Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Well I am just asking myself if there's a more elegant way of proving $$2<\exp(1)=\mathrm e<3$$ than doing it by induction and using the fact of $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac1n)^n=\mathrm e$, is there one (or some) alternative way(s)?

share|improve this question
4  
Is this last thing your definition of $e$? –  Dylan Moreland Jul 3 '12 at 21:54

5 Answers 5

up vote 37 down vote accepted

What answer you find most elegant may depend on what definition of $e$ you're starting with, as Dylan suggests, but I find this argument quite short and sweet: $$\begin{align} &\quad 1 + 1 &= 2\\ &\le 1 + 1 + \frac12 + \frac1{2\cdot3} + \frac1{2\cdot3\cdot4} + \cdots &= e \\ &\le 1 + 1 + \frac12 + \frac1{2\cdot2} + \frac1{2\cdot2\cdot2} + \cdots &= 3 \end{align}$$

share|improve this answer
6  
And from this you see that it's also at least 2.5. –  Francis Adams Jul 3 '12 at 22:27
    
This looks like the Taylor expansion of $\exp$ at 0 evaluated at 1. Or which definition of $e$ did you use here? –  krlmlr Jul 3 '12 at 22:51
4  
@user946850, I consider $e = \sum_{n=0}^\infty 1/n!$ itself to be one of the many equivalent definitions of $e$. –  Rahul Jul 3 '12 at 22:53

It's equivalent to show that the natural logarithm of 3 is bigger than 1, but this is $$ \int_1^3 \frac{dx}{x}. $$ A right hand sum is guaranteed to underestimate this integral, so you just need to take a right hand sum with enough rectangles to get a value larger than 1.

share|improve this answer
    
(to show that $e>2$, integrate from 1 to 2 and show you get less than 1 by estimating with a left hand sum). –  user29743 Jul 3 '12 at 22:09
    
You can also use the fact that $\int_1^3 \frac{1}{x^a} >1$ when $a$ is close enough to $1$. I think it holds for $a=1.1$, but that is not easy to show.... –  N. S. Jul 3 '12 at 22:35
2  
Replacing the integrand $1/t$ by its tangent at $t = (x+1)/2$ shows that $\log(x) = \int_1^x \tfrac{dt}{t} \geq 2 \tfrac{x-1}{x+1}$ for all $x \geq 1$. In particular $\log(3) \geq 1$. –  WimC Jul 8 '12 at 17:46
    
@WimC, wow, graphing software shows that is an outstanding estimate between .5 and 1.5, had not seen that one before. That's really cool. –  user29743 Jul 14 '12 at 15:00

You can use

$$e =\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}= 2+\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}< 2+\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n(n-1)}=3 \,,$$

with the last equality following immediately from the fact that $\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n(n-1)}$ is telescopic.

Of course it depends on the way you define $e$, anyhow the equality

$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac1n)^n$$ can be established easily using the binomial theorem.


Second solution

You can use the fact that $a_n=(1+\frac{1}{n})^{n+1}$ is decreasing. The inequality $a_{n+1} < a_n$ is an immediate consequence of Bernoulli Inequality.

Note that this implies (induction hidden here) that $a_n \leq a_6 <3$ for all $n \geq 3$, and that

$$e =\lim a_n \leq a_6 <3 \,.$$


Here is one more:

$$e^{-1}=1-\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{3!}+.. \,.$$

Since the series is alternating and $\frac{1}{n!}$ is decreasing, it is obvious (very easy to show) that the series oscilates around the limit and

$$s_{2n+1}=1-\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{3!}+....+\frac{1}{(2n)!}-\frac{1}{(2n+1)!} \leq \frac{1}{e} \leq 1-\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{3!}+....+\frac{1}{(2n)!}=s_{2n}$$

[ Actually in the proof of the Alternating series test, one proves the stronger statement that for such a series we have $s_{2n}$ decreasing, $s_{2n+1}$ increasing and $s_{2n+1} \leq s_{2n}$. ]

The inequality

$$1-\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}-\frac{1}{3!} < \frac{1}{e} < 1-\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}$$ is

$$\frac{1}{3} < \frac{1}{e} < \frac{1}{2} \,.$$

share|improve this answer
    
It was not clear to me how to easily show using binomial theorem that both definitions of $e$ are equal. Fortunately, Wikipedia had the answer at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_theorem#Series_for_e –  Mikko Rantalainen May 16 '13 at 6:15

You can use integration by parts to show:

$$\int_1^e (\ln x)^2 dx = e-2$$

$$\int_1^e (\ln x )^3 dx = 6- 2e$$

Since $\ln(x)$ is strictly positive above $1$, we get

$$e-2>0$$ $$6-2e>0$$

so that $2<e<3$.

share|improve this answer

First let's consider a simple heuristic argument to show that $2<e<4$. It is easy to prove using the definition of the derivative that if $f(x)=2^x$ then $f'(x) = (\text{constant}\cdot 2^x$). The curve gets steeper as $x$ increases, and the average slope between $x=0$ an $x=1$ is $(2^1-2^0)/(1-0)= 1$. Therefore, the slope at $x=0$ is less than $1$; hence the "constant" is less than $1$. Now do the same with $g(x)=4^x$ on the interval from $x=-1/2$ and $x=0$, and conclude that the slope at $x=0$ is more than $1$; hence the "constant" you get there is more than $1$.

So $2$ is too small, and $4$ is too big, to serve as the base of the natural exponential function.

It's messier to do the same with $3$, but the interval from $x=-1/6$ to $x=0$ will do it, and you conclude $3$ is too big to be the base of the natural exponential function.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.