$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdot cdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$.
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$
My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.
inequality
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$
My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.
inequality
3
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
3
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
2
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$
My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.
inequality
Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$
My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.
inequality
inequality
edited 10 hours ago
dmtri
1,2261520
1,2261520
asked 16 hours ago
Lovro Sindičić
244216
244216
3
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
3
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
2
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
3
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
2
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago
3
3
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
2
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
2
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
3
3
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
2
2
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$
and:
$b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$
It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :
$frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$
⇒ $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$
$a^2<frac{1}{101}$⇒$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$
Also:
$2a<frac{3}{2}b$⇒$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$⇒$a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ ⇒ $a>frac{1}{15}$
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.
Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
$$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
Therefore,
$$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$
Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
$$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
Therefore,
$$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
$$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
for every $n$.


add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:
The expression:
$$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$
We could use the following identities:
Product of $n$ odd numbers =
$$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$
Product of $n$ even numbers =
$$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$
The first $4$ terms of $p$ =
$$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$
We may write $p$ as:
$$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$
$$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:
$$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
$$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$
We could conclude that, for $n >=2$
$$p<frac{1}{10}$$
for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)
As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.
We need a preliminary lemma:
If
$$
k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
$$
then
$$
frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
$$
Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
$$
0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
$$
but of course we avoid using such calculations.
Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
$$
1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
$$
where
$$
s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
$$
Telescoping,
$$
frac{12}{325} =
frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
< 16s <
frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
= frac{1}{24},
$$
therefore
$$
1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
$$
as required. $square$
The number we wish to approximate is
$$
P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
= frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
= kQ,
$$
where
begin{gather*}
Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
= frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
= frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
= frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
end{gather*}
Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
begin{equation}
tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
< P <
frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
end{equation}
Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
begin{equation}
tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224},
end{equation}
or approximately
$$
0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
$$
One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:
For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
$$
frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
$$
(as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
$$
P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
$$
For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
$$
Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
$$
and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
$$
P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
$$
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$
and:
$b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$
It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :
$frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$
⇒ $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$
$a^2<frac{1}{101}$⇒$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$
Also:
$2a<frac{3}{2}b$⇒$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$⇒$a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ ⇒ $a>frac{1}{15}$
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$
and:
$b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$
It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :
$frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$
⇒ $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$
$a^2<frac{1}{101}$⇒$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$
Also:
$2a<frac{3}{2}b$⇒$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$⇒$a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ ⇒ $a>frac{1}{15}$
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$
and:
$b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$
It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :
$frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$
⇒ $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$
$a^2<frac{1}{101}$⇒$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$
Also:
$2a<frac{3}{2}b$⇒$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$⇒$a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ ⇒ $a>frac{1}{15}$
Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$
and:
$b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$
It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :
$frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$
⇒ $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$
$a^2<frac{1}{101}$⇒$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$
Also:
$2a<frac{3}{2}b$⇒$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$⇒$a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ ⇒ $a>frac{1}{15}$
edited 10 hours ago
dmtri
1,2261520
1,2261520
answered 12 hours ago
sirous
1,5371513
1,5371513
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
add a comment |
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
– Calum Gilhooley
24 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.
Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.
Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.
Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$
Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.
Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$
edited 11 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Batominovski
31.1k23187
31.1k23187
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
$$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
Therefore,
$$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$
Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
$$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
Therefore,
$$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
$$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
for every $n$.


add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
$$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
Therefore,
$$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$
Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
$$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
Therefore,
$$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
$$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
for every $n$.


add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
$$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
Therefore,
$$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$
Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
$$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
Therefore,
$$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
$$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
for every $n$.


Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
$$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
Therefore,
$$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$
Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
$$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
$$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
for all $n$. That is,
$$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
Therefore,
$$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
$$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
for every $n$.


edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Zvi
3,165221
3,165221
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:
The expression:
$$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$
We could use the following identities:
Product of $n$ odd numbers =
$$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$
Product of $n$ even numbers =
$$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$
The first $4$ terms of $p$ =
$$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$
We may write $p$ as:
$$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$
$$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:
$$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
$$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$
We could conclude that, for $n >=2$
$$p<frac{1}{10}$$
for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:
The expression:
$$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$
We could use the following identities:
Product of $n$ odd numbers =
$$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$
Product of $n$ even numbers =
$$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$
The first $4$ terms of $p$ =
$$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$
We may write $p$ as:
$$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$
$$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:
$$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
$$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$
We could conclude that, for $n >=2$
$$p<frac{1}{10}$$
for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:
The expression:
$$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$
We could use the following identities:
Product of $n$ odd numbers =
$$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$
Product of $n$ even numbers =
$$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$
The first $4$ terms of $p$ =
$$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$
We may write $p$ as:
$$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$
$$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:
$$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
$$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$
We could conclude that, for $n >=2$
$$p<frac{1}{10}$$
for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.
Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:
The expression:
$$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$
We could use the following identities:
Product of $n$ odd numbers =
$$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$
Product of $n$ even numbers =
$$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$
The first $4$ terms of $p$ =
$$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$
We may write $p$ as:
$$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$
$$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:
$$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$
$$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$
We could conclude that, for $n >=2$
$$p<frac{1}{10}$$
for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
NoChance
3,58121221
3,58121221
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)
As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.
We need a preliminary lemma:
If
$$
k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
$$
then
$$
frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
$$
Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
$$
0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
$$
but of course we avoid using such calculations.
Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
$$
1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
$$
where
$$
s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
$$
Telescoping,
$$
frac{12}{325} =
frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
< 16s <
frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
= frac{1}{24},
$$
therefore
$$
1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
$$
as required. $square$
The number we wish to approximate is
$$
P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
= frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
= kQ,
$$
where
begin{gather*}
Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
= frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
= frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
= frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
end{gather*}
Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
begin{equation}
tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
< P <
frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
end{equation}
Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
begin{equation}
tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224},
end{equation}
or approximately
$$
0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
$$
One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:
For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
$$
frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
$$
(as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
$$
P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
$$
For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
$$
Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
$$
and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
$$
P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)
As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.
We need a preliminary lemma:
If
$$
k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
$$
then
$$
frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
$$
Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
$$
0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
$$
but of course we avoid using such calculations.
Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
$$
1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
$$
where
$$
s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
$$
Telescoping,
$$
frac{12}{325} =
frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
< 16s <
frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
= frac{1}{24},
$$
therefore
$$
1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
$$
as required. $square$
The number we wish to approximate is
$$
P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
= frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
= kQ,
$$
where
begin{gather*}
Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
= frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
= frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
= frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
end{gather*}
Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
begin{equation}
tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
< P <
frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
end{equation}
Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
begin{equation}
tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224},
end{equation}
or approximately
$$
0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
$$
One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:
For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
$$
frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
$$
(as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
$$
P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
$$
For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
$$
Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
$$
and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
$$
P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)
As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.
We need a preliminary lemma:
If
$$
k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
$$
then
$$
frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
$$
Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
$$
0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
$$
but of course we avoid using such calculations.
Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
$$
1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
$$
where
$$
s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
$$
Telescoping,
$$
frac{12}{325} =
frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
< 16s <
frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
= frac{1}{24},
$$
therefore
$$
1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
$$
as required. $square$
The number we wish to approximate is
$$
P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
= frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
= kQ,
$$
where
begin{gather*}
Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
= frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
= frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
= frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
end{gather*}
Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
begin{equation}
tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
< P <
frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
end{equation}
Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
begin{equation}
tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224},
end{equation}
or approximately
$$
0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
$$
One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:
For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
$$
frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
$$
(as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
$$
P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
$$
For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
$$
Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
$$
and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
$$
P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
$$
This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)
As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.
We need a preliminary lemma:
If
$$
k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
$$
then
$$
frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
$$
Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
$$
0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
$$
but of course we avoid using such calculations.
Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
$$
1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
$$
where
$$
s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
$$
Telescoping,
$$
frac{12}{325} =
frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
< 16s <
frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
= frac{1}{24},
$$
therefore
$$
1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
$$
as required. $square$
The number we wish to approximate is
$$
P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
= frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
= kQ,
$$
where
begin{gather*}
Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
= frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
= frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
= frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
end{gather*}
Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
begin{equation}
tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
< P <
frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
end{equation}
Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
begin{equation}
tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224},
end{equation}
or approximately
$$
0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
$$
One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:
For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
$$
frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
$$
(as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
$$
P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
$$
For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
$$
Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
$$
and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
$$
P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
$$
answered 1 hour ago
Calum Gilhooley
3,983529
3,983529
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004689%2ffrac115-frac12-cdot-frac34-cdot-frac56-cdot-cdot-cdot-cdo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Related
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
16 hours ago
2
@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
15 hours ago
3
$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
2
I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
11 hours ago