We can write T(m) as (m!)^(1/m)
Call the limit L. Then the natural log of the limit is the limit of the natural log of the expression.
ln(L) = lim (m->infiinity) ln(T(m)/m) = -ln(m) + (1/m)ln(m!)
as m-> infinity, Sterling's approximation for ln(m!) is increasingly accurate. (NOTE: making this substitution may not be legitimate and I offer it without proof, although I'm fairly confident it's correct.)
If so,
ln(L) = lim -ln(m) + (1/m)(m ln(m) - m) = -1
if ln(L) = -1 then L = 1/e
The same approach should work for the U(m) case, once we write U(m) = ((3m)! / (2m)!)^(1/m)
then letting the limit be represented by L and taking the log of both sides gives:
ln(L) = lim -ln(m) + (1/m)(3m ln(m) + 3m ln(3) - 3m -2m ln (m) - 2m ln(2) +2m)
ln(L) = lim -ln(m) + 3ln(m) + 3ln(3) - 3 -2ln(m) - 2ln(2) + 2
ln(L) = 3ln(3) - 3 - 2ln(2) + 2 = 3ln(3) - 2ln(2) - 1
e^(a+b) = e^a*e^b and e^(a ln(b)) = b^a, so the limit is:
L = 3^3 / 2^2 * 1/e = 27/(4e)
In general, we can solve this kind of problem for and F(m) that's the geometric mean of m positive integers starting with km+1 (k>=0), and the result will be (k+1)^(k+1)/(e*k^k).
k=0 corresponds to T(m) and (since 0^0 = 1) gives the expected 1/e. k= 2 corresponds to U(m) and gives the previously stated 27/(4e).
Of course, all of this is for naught if Sterlings approximation cannot be used to substitute for ln(m!) but I'll let some braver reader than I prove or disprove that assumption.
|
Posted by Paul
on 2008-03-27 02:56:37 |