I am doing a programming exercise (quite an interesting one, actually) on the sequence $\{I_k\}_{k\in\Bbb{N}}$

$$I_k = \int_0^1 x^ke^{x-1} dx$$

and I am also given a - already proven by me - recurrence formula,

$$I_k = 1 - kI_{k-1}$$

and at some point I must show that the $I_k$ go to $0$. I was trying to do it just with the recurrence formula and the fact that $I_1 = \frac1e$, with induction. I tried proving $I_k < \frac{1}{k+1}$ but in proving it I ended up needing to assume that $\frac{1}{k+1} < I_{k-1}$. So basically I wanted to prove

$$\frac{1}{k+2} < I_k < \frac{1}{k+1} \tag{1}$$

I verified it for $k$ up to $10$ so it does feel like it should be true. With induction, proving $I_k < \frac{1}{k+1}$ assuming (1), is trivial. However, when I try to prove $\frac{1}{k+2} < I_k$ I end up with

$$I_{k-1} < \frac{1}{k}\frac{k+1}{k+2}$$

which made me write

$$I_{k-1} < \frac{1}{k}\frac{k+1}{k+2} < \frac{1}{k}, \text{true, by the induction hypothesis}$$

However, I can't do this. I know $I_{k-1}< \frac{1}{k}$ but that does not let me write what I wrote nor prove what I want to prove. Is there anyone out there able to lend me a hand?

The ideal would be to use induction to prove (1).

If I fail to do that, the second ideal thing would be to use induction to prove that the $I_k$, starting at some $k_0$, are bounded by something that does not increase. It can even be a constant. For example, showing $I_k < 1\ \forall k$ would be good enough for my purposes.

Also, if anyone knows if this sequence (or these integrals) has any name, I would be able to better search for things that could help.

  • $\begingroup$ Wait, I'm lost. You want to prove $(1)$, am I correct? Also, hi, haven't seen you in a while :D And particularly, you are stuck on the lower bound? $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jun 4 '17 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ @SimplyBeautifulArt hey :P You are correct, in my last paragraph I got a bit lost in my thoughts. I made it clearer now. Yes, I conjecture that the lower bound is indeed that, but I failed to prove it. $\endgroup$ – RGS Jun 4 '17 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ @RSerrao Hint: $\,0 \lt x^k e^{x-1} \lt 1\,$ for $\,x \in (0,1)\,$. Then the recurrence gives the upper bound directly. $\endgroup$ – dxiv Jun 4 '17 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ Well, using the recurrence relation you found, one may deduce that: $$I_k=\frac{k!}e\left[1-\frac1e\sum_{n=0}^k\frac1{n!}\right]$$ $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jun 4 '17 at 19:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SimplyBeautifulArt Maybe, but $\,0 \lt I_{k-1} \lt 1/k\,$ is enough to prove convergence to $\,0\,$. $\endgroup$ – dxiv Jun 4 '17 at 19:16

(Expanding on my previously posted comments.)

I am also given a - already proven by me - recurrence formula,

$$I_k = 1 - kI_{k-1}$$

Once the recurrence relation is determined, the bounds follow directly from just the positivity of the integrand $\,x^k e^{x-1} \gt 0\,$ for $\,x \gt 0\,$, which immediately implies $\,I_k \gt 0\,$ for all $\forall k \in \mathbb{N}\,$. Therefore:

  • $1 - kI_{k-1}=I_k \gt 0 \implies k I_{k-1} \lt 1 \implies I_{k-1} \lt \cfrac{1}{k} \quad\quad$

  • then, $1 - kI_{k-1}=I_k \lt \cfrac{1}{k+1} \implies k I_{k-1} \gt 1 - \cfrac{1}{k+1}=\cfrac{k}{k+1}\implies I_{k-1} \gt \cfrac{1}{k+1}$

  • $\begingroup$ Once you've got $0 < I_{k-1}< \dfrac 1 k,$ that's enough to prove that $I_k \to 0$ as $k\to\infty.$ If the goal was only to prove that, then you don't need the rest of what you've got here. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jun 4 '17 at 20:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy Right, and that's a point I made in the comments. However, there was some discussion about what the question is really asking for, and the above attempts to cover the other interpretations, too. $\endgroup$ – dxiv Jun 4 '17 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am accepting your answer because it is the one that uses the integral form of $I_k $ the less. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough on the question, but you addressed my issue the way I most wanted it to be addressed, using the recurrence relation to prove the bounds. $\endgroup$ – RGS Jun 5 '17 at 7:04

It is not clear to me whether the question suggests induction or requires it. If induction is merely suggested, then here is an answer which declines the suggestion!

