Easiest way to show sequence $e^frac1n$ converges to 1 [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
-2
down vote

favorite












I don't want to use the definition, is there an easier way?



Like, in the case of limits of functions, it is pretty easy to say by the composition theorem.



Is there any such theorem in case of sequences too?







share|cite|improve this question












closed as off-topic by Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma Aug 17 at 18:54


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • A sequence is a function.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:35










  • @ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:38










  • Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:40










  • @ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:41










  • Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:48














up vote
-2
down vote

favorite












I don't want to use the definition, is there an easier way?



Like, in the case of limits of functions, it is pretty easy to say by the composition theorem.



Is there any such theorem in case of sequences too?







share|cite|improve this question












closed as off-topic by Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma Aug 17 at 18:54


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • A sequence is a function.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:35










  • @ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:38










  • Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:40










  • @ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:41










  • Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:48












up vote
-2
down vote

favorite









up vote
-2
down vote

favorite











I don't want to use the definition, is there an easier way?



Like, in the case of limits of functions, it is pretty easy to say by the composition theorem.



Is there any such theorem in case of sequences too?







share|cite|improve this question












I don't want to use the definition, is there an easier way?



Like, in the case of limits of functions, it is pretty easy to say by the composition theorem.



Is there any such theorem in case of sequences too?









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 17 at 5:17









Aditya Agarwal

2,89111536




2,89111536




closed as off-topic by Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma Aug 17 at 18:54


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma Aug 17 at 18:54


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Siong Thye Goh, onurcanbektas, amWhy, José Carlos Santos, John Ma
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • A sequence is a function.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:35










  • @ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:38










  • Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:40










  • @ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:41










  • Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:48
















  • A sequence is a function.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:35










  • @ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:38










  • Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:40










  • @ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:41










  • Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
    – Arnaud Mortier
    Aug 17 at 5:48















A sequence is a function.
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:35




A sequence is a function.
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:35












@ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 17 at 5:38




@ArnaudMortier, sequence is a function from $mathbbN$. But the theorem is for continuous functions only. So how can you talk about continuity when your domain is $mathbbN$?
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 17 at 5:38












Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:40




Now that would make a good question, although it is probably a duplicate.
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:40












@ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 17 at 5:41




@ArnaudMortier, if its duplicate. Please mark it as duplicate. But my answer answers my question.
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 17 at 5:41












Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:48




Here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2881876/…
– Arnaud Mortier
Aug 17 at 5:48










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote













Hint:



As exponential function is continuous and "limit of the function"=function of the limit" for a continuous function, so$$lim_n e^1/n=e^lim_n 1/n=e^0=1.$$






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Why down vote?.
    – Empty
    Aug 17 at 5:19










  • Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:21










  • This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
    – George Thomas
    Aug 17 at 5:21










  • Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 17 at 5:22






  • 1




    I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
    – George Thomas
    Aug 17 at 5:43

















up vote
3
down vote













$$1<e^frac1n<3^frac1n=(1+2)^frac1n<1+dfrac2nto1$$
as $ntoinfty$.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I figured it out. Since the function whose domain is $mathbbR$ converges to $1$ (By composiotion theorem). The sequence of the same functional rule should, too.



    Since, we know that for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n>N$, So for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n in mathbbI>N$. So the sequence converges too.
    That is, $$lim_ntoinftya_n=L$$ too.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 17 at 5:46

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    For $nin Bbb Z^+$ let $e^1/n=1+A_n.$ We have $A_n>0.$ From the Binomial Theorem we have $$e=(1+A_n)^n=sum_j=0^nbinom nj(A_n)^jgeq sum_j=0^1binom nj(A_n)^j=1+nA_n.$$ Therefore $frac e-1ngeq A_n.$ This also works if we replace $e$ with any number greater than $1.$






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      6
      down vote













      Hint:



      As exponential function is continuous and "limit of the function"=function of the limit" for a continuous function, so$$lim_n e^1/n=e^lim_n 1/n=e^0=1.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 1




        Why down vote?.
        – Empty
        Aug 17 at 5:19










      • Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:22






      • 1




        I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:43














      up vote
      6
      down vote













      Hint:



      As exponential function is continuous and "limit of the function"=function of the limit" for a continuous function, so$$lim_n e^1/n=e^lim_n 1/n=e^0=1.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 1




        Why down vote?.
        – Empty
        Aug 17 at 5:19










      • Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:22






      • 1




        I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:43












      up vote
      6
      down vote










      up vote
      6
      down vote









      Hint:



      As exponential function is continuous and "limit of the function"=function of the limit" for a continuous function, so$$lim_n e^1/n=e^lim_n 1/n=e^0=1.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer














      Hint:



      As exponential function is continuous and "limit of the function"=function of the limit" for a continuous function, so$$lim_n e^1/n=e^lim_n 1/n=e^0=1.$$







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Aug 17 at 5:23

























      answered Aug 17 at 5:18









      Empty

      7,90642154




      7,90642154







      • 1




        Why down vote?.
        – Empty
        Aug 17 at 5:19










      • Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:22






      • 1




        I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:43












      • 1




        Why down vote?.
        – Empty
        Aug 17 at 5:19










      • Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:21










      • Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
        – Aditya Agarwal
        Aug 17 at 5:22






