Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Thomson et al. provide a proof that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n}=1$ in this book. It has to do with using an inequality that relies on the binomial theorem. I tried to do an alternate proof now that I know (from elsewhere) the following:

\begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{ \log n}{n} = 0 \end{align}

Then using this, I can instead prove: \begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n} &= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \exp{\frac{ \log n}{n}} \newline & = \exp{0} \newline & = 1 \end{align}

On the one hand, it seems like a valid proof to me. On the other hand, I know I should be careful with infinite sequences. The step I'm most unsure of is: \begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n} = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \exp{\frac{ \log n}{n}} \end{align}

I know such an identity would hold for bounded $n$ but I'm not sure I can use this identity when $n\rightarrow \infty$.

If I am correct, then would there be any cases where I would be wrong? Specifically, given any sequence $x_n$, can I always assume: \begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \exp(\log x_n) \end{align} Or are there sequences that invalidate that identity?

(Edited to expand the last question) given any sequence $x_n$, can I always assume: \begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n &= \exp(\log \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n) \newline &= \exp(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \log x_n) \newline &= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \exp( \log x_n) \end{align} Or are there sequences that invalidate any of the above identities?

(Edited to repurpose this question). Please also feel free to add different proofs of $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n}=1$.

share|cite|improve this question
Did you mean \begin{align} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n = \exp(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\log x_n)? \end{align} – Rasmus Mar 21 '11 at 19:04
@Rasmus No, I didn't. But now that you mention it, I think that might be more appropriate for the question I have. – JasonMond Mar 21 '11 at 19:08
We have $a = \exp(\log a)$ for $a \gt 0$, so what you have is basically asking whether $\lim x_n = \lim x_n$... – Aryabhata Mar 21 '11 at 19:36
The only thing that can spoil such an identity is that $x_n$ might leave the set of definition of the function $\log$. – AD. Mar 21 '11 at 19:53
@AD Good point. I should have thought of that. – JasonMond Mar 22 '11 at 4:08
up vote 18 down vote accepted

Since $x \mapsto \log x$ is a continuous function, and since continuous functions respect limits: $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} f(g(n)) = f\left( \lim_{n \to \infty} g(n) \right), $$ for continuous functions $f$, (given that $\displaystyle\lim_{n \to \infty} g(n)$ exists), your proof is entirely correct. Specifically, $$ \log \left( \lim_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{n} \right) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log n}{n}, $$

and hence

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{n} = \exp \left[\log \left( \lim_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{n} \right) \right] = \exp\left(\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log n}{n} \right) = \exp(0) = 1. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
given that the limits exist – yoyo Mar 21 '11 at 21:17
Thanks! (I never can tell whether I'm overthinking a math problem or not) – JasonMond Mar 22 '11 at 4:09

Here is one using $AM \ge GM$ to $1$ appearing $n-2$ times and $\sqrt{n}$ appearing twice.

$$\frac{1 + 1 + \dots + 1 + \sqrt{n} + \sqrt{n}}{n} \ge n^{1/n}$$


$$\frac{n - 2 + 2 \sqrt{n}}{n} \ge n^{1/n}$$


$$ 1 - \frac{2}{n} + \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} \ge n^{1/n} \ge 1$$

That the limit is $1$ follows.

share|cite|improve this answer
This "trick" is just amazing! Thanks for sharing :) – GniruT Nov 20 '15 at 12:12
@GniruT: Thanks! Glad you liked it. – Aryabhata Nov 21 '15 at 0:28

Here's a two-line, completely elementary proof that uses only Bernoulli's inequality:

$$(1+n^{-1/2})^n \ge 1+n^{1/2} > n^{1/2}$$ so, raising to the $2/n$ power, $$ n^{1/n} < (1+n^{-1/2})^2 = 1 + 2 n^{-1/2} + 1/n < 1 + 3 n^{-1/2}.$$

I discovered this independently, and then found a very similar proof in Courant and Robbins' "What is Mathematics".

share|cite|improve this answer
It's worth noting that the Bernoulli inequality come from the binomial theorem. If $x>0$, then $(1+x)^n>1+nx$, and $n(n^{-1/2})=n^{1/2}$. – Aaron Aug 8 '11 at 19:45
No. It is independent and can be easily proved by induction: True for n=1 since (1+x) >= (1+x). If true for n, then (1+x)^(n+1) = (1+x)(1+x)^n >= (1+x)(1+nx) = 1+(n+1)x+nx^2 >= 1+(n+1)x. – marty cohen Aug 8 '11 at 22:52
Apologies. By "comes from" I meant "follows easily from" not "can only be proved using." $1+nx$ is literally the first two terms of the binomial theorem. However, having never heard of the Bernoulli inequality, I mistakenly thought that your first inequality was the Bernoulli inequality, not an application of it, which is why I didn't write a fuller explanation. You are right that it follows easily from induction, but generally speaking it is easier to remember one big theorem and its consequences than many smaller theorems. – Aaron Aug 8 '11 at 23:28
@Aaron: But Bernoulli's inequality holds for all $x\geq-1$. There's a reason it's has its own name instead of just referring to it as first 2 terms of the binomial expansion. – user2345215 Mar 6 '14 at 22:54

$\sqrt[n]{n}=\sqrt[n]{1\cdot\frac{2}{1}\cdot\frac{3}{2}\dots\cdot\frac{n-1}{n-2}\cdot\frac{n}{n-1}}$ so you have a sequence of geometric means of the sequence $a_{n}=\frac{n}{n-1}$. Therefore its limit is equal to $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n}{n-1}=1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let $n$ be an integer $n>2$ and real $x>0$, the binomial theorem says $$ (1+x)^n>1+nx+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}x^2 $$ Let $N(x)=\max(2,1+\frac{2}{x^2})$. For $n>N(x)$, we get that $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}x^2>n$. Thus, for any $x>0$, we get that for $n>N(x)$ $$ 1<\sqrt[n]{n}<1+x $$ Thus, we have $$ 1\le\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{n}\le\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{n}\le 1+x $$ Since this is true for any $x>0$, we must have $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{n}=1 $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Nitpick: It is not exactly sandwich theorem, as the limits are different ($1$ and $1+x$). You also cannot assume existence of the limit $\lim n^{1/n}$. This is easily corrected though: $\liminf n^{1/n} \ge 1$ and $\limsup n^{1/n} \le 1+x$ for arbitrary $x$ and thus $\lim n^{1/n} = 1$. +1. – Aryabhata Aug 8 '11 at 19:16
@Aryabhata: good point. I had a more complicated proof that did properly use the Sandwich Theorem. I altered it for simplicity, but did so carelessly. I have removed the reference to the Sandwich Theorem and used $\liminf$ and $\limsup$. Thanks. – robjohn Aug 8 '11 at 19:37

Let $n > 1$ so that $n^{1/n} > 1$ and we put $n^{1/n} = 1 + h$ so that $h > 0$ depends on $n$ (but we don't write the dependence explicitly like $h_{n}$ to simplify typing) Our job is done if show that $h \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.

We have $$n = (1 + h)^{n} = 1 + nh + \frac{n(n - 1)}{2}h^{2} + \cdots$$ and hence $$\frac{n(n - 1)}{2}h^{2} < n$$ or $$0 < h^{2} < \frac{2}{n - 1}$$ It follows that $h^{2} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ and hence $h \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.