Majorize via $$0 \le x^ke^{x-1} \le x^k\:\ \mbox{for all}\ x\in[0,1].$$ By this, we have that $$ 0 \le I_k = \int_0^1 x^k e^{x-1}\,dx \le \int_0^1 x^k \, dx = \frac 1 {k+1} \to 0 \text{ as } k\to\infty. $$ which I believe does what you want.

(This would fail, of course, if you needed $\sum_k I_k$ to be bounded—but that isn't a fault of the proof but rather of the series. In any case, you have not asked for boundedness in $\sum_k I_k$.)

  • $\begingroup$ A professional engineer rather than a professional mathematician, I am not very handy with notation like $\forall x\in[0,1]$. An engineer would normally write $0 \le x \le 1$ and, if necessary, write "for all" out in words. If my notation is imperfect, corrections would be appreciated. $\endgroup$ – thb Jun 4 '17 at 19:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Write whatever is legible. If that means more words, so be it. I'd phrase it as "for all $x \in [0,1]$" or "for all $x$ with $0 \leq x \leq 1$", without really preferring one over the other; I tend to avoid the $\forall$ symbol except in formal logic, because it's just a bit less readable. $\endgroup$ – Patrick Stevens Jun 4 '17 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @thb : I would write this as follows: $$ 0 \le \int_0^1 x^k e^{x-1}\,dx \le \int_0^1 x^k \, dx = \frac 1 {k+1} \to 0 \text{ as } k\to\infty. $$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jun 4 '17 at 21:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @thb : I wonder why you write $x^k e^{x-1} \le x^k e^1$ when you could just go with $x^k e^{x-1} \le x^k. \qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jun 4 '17 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy: corrected, thanks. $\endgroup$ – thb Jun 4 '17 at 21:40

$$I_k = \int_0^1 x^ke^{x-1} \, dx$$

Directly from the integral:

$$\frac1{e} \lt e^{x-1} \lt 1 $$ so $$\frac1{e(k+1)} \lt I_k \lt \frac1{k+1}. $$

Since $e^{x-1} > x$ (because $e^z > 1+z$), $I_k > \int_0^1 x^kx \,dx =\frac1{k+2} $. This is what you wanted.

Trying to be more precise:

Interpolating at $0$ and $1$, since $(e^{x-1})'' > 0$, $e^{x-1} \lt (1-\frac1{e})x+\frac1{e} $, so

\begin{align} I_k &\lt \int_0^1 x^k \left(\left(1-\frac1 e\right)x+\frac 1 e\right) \, dx\\ &=\left(1-\frac 1 e\right)\frac1{k+2}+\frac1{e(k+1)}\\ &=\frac1{k+2}+\frac1{e(k+1)(k+2)} \end{align}

so that $0 \lt I_k-\frac1{k+2} \lt \frac1{e(k+1)(k+2)} $.

Let $d(x) =(1-\frac1{e})x+\frac1{e}-e^{x-1} =(1-\frac1{e})x+\frac1{e}(1-e^{x}) $. $d(0) = d(1) = 0$ and $d'(x) =(1-\frac1{e})-e^{x-1} =0 $ when

\begin{align} x &=x_0\\ &=1+\ln(1-\frac1{e})\\ &=1+\ln(e-1)-1\\ &=\ln(e-1)\\ &\approx 0.54132\\ \end{align}

where $d(x_0) = \frac1{e}(2 - e + (e - 1) \ln(e - 1)) \approx 0.077941 $.

Therefore $e^{x-1} \ge d(x)-d(x_0) $ so $I_k \ge \frac1{k+1}-(1-\frac1{e})\frac1{(k+1)(k+2)}-d(x_0) $.

That's enough for now.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I did enjoy the way you manipulated the integral to provide me with a lower bound, and in particular with the lower bound I could not prove. $\endgroup$ – RGS Jun 5 '17 at 7:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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