      • 1




        I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
        – George Thomas
        Aug 17 at 5:43







      1




      1




      Why down vote?.
      – Empty
      Aug 17 at 5:19




      Why down vote?.
      – Empty
      Aug 17 at 5:19












      Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 17 at 5:21




      Your answer is not at all legible. I am asking about sequences. So I presume, that limit, in this case means the number to which the sequence is convergent. But then how could you take the limit in the exponent?
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 17 at 5:21












      This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
      – George Thomas
      Aug 17 at 5:21




      This is not an acceptable answer. More effort is needed in terms of formatting and clearly explaining the concept in words
      – George Thomas
      Aug 17 at 5:21












      Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 17 at 5:22




      Thats what I am asking. My question is about sequences, not functions.
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 17 at 5:22




      1




      1




      I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
      – George Thomas
      Aug 17 at 5:43




      I'm willing to upvote it now after edits
      – George Thomas
      Aug 17 at 5:43










      up vote
      3
      down vote













      $$1<e^frac1n<3^frac1n=(1+2)^frac1n<1+dfrac2nto1$$
      as $ntoinfty$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        $$1<e^frac1n<3^frac1n=(1+2)^frac1n<1+dfrac2nto1$$
        as $ntoinfty$.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          $$1<e^frac1n<3^frac1n=(1+2)^frac1n<1+dfrac2nto1$$
          as $ntoinfty$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          $$1<e^frac1n<3^frac1n=(1+2)^frac1n<1+dfrac2nto1$$
          as $ntoinfty$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 17 at 8:15









          Nosrati

          20.7k41644




          20.7k41644




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I figured it out. Since the function whose domain is $mathbbR$ converges to $1$ (By composiotion theorem). The sequence of the same functional rule should, too.



              Since, we know that for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n>N$, So for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n in mathbbI>N$. So the sequence converges too.
              That is, $$lim_ntoinftya_n=L$$ too.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 17 at 5:46














              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I figured it out. Since the function whose domain is $mathbbR$ converges to $1$ (By composiotion theorem). The sequence of the same functional rule should, too.



              Since, we know that for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n>N$, So for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n in mathbbI>N$. So the sequence converges too.
              That is, $$lim_ntoinftya_n=L$$ too.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 17 at 5:46












              up vote
              0
              down vote










              up vote
              0
              down vote









              I figured it out. Since the function whose domain is $mathbbR$ converges to $1$ (By composiotion theorem). The sequence of the same functional rule should, too.



              Since, we know that for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n>N$, So for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n in mathbbI>N$. So the sequence converges too.
              That is, $$lim_ntoinftya_n=L$$ too.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              I figured it out. Since the function whose domain is $mathbbR$ converges to $1$ (By composiotion theorem). The sequence of the same functional rule should, too.



              Since, we know that for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n>N$, So for every $epsilon>0$, there exists $N$, so that $|f(n)-L|<epsilon$ for $n in mathbbI>N$. So the sequence converges too.
              That is, $$lim_ntoinftya_n=L$$ too.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Aug 17 at 5:43

























              answered Aug 17 at 5:31









              Aditya Agarwal

              2,89111536




              2,89111536











              • If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 17 at 5:46
















              • If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 17 at 5:46















              If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 17 at 5:46




              If anything is wrong with my answer, or is irrelevant, please explain, the downvoter.
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 17 at 5:46










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              For $nin Bbb Z^+$ let $e^1/n=1+A_n.$ We have $A_n>0.$ From the Binomial Theorem we have $$e=(1+A_n)^n=sum_j=0^nbinom nj(A_n)^jgeq sum_j=0^1binom nj(A_n)^j=1+nA_n.$$ Therefore $frac e-1ngeq A_n.$ This also works if we replace $e$ with any number greater than $1.$






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                For $nin Bbb Z^+$ let $e^1/n=1+A_n.$ We have $A_n>0.$ From the Binomial Theorem we have $$e=(1+A_n)^n=sum_j=0^nbinom nj(A_n)^jgeq sum_j=0^1binom nj(A_n)^j=1+nA_n.$$ Therefore $frac e-1ngeq A_n.$ This also works if we replace $e$ with any number greater than $1.$






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  For $nin Bbb Z^+$ let $e^1/n=1+A_n.$ We have $A_n>0.$ From the Binomial Theorem we have $$e=(1+A_n)^n=sum_j=0^nbinom nj(A_n)^jgeq sum_j=0^1binom nj(A_n)^j=1+nA_n.$$ Therefore $frac e-1ngeq A_n.$ This also works if we replace $e$ with any number greater than $1.$






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  For $nin Bbb Z^+$ let $e^1/n=1+A_n.$ We have $A_n>0.$ From the Binomial Theorem we have $$e=(1+A_n)^n=sum_j=0^nbinom nj(A_n)^jgeq sum_j=0^1binom nj(A_n)^j=1+nA_n.$$ Therefore $frac e-1ngeq A_n.$ This also works if we replace $e$ with any number greater than $1.$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 17 at 9:07









                  DanielWainfleet

                  32k31644




                  32k31644












                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

                      Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

                      Carbon dioxide