Let's say that we have $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log a_n \, = \, a$. My professor said that this is equivalent to $a_n \sim \exp(na)$ for $n$ large. Intuitively it makes sense but I cannot really do the algebra to get the result. I must show that $a_n = \exp(na)(1+o(1))$ for $n$ large, right ? Could someone help me with this ?

What I can do so far is to say that the limit above is equivalent to $\frac{1}{n}\log a_n \, - \, a = o(1)$ for $n$ large, which then gives $a_n= \exp(n(a+o(1))$ for $n$ large. How is my result related to the one my prof said ? is it weaker or is it the same ?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I believe this is what your prof meant. By saying $a_n\sim \exp (na)$ he was saying that $a_n = \exp(na + no(1))$ and not that $a_n=\exp(na)(1+o(1))$. The latter is a stronger assertion and it's false. If you take $a_n= e^{na+\sqrt{n}}$ then $\frac{1}{n}\log a_n\rightarrow a$ but it's not satisfying that $a_n=\exp(na)(1+o(1))$. $\endgroup$ – Yanko Jan 13 at 11:30

Considering that $a_n \sim \exp(na) \iff \lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{a_n }{\exp(na)}=1 $, the assertion is wrong:

$$ \frac{a_n}{\exp(na)}=\exp\left(n \left(\frac{\log a_n}{n}-a\right)\right)=e^{ng(n)}$$ with $g(n)=\frac{\log a_n}{n}-a$. You are told that $\frac{1}{n}\log a_n \, \to \, a \implies g(n)\to 0$, but you need more than that, you need $g(n)=o(1/n)$.


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.