Can we prove that $lim_ntoinfty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1$ is finite for any $n_0inBbb N$ without a direct computation?

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











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1













Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?




$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$










share|cite|improve this question























  • Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:56










  • What's your thought?
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:57










  • I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:58










  • I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:58






  • 2




    The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 18:00















up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1













Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?




$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$










share|cite|improve this question























  • Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:56










  • What's your thought?
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:57










  • I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:58










  • I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:58






  • 2




    The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 18:00













up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1






Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?




$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$










share|cite|improve this question
















Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?




$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$







calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 13 at 21:58









Asaf Karagila♦

294k32410738




294k32410738










asked Aug 13 at 17:54









Vladislav Kharlamov

587216




587216











  • Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:56










  • What's your thought?
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:57










  • I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:58










  • I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:58






  • 2




    The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 18:00

















  • Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:56










  • What's your thought?
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:57










  • I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 17:58










  • I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 17:58






  • 2




    The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
    – xbh
    Aug 13 at 18:00
















Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
– Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56




Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
– Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56












What's your thought?
– xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57




What's your thought?
– xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57












I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
– xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58




I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
– xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58












I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
– Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58




I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
– Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58




2




2




The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
– xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00





The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
– xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.



So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.




By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
    – Vladislav Kharlamov
    Aug 13 at 18:04










  • Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
    – Jair Taylor
    Aug 13 at 18:05










  • @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
    – Yves Daoust
    Aug 13 at 18:31










  • @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
    – Yves Daoust
    Aug 13 at 18:35










  • Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
    – Alex W
    Aug 13 at 22:00


















up vote
3
down vote













For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
    – GEdgar
    Aug 13 at 20:37










  • To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 14 at 2:05

















up vote
2
down vote













I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.



This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 1




    This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
    – Clayton
    Aug 13 at 18:13










  • Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
    – Kajelad
    Aug 13 at 18:14

















up vote
2
down vote













Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.



$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$



Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.



You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Alternative method: Cesàro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
      – xbh
      Aug 13 at 18:05










    • It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
      – Paramanand Singh
      Aug 14 at 4:27










    • @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
      – xbh
      Aug 14 at 6:54

















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
    beginalign*
    (k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
    k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
    endalign*
    Then:
    beginalign*
    (k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
    k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
    endalign*
    For every positive integer $k$,
    $$
    (k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
    $$
    Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
    $$
    frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
    $$
    But
    $$
    frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
    fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
    $$
    therefore
    $$
    fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881647%2fcan-we-prove-that-lim-n-to-infty-frac1n-02n-0-cdotsnn-0nn%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      4
      down vote













      The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.



      So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.




      By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer




















      • I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
        – Vladislav Kharlamov
        Aug 13 at 18:04










      • Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
        – Jair Taylor
        Aug 13 at 18:05










      • @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:31










      • @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:35










      • Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
        – Alex W
        Aug 13 at 22:00















      up vote
      4
      down vote













      The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.



      So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.




      By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer




















      • I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
        – Vladislav Kharlamov
        Aug 13 at 18:04










      • Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
        – Jair Taylor
        Aug 13 at 18:05










      • @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:31










      • @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:35










      • Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
        – Alex W
        Aug 13 at 22:00













      up vote
      4
      down vote










      up vote
      4
      down vote









      The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.



      So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.




      By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.



      So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.




      By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Aug 13 at 18:00









      Yves Daoust

      114k666209




      114k666209











      • I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
        – Vladislav Kharlamov
        Aug 13 at 18:04










      • Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
        – Jair Taylor
        Aug 13 at 18:05










      • @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:31










      • @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:35










      • Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
        – Alex W
        Aug 13 at 22:00

















      • I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
        – Vladislav Kharlamov
        Aug 13 at 18:04










      • Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
        – Jair Taylor
        Aug 13 at 18:05










      • @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:31










      • @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
        – Yves Daoust
        Aug 13 at 18:35










      • Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
        – Alex W
        Aug 13 at 22:00
















      I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
      – Vladislav Kharlamov
      Aug 13 at 18:04




      I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
      – Vladislav Kharlamov
      Aug 13 at 18:04












      Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
      – Jair Taylor
      Aug 13 at 18:05




      Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
      – Jair Taylor
      Aug 13 at 18:05












