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.

Without the aid of a computer,how to prove

$$ \frac{1}{13}<\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{3}{4}\cdot \frac{5}{6}\cdot \cdots \cdot \frac{99}{100}<\frac{1}{12} $$

share|improve this question
1  
Note that the middle quantity is really $\frac{100!}{2^{100} (50!)^2} = \frac{1}{2^{100}} {100 \choose 50}$. Then, this amounts to estimating the central binomial coefficient which is done, for example, here. This doesn't quite answer your question, since the bounds given are $ \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{50}}$ and $\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{51}}$, which are slightly worse than $\frac{1}{13}$ and $\frac{1}{12}$. –  JavaMan Mar 6 '13 at 6:14

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Another approach, perhaps simpler:

Let $X = \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{3}{4}\cdot \frac{5}{6}\cdot \cdots \cdot \frac{99}{100}$

We need to show $\dfrac{1}{13} < X < \dfrac{1}{12}$, which is equivalent to showing $144 < \dfrac{1}{X^2} < 169$, and we shall proceed to do this.

For the lower bound, note that we need to show: $$ \frac{2^2}{1} \cdot \frac{4^2}{3^2}\cdot \frac{6^2}{5^2} \cdots \frac{100^2}{99^2} > 144$$

$$\Leftrightarrow \frac{2^2}{1 \cdot 3} \cdot \frac{4^2}{3 \cdot 5}\cdot \frac{6^2}{5 \cdot 7} \cdots \frac{100^2}{99 \cdot 101} > \frac{144}{101} $$

$$\Leftrightarrow \prod_{k=1}^{50} {\frac{(2k)^2}{(2k)^2-1}} > \frac{144}{101} $$

Now all the factors in the LHS are higher than $1$, and converge fairly fast to $1$, so taking the first three terms, we have $\dfrac{4}{3} \cdot \dfrac{16}{15} \cdot \dfrac{36}{35} = \dfrac {256}{175}$ which is easily verified to be higher than $\dfrac{144}{101}$. Hence $X < \dfrac{1}{12}$ is established.

For the other part viz. $\dfrac{1}{X^2} < 169$ the approach is exactly similar, you should get an equivalent inequality of form:
$$ \prod_{k=1}^{49} \frac{2k (2k+2)}{(2k+1)^2} < \frac{169}{200}$$

Similarly, each factor now is less than $1$ and convergence is rapid. So taking the first three terms, we have $\dfrac{1}{X^2} < \dfrac{1024}{1225}$ which is verifiably less than $\dfrac{169}{200} = 0.845$. Hence $\dfrac{1}{13} < X$ is also established.

share|improve this answer

When you multiply up and down in the product by $2 \cdot 4 \cdot 6 \ldots 50$, the product becomes

$$\frac{1}{2^{100}} \binom{100}{50} = \frac{1}{2^{100}} \frac{100!}{(50!)^2}$$

Use Stirling:

$$n! \sim \sqrt{2 \pi n} n^n e^{-n} \left ( 1+ \frac{1}{12 n}\right )$$

for large $n$. We will see what that means: plug in this approximation into the binomial expression above for $n=50$; the result is

$$\frac{1}{2^{100}} \binom{100}{50} \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{50 \pi}} \left ( 1- \frac{1}{400}\right )$$

Note that the product being about $\frac{1}{\sqrt{50 \pi}}$ is accurate to $1$ part in $400$. Now, it is clear that $50 \pi \approx 157$ to within that margin of error. As $157$ falls between $12^2=144$ and $13^2=169$, the assertion is true.

share|improve this answer
3  
"It is clear that..." No, it is not, unless you explain how the error depends on $n$. From what you wrote, it could well be that the two expressions are too far apart for the approximation to be useful, simply because $n=100$ is not "large" enough. –  Andres Caicedo Mar 6 '13 at 6:41
    
@AndresCaicedo: error on top is $(1+1/(24 n))$; error on bottom is $(1+1/(12 n))^2 \approx 1+1/(6 n)$. Ratio of error is then $1-1/(8 n)$, which is where I got my number. But never mind: the "it is clear" remark referred to the fact that $|50 \pi-157|/(50 \pi) < 1/400$, not the approximation that spawned the $1/400$ error estimate. –  Ron Gordon Mar 6 '13 at 6:52
1  
No, that is not the error I am talking about. Instead, I meant $|n!-\mbox{ugly expression}|$. (To be clear: Bounds for this error term are known, and are small enough to apply in the current case. But this needs to be addressed.) –  Andres Caicedo Mar 6 '13 at 6:56
1  
You mean $|n!-\text{ugly expression}|/n! < 1/(288 n^2)$? For $n=50$, this relative error is $1/720000$, which is utterly negligible here. –  Ron Gordon Mar 6 '13 at 7:05

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.