| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 25 Mar 2008 14:15:26 IST
|
|
|
isnt tht obvious??
i mean when n-> inf no diff bet n and n+1..
but threr is a prob...wat if both r infinity??
then v have inf-inf which is indeterminate :\
|
Nitwit Blubber Odment Tweak
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
25 Mar 2008 14:28:54 IST
|
|
|
Is the answer -1 or 1?
Almost done, but it's troublesome
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
* Gaurav Ragtah ( aka Artemis Fowl )
* Agent 'G' [sniper] - SD-6 (Alliance of Twelve)
* Your friendly neighborhood spideyunlimited |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
26 Mar 2008 13:25:00 IST
|
|
|
Answer is 1/e.
|
    
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 09:15:05 IST
|
|
|
For the 4th question, edited (made a horrible mistake) For the 5th one, By Stirling's formula  is approximately equal to  , so it looks like  should be approximately  . But this looks like a very tricky thing to establish with a rigorous proof.. What is the source of the problem?
|
Guide to latex:
http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/community-shelf-a-guide-to-latex-48056.htm
|
this reply: 15 points
(with 3
in 3 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 09:17:28 IST
|
|
|
nice one :) i didnt know sterling's apprx though ive seen it being used before. There must be another way out though
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 09:20:22 IST
|
|
|
its pretty simple. it states that  so that is approximately n/e.
|
Guide to latex:
http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/community-shelf-a-guide-to-latex-48056.htm
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 09:25:20 IST
|
|
|
yeah this is where i had seen it :)
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 10:37:02 IST
|
|
|
rohit i thot rok said 4th 1 is not 0???
thts wat even i got n u guessed
|
Nitwit Blubber Odment Tweak
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 10:53:56 IST
|
|
|
yes its 1/e as rock said n koni proved :) n even i had the same method as u had man but that apprx isnt clearly valid as i though tbefore
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 11:14:10 IST
|
|
|
read proprerly Koni says 1/e for 5th question
and 0 for 4th q...
i said 0 for 4th q only...but rok said thts wrong...
|
Nitwit Blubber Odment Tweak
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 11:17:38 IST
|
|
|
think he's mixed up the question numbers thats all bcos what he said as the 5th in reality seems to be the 4th :)
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 11:28:31 IST
|
|
|
from where do you people get the formula for sterling's approximation and all that??
|
"I a universe of atoms.......an atom in the universe" |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 11:42:28 IST
|
|
|
i have already shown one plausible source  Well neway, the rest can be answered by koni himself
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 15:46:22 IST
|
|
|
i happened to come across this limit somewhere (maybe in one of my parent's books)  . My proffessor told me about sterling's approximation and used it to prove the limit.
|
Guide to latex:
http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/community-shelf-a-guide-to-latex-48056.htm
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 15:47:35 IST
|
|
|
Moderation Team
![[Up]](/templates/default/images/icon_up.gif "[Up]"){kind=icon}
