Asymptotic analysis — the art of replacing a complicated quantity by a simple one plus a controlled error — was begun in the Year 1 volume with Taylor expansions. This chapter makes it a discipline of its own: expansions along general scales, the series–integral comparison with its full asymptotic force, Stirling’s formula (proved completely), and the systematic study of implicitly defined sequences. These techniques are the daily bread of asymptotic analysis, and every later chapter that estimates anything — series, integrals, probabilities — eats from this table.
6.1 Comparison relations and scales
Definition 6.1
Near a point a (a∈R or ±∞), for functions (or sequences, with n→∞): f=o(g), f=O(g), f∼g as in the Year 1 volume. A comparison scale at a is a family of positive functions, pairwise comparable, totally ordered by o(⋅) — the standard scale at +∞ being
xα(lnx)β(α,β∈R),
ordered lexicographically in (α,β), refined when needed by exponentials eγx.
Definition 6.2(Asymptotic expansion)
f admits the asymptotic expansion
f=c1φ1+c2φ2+⋯+ckφk+o(φk)(φi+1=o(φi) in the scale)
when the successive remainders satisfy the displayed estimates. The coefficients are then unique: c1=limf/φ1, and inductively ci+1=lim(f−∑j≤icjφj)/φi+1.
Example 6.3
Taylor expansions are asymptotic expansions along the scale (x−a)k at a. But the notion is strictly wider: at +∞,
x−lnx1=x1⋅1−xlnx1=x1+x2lnx+o(x2lnx),
an expansion along the mixed scale — no Taylor theorem applies, only the geometric expansion and the calculus of o’s.
Example 6.4(The standard scale is really ordered)
The lexicographic claim of Definition 6.1 needs one line of proof per case. Compare xα(lnx)β and xα′(lnx)β′ at +∞. If α<α′: the ratio is xα−α′(lnx)β−β′→0, because a negative power of x crushes any power of lnx (set x=et: e(α−α′)ttβ−β′→0 by the exponential-beats-polynomial limit of the Year 1 volume). If α=α′ and β<β′: the ratio is (lnx)β−β′→0 directly. So the pairs (α,β), ordered lexicographically, order the scale by o(⋅) — and the substitution x=et is the one-size-fits-all trick for mixed power-log comparisons.
Example 6.5(Ranking a menagerie)
Scales must be ordered; here is the standard drill. At +∞, compare n10, elnn⋅n, 2n and nlnn by taking logarithms:
10lnn≪(lnn)2≪nlnn≪nln2,
where an≪bn means an=o(bn); the second entry is ln(nlnn). Exponentials preserve these strict gaps (if lnun−lnvn→−∞ then un/vn→0), so
n10=o(nlnn),nlnn=o(enlnn),enlnn=o(2n).
The moral, twice over: always compare through logarithms (differences of logs, not ratios of logs), and never conclude un∼vn from lnun∼lnvn — the pair n10 and nlnn has ln-ratio tending to ∞, but 2n and 4n have ln-ratio exactly 2 and are wildly inequivalent.
6.2 Series–integral comparison, asymptotically
Theorem 6.6
Let f be continuous, positive, decreasing on [1,+∞).
If ∫1∞f converges, the remainders satisfy
∫n+1∞f≤k>n∑f(k)≤∫n∞f.
If ∫1∞f diverges, the partial sums satisfy ∑k=1nf(k)=∫1nf+C+o(1) for some constant C: the difference ∑k≤nf(k)−∫1nfconverges.
Proof. The bracketing f(k+1)≤∫kk+1f≤f(k) (decrease) was the Year 1 device; summing over k≥n+1, resp. k≥n, gives (1). For (2), set uk=f(k)−∫kk+1f: by the bracketing, 0≤uk≤f(k)−f(k+1), so the partial sums of ∑uk are bounded by the telescoping f(1)−f(n+1)≤f(1): the series converges. Moreover the sequence (∫nn+1f)n is nonincreasing (f decreases) and nonnegative, hence convergent. Writing
k=1∑nf(k)−∫1nf=k=1∑nuk+∫nn+1f,
the right side converges as n→∞: the difference converges to a constant C, which is statement (2). ∎
Example 6.7(The harmonic expansion)
For f(t)=t1: Hn=lnn+γ+o(1), recovering Euler’s constant (Year 1 volume) with a cleaner proof. Pushing one order further (Exercise 6.3):
Hn=lnn+γ+2n1+o(n1).