      @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
      – Yves Daoust
      Aug 13 at 18:31




      @VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
      – Yves Daoust
      Aug 13 at 18:31












      @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
      – Yves Daoust
      Aug 13 at 18:35




      @JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
      – Yves Daoust
      Aug 13 at 18:35












      Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
      – Alex W
      Aug 13 at 22:00





      Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
      – Alex W
      Aug 13 at 22:00











      up vote
      3
      down vote













      For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$






      share|cite|improve this answer




















      • Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
        – GEdgar
        Aug 13 at 20:37










      • To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
        – DanielWainfleet
        Aug 14 at 2:05














      up vote
      3
      down vote













      For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$






      share|cite|improve this answer




















      • Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
        – GEdgar
        Aug 13 at 20:37










      • To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
        – DanielWainfleet
        Aug 14 at 2:05












      up vote
      3
      down vote










      up vote
      3
      down vote









      For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$






      share|cite|improve this answer












      For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Aug 13 at 20:14









      DanielWainfleet

      32.2k31644




      32.2k31644











      • Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
        – GEdgar
        Aug 13 at 20:37










      • To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
        – DanielWainfleet
        Aug 14 at 2:05
















      • Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
        – GEdgar
        Aug 13 at 20:37










      • To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
        – DanielWainfleet
        Aug 14 at 2:05















      Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
      – GEdgar
      Aug 13 at 20:37




      Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
      – GEdgar
      Aug 13 at 20:37












      To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
      – DanielWainfleet
      Aug 14 at 2:05




      To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
      – DanielWainfleet
      Aug 14 at 2:05










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
      $$
      Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
      $$
      The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.



      This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 1




        This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
        – Clayton
        Aug 13 at 18:13










      • Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
        – Kajelad
        Aug 13 at 18:14














      up vote
      2
      down vote













      I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
      $$
      Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
      $$
      The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.



      This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 1




        This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
        – Clayton
        Aug 13 at 18:13










      • Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
        – Kajelad
        Aug 13 at 18:14












      up vote
      2
      down vote










      up vote
      2
      down vote









      I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
      $$
      Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
      $$
      The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.



      This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
      $$
      Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
      $$
      L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
      $$
      The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.



      This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Aug 13 at 18:44









      Michael Hardy

      206k23187466




      206k23187466










      answered Aug 13 at 18:10









      Kajelad

      1,916619




      1,916619







      • 1




        This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
        – Clayton
        Aug 13 at 18:13










      • Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
        – Kajelad
        Aug 13 at 18:14












      • 1




        This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
        – Clayton
        Aug 13 at 18:13










      • Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
        – Kajelad
        Aug 13 at 18:14







      1




      1




      This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
      – Clayton
      Aug 13 at 18:13




      This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
      – Clayton
      Aug 13 at 18:13












      Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
      – Kajelad
      Aug 13 at 18:14




      Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
      – Kajelad
      Aug 13 at 18:14










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Here's a completely elementary proof
      that just uses
      Bernoulli's inequality.



      $beginarray\
      (x+1)^m-x^m
      &=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
      &ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
      qquadtextby Bernoulli\
      &=mx^m-1\
      endarray
      $



      Therefore
      $sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
      le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
      =frac1mn^m
      $
      so,
      for $m ge 2$,
      $sum_k=1^n k^m-1
      le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
      $
      or
      $frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
      le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
      =frac1n+frac1m
      $
      which is bounded.



      You have to work a little harder
      to show that
      $frac1m$
      is the actual limit.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        Here's a completely elementary proof
        that just uses
        Bernoulli's inequality.



        $beginarray\
        (x+1)^m-x^m
        &=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
        &ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
        qquadtextby Bernoulli\
        &=mx^m-1\
        endarray
        $



        Therefore
        $sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
        le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
        =frac1mn^m
        $
        so,
        for $m ge 2$,
        $sum_k=1^n k^m-1
        le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
        $
        or
        $frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
        le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
        =frac1n+frac1m
        $
        which is bounded.



        You have to work a little harder
        to show that
        $frac1m$
        is the actual limit.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          Here's a completely elementary proof
          that just uses
          Bernoulli's inequality.



