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


Why does this go to 0? Why can I not just divide each item in the fraction by n and assume it would go to 1?

share|cite|improve this question
Aah! lengthy answers pays! – ABC Apr 4 '13 at 15:12

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^{n^2} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\underbrace{\left(1 - \frac 2 n\right)^n}_{\to e^{-2}}\right)^n = 0$$

Edit: Since what I'm doing does not seem kosher (see the comments), I'll explain: If the "inner" limit had been $1$, then indeed this argument fails. However, if it goes to something strictly between $0$ and $1$, then the argument is fine, and it arises from an implicit use of the sandwich rule. (After you do this sort of thing a lot, you tend to leave these details unwritten.)

Here is a more accurate solution: First of all, we have $$\lim_{n \to\infty} \left(1-\frac 2 n\right)^n = e^{-2}$$ Therefore, for large enough $n$, we have $$\left(1-\frac 2 n\right)^n < c$$ where $c$ is any constant you like strictly between $e^{-2}$ and $1$. Therefore, we have (for large enough $n$), $$0 \le \left( \frac {n-2} n \right) ^{n^2} < c^n \to 0$$ which by the sandwich rule implies the required result.

share|cite|improve this answer
Now time to convince myself that I'm not actually stupid. – Paul Mar 21 '13 at 9:41
You're not stupid :) – Yoni Rozenshein Mar 21 '13 at 9:43
@YoniRozenshein Sorry but your method is wrong: you can't pass to limit in just on one part of the expression and this is a counterexample: your method gives $\lim_{n\to\infty} (\underbrace{1 - \frac 1 n}_{\to 1})^n=1$ and this obviously wrong. – user63181 Mar 21 '13 at 10:36
@SamiBenRomdhane I agree I have seen questions ending up wrong when we use limit in a single part without putting value in every variable present – ABC Mar 21 '13 at 13:11
@SamiBenRomdhane, you cannot use this when the limit goes to 1 but you can when it goes to less than 1. I will edit my answer to explain this. – Yoni Rozenshein Mar 21 '13 at 14:04

A subtlety not fully appreciated by many beginning calculus students worldwide is that all occurences of the variable (here $n$) are tied together. In other words they go to infinity hand-in-hand. There are many occasions, where the limit processes can be separated, and done one at a time, but there are THEOREMS governing those situations. Yes, they look trivial, their proofs are usually not very difficult, but yet they are powerful! Because they tell that we can, in a way, treat some occurences of the variable $n$ as if the others did not exist.

For the purposes of explaining this difficulty I will study a different limit, namely $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^n. $$ Many a beginning student wants to conclude that the fraction tends to $1$, and thus the answer should also be $1$, because the limit of $1^n$ as $n\to\infty$ is (quite correctly!) equal to $1$. But effectively these students are calculating an iterated limit $$ \lim_{m\to\infty}\left(\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{n-2}n\right)\right)^m, $$ because they first study what happens to fraction $(n-2)/n$, and only then consider the effect of raising the result to a high power. So the justification is exactly the one you proffered in your OP, and it is correct for this iterated limit. Observe that here first $n$, then $m$ tends to infinity. I indicated this by using parentheses to make it clear that $n\to\infty$ first (first working inside the parens).

But we might also approach this differently, and reverse the order of the two limit process, and study the following limit $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\lim_{m\to\infty}\left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^m\right) $$ instead. Here a student could (again correctly) argue that w.l.o.g. we can assume that $n>2$. Therefore the fraction $(n-2)/n$ is between $0$ and $1$. If $q\in(0,1)$, then we know (perhaps a result derived in connection with a geometric series?) that $$ \lim_{m\to\infty}q^m=0. $$ As this works for all $n>2$, the answer to this limit question should be $\lim_{n\to\infty}0=0$. Again, this reasoning is correct, and applies to the limit process, where first $m$ and only then $n$ tends to infinity.

Yet we know from our studies revolving around the Napier's constant $e$ that the answer to the limit $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^n=e^{-2}, $$ i.e. neither zero nor one but something in-between.

What went wrong? We forgot that the $n$ that we plug in when calculating the value of the fraction $(n-2)/n$ is the same as the exponent $n$. But why should we care, a student may cry? How is this any different from a calculation like $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+3}{2n-7}\cdot\frac{3n+5}{n-4}, $$ where we CAN calculate it like $$ \lim_{m\to\infty}\left(\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+3}{2n-7}\cdot\frac{3m+5}{m-4}\right)=\left(\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+3}{2n-7}\right)\cdot\left(\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{3m+5}{m-4}\right)=\frac12\cdot\frac31=\frac32? $$ Well, that's exactly because there is a theorem saying that when $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=A$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n=B$, and BOTH $A$ and $B$ are real numbers, i.e. not infinities, then we also have $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_nb_n=AB$. That result is very simple. And there is a similar result for the powers: $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n^{b_n}=A^B$ (provided that $A>0$). But this only applies to (finite) real numbers $A,B$. If you try to apply this result to the sequence $$ \left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^n, $$ you see that the premises do not hold, because here the exponents tend to infinity as opposed to some number $B$. Therefore we must look for a different approach.

This kind of subtleties are the reason, why the calculus textbooks devote a lot of time to the so called indeterminate (is that the correct English term?) cases such as $0/0$, $\infty/\infty$, $\infty\cdot0$, $1^\infty$, where the usual shortcuts cannot be justified by a suitable theorem (because no such theorem exists, and the answer always `depends').

share|cite|improve this answer
Sorry about the longish rant. I'll be teaching freshman calculus to physics majors again next fall, so I'm testing how this kind of an explanation is received :-/ – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 21 '13 at 10:41
You're going to be a great teacher :) – Yoni Rozenshein Mar 21 '13 at 14:17
(To answer your question about "indeterminate": yes, this is indeed perfectly good English.) – Aant Mar 21 '13 at 14:36

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^{n^2}=\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{n^2\log(1-2/n)}=\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{n^2.(-2/n)}=\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{-2n}=0$$

share|cite|improve this answer
You should write $e^{n^2\left(-\frac{2}{n}-\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{2}{n} \right)^2-\dots\right). }$. – Mhenni Benghorbal Mar 21 '13 at 14:15

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{n-2}n\right)^\left(n^2\right)$$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1 -2/n\right)^{n^2}$$ $$e^{\lim_{n\to\infty}\left({\left(\frac{-2}{n}\right)}\times n^2\right)}$$ $$e^{-\infty} =0;$$

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.