What is known about f(k)=∑k−1n=0knn! for large k?
Obviously it is is a partial sum of the series for ek -- but this partial sum doesn't reach close to ek itself because we're cutting off the series right at the largest terms. In the full series, the (k+i−1)th term is always at least as large as the (k−i)th term for 1≤i≤k, so f(k)<ek/2. Can we estimate more precisely how much smaller than ek the function is?
It would look very nice and pleasing if, say, f(k)∼ek−1 for large k, but I have no real evidence for that hypothesis.
(Inspired by this question and my answer thereto).
Answer
This appears as problem #96 in Donald J Newman's excellent book: A Problem Seminar.
The problem statement there is:
Show that
1+n1!+n22!+⋯+nnn!∼en2
Where an∼bn mean limanbn=1.
Thus we can estimate your sum (I have swapped n and k) as
1+n1!+n22!+⋯+nn−1(n−1)!∼en2
as by Stirling's formula, nnn!en→0.
The solution in the book proceeds as follows:
The remainder term for a the Taylor Series of a function f is
Rn(x)=∫x0(x−t)nn!fn+1(t) dt
which for our purposes, comes out as
∫n0(n−t)nn!et dt
Making the substitution n−t=x gives us the integral
∫n0xnn!e−x dx
In an earlier problem (#94), he shows that
∫∞0(1+xn)ne−x dx∼√πn2
which using the substitution n+x=t gives
∫∞ntne−t dt∼nnen√πn2
Using ∫∞0xne−x dx=n! and Stirling's formula now gives the result.
To prove that
∫∞0(1+xn)ne−x dx∼√πn2
He first makes the substitution x=√nt to obtain
∫∞0(1+xn)ne−x dx =√n∫∞0(1+t√n)ne−√nt dt
Now (1+t√n)ne−√nt≤(1+t)e−t
limn→∞1√n∫∞0(1+xn)ne−x dx
=∫∞0(limn→∞(1+t√n)ne−√nt) dt
=∫∞0e−t2/2 dt=√π2
No comments:
Post a Comment