          $beginarray\
          (x+1)^m-x^m
          &=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
          &ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
          qquadtextby Bernoulli\
          &=mx^m-1\
          endarray
          $



          Therefore
          $sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
          le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
          =frac1mn^m
          $
          so,
          for $m ge 2$,
          $sum_k=1^n k^m-1
          le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
          $
          or
          $frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
          le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
          =frac1n+frac1m
          $
          which is bounded.



          You have to work a little harder
          to show that
          $frac1m$
          is the actual limit.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Here's a completely elementary proof
          that just uses
          Bernoulli's inequality.



          $beginarray\
          (x+1)^m-x^m
          &=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
          &ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
          qquadtextby Bernoulli\
          &=mx^m-1\
          endarray
          $



          Therefore
          $sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
          le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
          =frac1mn^m
          $
          so,
          for $m ge 2$,
          $sum_k=1^n k^m-1
          le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
          $
          or
          $frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
          le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
          =frac1n+frac1m
          $
          which is bounded.



          You have to work a little harder
          to show that
          $frac1m$
          is the actual limit.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 13 at 22:47









          marty cohen

          70k446122




          70k446122




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Alternative method: Cesàro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
                – xbh
                Aug 13 at 18:05










              • It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
                – Paramanand Singh
                Aug 14 at 4:27










              • @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
                – xbh
                Aug 14 at 6:54














              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Alternative method: Cesàro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
                – xbh
                Aug 13 at 18:05










              • It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
                – Paramanand Singh
                Aug 14 at 4:27










              • @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
                – xbh
                Aug 14 at 6:54












              up vote
              2
              down vote










              up vote
              2
              down vote









              Alternative method: Cesàro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].






              share|cite|improve this answer














              Alternative method: Cesàro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Aug 14 at 6:54

























              answered Aug 13 at 18:01









              xbh

              3,545320




              3,545320











              • @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
                – xbh
                Aug 13 at 18:05










              • It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
                – Paramanand Singh
                Aug 14 at 4:27










              • @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
                – xbh
                Aug 14 at 6:54
















              • @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
                – xbh
                Aug 13 at 18:05










              • It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
                – Paramanand Singh
                Aug 14 at 4:27










              • @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
                – xbh
                Aug 14 at 6:54















              @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
              – xbh
              Aug 13 at 18:05




              @VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
              – xbh
              Aug 13 at 18:05












              It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
              – Paramanand Singh
              Aug 14 at 4:27




              It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
              – Paramanand Singh
              Aug 14 at 4:27












              @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
              – xbh
              Aug 14 at 6:54




              @ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
              – xbh
              Aug 14 at 6:54










              up vote
              1
              down vote













              As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
              beginalign*
              (k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
              k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
              endalign*
              Then:
              beginalign*
              (k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
              k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
              endalign*
              For every positive integer $k$,
              $$
              (k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
              $$
              Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
              $$
              frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
              $$
              But
              $$
              frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
              fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
              $$
              therefore
              $$
              fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
                beginalign*
                (k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
                k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
                endalign*
                Then:
                beginalign*
                (k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
                k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
                endalign*
                For every positive integer $k$,
                $$
                (k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
                $$
                Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
                $$
                frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
                $$
                But
                $$
                frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
                fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
                $$
                therefore
                $$
                fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
                  beginalign*
                  (k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
                  k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
                  endalign*
                  Then:
                  beginalign*
                  (k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
                  k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
                  endalign*
                  For every positive integer $k$,
                  $$
                  (k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
                  $$
                  Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
                  $$
                  frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
                  $$
                  But
                  $$
                  frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
                  fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
                  $$
                  therefore
                  $$
                  fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
                  $$






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
                  beginalign*
                  (k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
                  k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
                  endalign*
                  Then:
                  beginalign*
                  (k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
                  k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
                  endalign*
                  For every positive integer $k$,
                  $$
                  (k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
                  $$
                  Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
                  $$
                  frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
                  $$
                  But
                  $$
                  frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
                  fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
                  $$
                  therefore
                  $$
                  fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
                  $$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 13 at 23:22









                  Calum Gilhooley

                  2,962528




                  2,962528



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881647%2fcan-we-prove-that-lim-n-to-infty-frac1n-02n-0-cdotsnn-0nn%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay