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

I need to find the $\lim_{n\to\infty}\{x_n\}$ where $\{x_n\}$ is defined as $$\{x_n\}_{n\ge1}=n^{\frac{1}{n}}\;,\;n\in \mathbb{N}$$

Now if I had a function $f:\mathbb{R}-\{0\}\to\mathbb{R},\quad f(x)=x^{\frac{1}{x}}$, then I could easily find it's limit as follows: $$f(x)=x^{\frac{1}{x}}\\taking\,natural\,logarithm\,on\,both\,sides\\\ln{f(x)}=\frac{1}{x}\ln(x)\\Let\,\lim_{x\to\infty}\ln{f(x)}=L\;then\\L=\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}\ln(x)\\Applying\;L'Hospital's\;Rule\\L=\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}=0\\\Rightarrow\lim_{x\to\infty}{f(x)}=1$$

Since my sequence is clearly a subset of this function, it's limit is also 1. However, I am worried that this method may not be 'rigrous' enough. Is there any other way to find the limit of this sequence?

P.S: I tried finding the limit using the $\epsilon-N$ definition of a limit, but could not do so.

share|cite|improve this question

Your method is plenty rigorous. If $f(x)\to 1$ as $x\to\infty$, then of course the sequence $f(n)$ also tends to $1$ as $n\to\infty$. Indeed, for any $\epsilon$ there exists an $M$ such that if $x>M$ then $f(x)$ is within $\epsilon$ of $1$. Thus for any $\epsilon$, pick an integer $N>M$, and we will have $f(n)$ within $\epsilon$ of $1$ whenever $n>N$, which is the definition of the limit of a sequence.

share|cite|improve this answer

We can use the fact that if $a_n>0$ for all $n\ge1$ and the sequence $\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}$ converges in $[0,\infty]$, then $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}a_n^{1/n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} $$ (see this question).

We have that $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+1}n=1 $$ and $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}n^{1/n}=1. $$

share|cite|improve this answer

Check out these answers on this site:

Find $\lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{n}$

$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]n = 1$

There was another beautiful solution on this very site that used the AM-GM inequality but I can's seem to find it now. The gist of it was to write,

$$ (n)^{\frac 1 n} = (\sqrt n \cdot \sqrt n \cdot 1 \cdot 1 ... \cdot 1)^{\frac 1 n } \le \dfrac{\sqrt n + \sqrt n + 1 + 1 + . + 1 }{n} = \dfrac{2\sqrt n + n - 2 }{n} = \frac{2}{\sqrt n} - \frac{2}{n} + 1 $$

Now since $ \lim \dfrac{2}{\sqrt n} = \lim \dfrac{2}{n} = 0$, the limit on the right is $0$. Your result follows from applying the squeeze theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer

Alternatively, for $n > 1$ we have $n^{1/n} > 1 $. Using Bernoulli's inequality,

$$n^{1/n} = 1+a_n,\,\, (a_n > 0)\\n = (1+a_n)^n > \frac{n(n-1)a_n^2}{2}$$


$$a_n < \sqrt{\frac{2}{n-1}}< \epsilon$$

for all $n$ sufficiently large, and

$$|n^{1/n}-1| = a_n < \epsilon.$$

share|cite|improve this answer

For your information, the method you used is completely rigorous assuming you know the following fact:

If $\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x) = L$ then the limit of the sequence $f(1)$, $f(2)$, $\dots$ is $L$.

The first limit is taken over real numbers and the second over integers. Try proving this fact if you have not seen it before. Is the converse true?

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.