Numbers make the gain visible at n=10: H10=2.928968… and ln10=2.302585…, so the raw estimate of γ is H10−ln10=0.626383, off by 0.049; subtracting the correction 201 gives 0.576383, off from γ=0.577216 by only 8.3⋅10−4 — which is itself the next term 12⋅1001 of the expansion, as the weekend problem proves (question 8).
Example 6.8(A crude ln(n!) without Stirling)
The bracketing device alone already locates ln(n!). Since ln increases,
∫k−1klntdt≤lnk≤∫kk+1lntdt,
and summing over k=2,…,n (with ∫1nln=nlnn−n+1):
nlnn−n+1≤ln(n!)≤(n+1)ln(n+1)−n.
Both fences are nlnn−n+O(lnn): hence ln(n!)=nlnn−n+O(lnn), and in particular ln(n!)∼nlnn. What Stirling adds is the next two rungs — the 21lnn and the constant ln2π — which cost the finer telescoping of Theorem 6.13. Knowing which precision each tool buys is half of asymptotic craft.
Example 6.9(Cancellation demands expansions)
Compute the limit of n2+n−n. Both terms are ∼n, and “∼n−n” is meaningless: equivalents cannot be subtracted. Expand instead:
limit 21, with the approach speed 8n1 as a bonus. The mechanism deserves a name: a difference of two large equivalent quantities lives entirely in their next terms, so one must expand to the first order at which the two sides differ — and carry the remainder to certify that nothing else survives at that order.
Example 6.10(A divergent comparison, worked)
For f(t)=tlnt1 on [2,+∞) (continuous, positive, decreasing): ∫2xf=lnlnx−lnln2→∞, so by Theorem 6.6 (2),
k=2∑nklnk1=lnlnn+C+o(1)
for some constant C. Two lessons. First, the divergence is real but glacial: the partial sum first exceeds 4 around n≈ee4−C, astronomically large. Second, the shapelnlnn was delivered by an antiderivative, not guessed: for monotone terms, the integral is the canonical summing device, and the constant C — like Euler’s γ — is the memory of the initial terms.
6.3 Stirling’s formula
Lemma 6.11(Wallis integrals, revisited)
Let Wn=∫0π/2sinntdt. Then nWnWn−1=2π for n≥1, (Wn) decreases, and Wn∼2nπ.
Proof. Integration by parts gives nWn=(n−1)Wn−2 (n≥2), so nWnWn−1 is constant in n, equal to 1⋅W1W0=2π. Decrease: sinn+1≤sinn on [0,2π]. The squeeze, in detail: monotonicity gives Wn+1≤Wn≤Wn−1, and dividing by Wn−1>0,
n+1n=Wn−1Wn+1≤Wn−1Wn≤1,
the left identity from the recurrence at index n+1. Both bounds tend to 1: Wn∼Wn−1, whence
nWn2∼nWnWn−1=2π⟹Wn∼2nπ.
∎
Example 6.12(The first Wallis integrals)
From W0=2π, W1=1 and the recurrence nWn=(n−1)Wn−2:
W2=4π,W3=32,W4=163π,W5=158,W6=325π.
Even indices carry a π, odd ones are rational — the two interleaved products of the closed forms. Numerically W6≈0.4909 against the asymptotic π/12≈0.5116: at n=6 the equivalent is already within 5%, and the product identity is exact at every n: 6W6W5=6⋅325π⋅158=2π. Small tables like this one are the cheapest way to catch an algebra slip before it infects an asymptotic argument.
