There are some details to fix in the Answer posted by @nami_op. In the first case, where $n$ is odd, the expression $\frac{n}{2} -1$ is not a whole number . $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 22:52
2
$\begingroup$

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 $\limsup a_n=\liminf a_n$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $\sqrt[n]{a_n} \to \sqrt{6}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ I think now it's okay. $\endgroup$
    – Ica Sandu
    Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this is now correct (this is Theorem 3.37 of Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis"). $\endgroup$
    – Alon
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:15
1
$\begingroup$

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 $0$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ It is OK. you are right, I was wrong $\endgroup$
    – Semsem
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 16:47
-1
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$
    – axin
    Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 20:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not happy with 1 to the power of infinite is undetermined as an answer, since I have to take it on faith. $\endgroup$
    – axin
    Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 20:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – Jeff
    Commented Apr 20, 2014 at 18:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath you are completely right. $\endgroup$
    – Semsem
    Commented Mar 23, 2017 at 16:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .