Re: Problem with limiits
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg65819] Re: Problem with limiits
- From: Roger Bagula <rlbagulatftn at yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 02:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <e1snmb$860$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Roger Bagula wrote:
> A well known limit is:
> Limit[(1 + 1/n)^n, n -> Infinity]=E
> I tried it and it works... solution seems built in.
>
> I tried:
> Limit[(1 + 1/Prime[n])^Prime[n], n -> Infinity]
>
> Again I tried:
> Limit[(1 + 1/Prime[n])^Prime[n], n -> 2000]
>
> Here's how I got an estimate:
> Table[(1 + 1/Prime[n])^Prime[n], {n, 1, 400}];
> ListPlot[%]
>
> It appears to be approaching E as well.
> N[(1 + 1/Prime[2000])^Prime[2000], 100] - E
> -0.000078156838841603507435562510935842641134579112458192281970712293762387821356624136556497567576200
>
It appears that another Limit exists that behaves in the same way:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Primorial.html
> The primorial satisfies the unexpected limit
> lim_(n->infty)(p_n#)^(1/p_n)==e (3)
>
> (Ruiz 1997; Pruitt), where e is the usual base of the natural logarithm.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Problem with limiits
- From: Daniel Lichtblau <danl@wolfram.com>
- Re: Re: Problem with limiits