Theorem 6.13(Stirling)
n!∼2πn(en)n.
Proof.Step 1: n!∼Cn(n/e)n for some constant C>0. Set
by the Taylor expansion of ln(1+n1). The series ∑(dn−dn+1) thus converges absolutely (comparison with ∑n−2), so (dn) converges, say to d; exponentiating, n!∼Cn(n/e)n with C=ed.
Step 2: C=2π via Wallis. The closed form W2p=4p(p!)2(2p)!⋅2π (from the recurrence, Year 1 computation redone in Lemma 6.11’s setting) combines with Step 1:
the probability that a symmetric random walk returns to 0 at time 2n is ∼πn1 — an announcement of Chapter 22.
Remark 6.15(Perspectives within this volume)
Every quantitative chapter ahead speaks this chapter’s language. Chapter 7 classifies series by comparing terms to the scale n−α(lnn)−β — its weekend problem maps that frontier completely. Chapter 9 does the same for improper integrals, with the identical scale in the continuous variable. Chapter 11 computes radii of convergence from limsup∣an∣1/n, an equivalent-of-n-th-roots exercise where Stirling is the standard key (nn!∼en, Exercise 6.4). And the probability chapters cash Stirling directly: the local estimates of Chapter 22 for binomial coefficients are Example 6.14 and Example 6.21 verbatim. Asymptotics is not a chapter here; it is the volume’s accent.
Method 6.16(The bootstrap checklist)
Before trusting a bootstrapped expansion, audit four points. (1) Existence first: the root or sequence must be pinned down (monotonicity, intermediate values) before any expansion — symbols without referents expand beautifully and mean nothing. (2) One order per pass: each substitution may only be trusted to the order of the estimate fed in; extracting two new terms from one pass is the classic source of wrong coefficients. (3) Remainders ride along: carry the o(⋅) through every algebraic step and let absorption (smaller terms swallowed by larger remainders) happen at the end, explicitly. (4) Numerical audit: evaluate at one honest value of n; a coefficient error survives algebraic re-derivation surprisingly often, and almost never survives arithmetic.
Remark 6.17(Common pitfalls)
(i) Equivalents add badly: from un∼n+lnn and vn∼−n one may not conclude un+vn∼lnn; cancellations demand expansions with explicit remainders, never bare equivalents. (ii) Never exponentiate an equivalence: n+1∼n but en+1∼en; the safe direction is taking logarithms of equivalents tending to +∞ (this chapter’s weekend problem, question 24). (iii) An asymptotic expansion is attached to a scale: writing f=x1+o(x21) claims more than f=x1+o(x1), and mixing the two invalidates subsequent algebra. (iv) In bootstraps, substitute the whole current expansion, remainder included — dropping an o(⋅) mid-pass produces plausible but wrong coefficients. (v) The series–integral comparison needs monotonicity: for oscillating terms it fails outright (compare ∑ksink, Chapter 7).
Example 6.18(Stirling in numbers)
At n=10: the formula gives 20π(10/e)10≈3598696 against 10!=3628800: relative error 8.3⋅10−3, remarkable for an “asymptotic” statement at n=10. The error has a structure — the exact refinement n!=2πn(n/e)n(1+12n1+O(n−2)) — whose first correction 1201≈8.3⋅10−3 explains the observed gap almost exactly. The weekend problem’s Euler–Maclaurin machinery is precisely the systematic source of such correction terms.
Remark 6.19(Where this chapter is used)
Asymptotic comparison is the grammar of everything quantitative downstream: the convergence tests and Bertrand panorama of Chapter 7, the integrability criteria of Chapter 9, the radius-of-convergence computations of Chapter 11, and the limit theorems of Chapter 22 (where Stirling runs the de Moivre–Laplace estimates). The Year 3 volume industrializes the one idea we prove by hand here — extract the main term, bound the rest — into the Laplace method and dominated convergence.
