# Is $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n}{(n!)^\frac{1}{n}} = e$ any easier than Stirling? [duplicate]

Possible Duplicate:
Showing that $\frac{\sqrt[n]{n!}}{n}$ $\rightarrow \frac{1}{e}$

Stirling's approximation says that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n^n \sqrt{n}}{n! e^n } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}.$$ Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} x^\frac{1}{n} \to 1$ uniformly on a neighbourhood of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{ 2 \pi}}$, it follows that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \left( \frac{n^n \sqrt{n}}{n! e^n } \right)^\frac{1}{n} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n}{(n!)^\frac{1}{n}} \cdot \frac{n^\frac{1}{2n}}{e} = 1.$$ Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} n^\frac{1}{2n} = 1$, we get the limit in the title $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n}{(n!)^\frac{1}{n}} = e.$$

Question: Is Stirling's approximation is really needed to derive the above limit? Or is there an easier way to reach the same conclusion?

Motivation: The radius of convergence $R$ of a power series $\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n$ is given by Hadamard's formula $$\frac{1}{R} = \limsup_{n \to \infty} |a_n|^\frac{1}{n}.$$ If we know ahead of time that $R > 0$ then the coefficients are given by $$a_n = \frac{f^{(n)}(0)}{n!}$$ where $f$ is the function defined by the power series. Then we get $$\frac{1}{R} = \limsup_{n \to \infty} |a_n|^\frac{1}{n} = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{|f^{(n)}(0)|^\frac{1}{n}}{n} \cdot \frac{n}{(n!)^\frac{1}{n}} = e \cdot \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{|f^{(n)}(0)|^\frac{1}{n}}{n}.$$ So one use of the limit is to clean up the formula for the radius of convergence of a power series in terms of the derivatives of the corresponding function.

-

2
– sos440 Nov 16 '12 at 7:27
You only need Stirling's approximation up to a polynomial multiplicative constant, which you can get from a straightforward Riemann sum argument. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 16 '12 at 8:20

## marked as duplicate by Did, TMM, Norbert, Arkamis, Chris EagleNov 16 '12 at 17:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

## 2 Answers

HINT: write $\lim_{n \to \infty} \displaystyle\frac{n}{(n!)^\frac{1}{n}}$ as $\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(\displaystyle\frac{n^n}{(n!)}\right)^\frac{1}{n}$ and then compute $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}}$ where $a_n=\displaystyle\frac{n^n}{(n!)}$

-

Taking the natural logarithm, you want to show that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\ln n-\frac1{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\ln i\right)=1$$ or equivalently $$n \ln n - \sum_{i=1}^n\ln i \sim n\qquad\text{as }n\to\infty.$$ Now $$\int_1^n\ln x\,dx<\sum_{i=1}^n\ln i<\int_1^n\ln x\,dx+\ln n,$$ and since $x\ln x-x$ is a primitive of $\ln x$, it follows that $$\sum_{i=1}^n\ln i = n \ln n-n+O(\ln n)$$ which approximation suffices easily for the asymptotic equivalence above.

-

an alternative from the $2$nd line is: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\ln n-\frac1{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\ln i\right)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\ln n-\left(\frac1{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\ln \frac{i}{n}+\ln n\right)\right)=-\int_0^1 \ln x=1.$ – Chris's wise sister Nov 16 '12 at 11:53
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 18, "mathjax_display_tex": 10, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9275062084197998, "perplexity_flag": "head"}