Example 6.20(An integral compared to itself: ∫2xlntdt)
The comparison toolbox also runs on integrals. Let F(x)=∫2xlntdt (the integrand is continuous on [2,∞)). Integrate by parts:
Hence F(x)∼lnxx. Readers who met the prime number theorem in this chapter’s weekend problem will recognize F: it is the logarithmic integral, the better estimator of π(x), and the computation shows it agrees with lnxx to first order.
Example 6.21(Stirling on a lopsided binomial)
The same three-factorial routine as for Example 6.14 gives, for (n3n)=n!(2n)!(3n)!:
The exponential rate 427=2233 is e3nH(1/3) in the entropy notation of information theory: lopsided binomials grow strictly slower than the central 4n per two steps — here (27/4)1/3≈1.89<2 per step. Every binomial asymptotic in combinatorics and probability (Chapter 22) is this one computation with different weights.
6.4 Implicitly defined sequences
Method 6.22
To find the asymptotics of solutions xn of an equation F(x,n)=0:
Localize: prove existence and uniqueness of xn in a definite interval (monotonicity, intermediate value theorem), and find its crude behavior (limit, order of growth).
Bootstrap: substitute the crude form xn=(main term)(1+εn) into the equation and solve for the next order of εn; repeat, each pass refining one order.
Example 6.23
For n≥1, the equation tanx=x has exactly one solution xn in (nπ−2π,nπ+2π) (the function tanx−x increases from −∞ to +∞ there, its derivative being tan2x≥0). Crude:xn=nπ+2π−yn with yn∈(0,π); since xn→∞ and tanxn=xn→+∞, xn approaches the asymptote from the left: yn→0. Bootstrap:tanxn=cotyn=tanyn1∼yn1, and the equation cotyn=xn∼nπ gives yn∼nπ1. Hence
xn=nπ+2π−nπ1+o(n1),
and the process continues to any order (Exercise 6.6).
Example 6.24(A second run of the method)
Solve x+lnx=n asymptotically. Localize:x↦x+lnx increases from −∞ to +∞ on (0,+∞): a unique root xn, and xn→∞. Crude:lnxn=o(xn) gives xn∼n. Bootstrap: from xn=n−lnxn and lnxn=lnn+o(1) (logarithms of equivalents, both sides →∞):
xn=n−lnn+o(1);
one more pass, with lnxn=ln(n−lnn+o(1))=lnn−nlnn+o(nlnn):
xn=n−lnn+nlnn+o(nlnn).
(Check at n=100: the root is x≈95.4415; the three-term formula gives 100−4.6052+0.0461=95.4409, the two-term one 95.3948 — each pass gains the predicted order.) Same loop, third landscape: the method of Method 6.22 does not care what the equation looks like, only that each pass isolates the dominant unknown.
6.5 Exercises
Exercise 6.1★
Expand at +∞, two terms beyond the leading one:
x2+x+1,ln(x2+x)−2lnx,x−lnxx+sinx.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.1.
x2+x+1=x1+x1+x21=x+21+83⋅x1+o(x1) (binomial expansion: 21u−81u2 with u=x1+x21 gives 2x1+2x21−8x21=2x1+8x23, then multiply by x).
Order the contributions on the scale at +∞: xlnx≫x1≥xsinx≫x2(lnx)2. The two terms after the leading 1 are therefore xlnx, then the bounded-oscillation term xsinx:
x−lnxx+sinx=1+xlnx+xsinx+O(x2(lnx)2).
Exercise 6.2★
Give the nature (convergence/divergence) and, when divergent, the leading asymptotics of ∑k≤nkα for α>−1, α=−1, α<−1, via Theorem 6.6.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.2.
f(t)=tα (t≥1).
α>−1: divergence, and by Theorem 6.6 (2), ∑k≤nkα=α+1nα+1+C+o(1) if α<0 (where f decreases); for α≥0 (f increasing) the same bracketing with reversed inequalities gives ∑k≤nkα∼α+1nα+1.
For n≥2, prove that xn+x=1 has a unique solution xn∈(0,1), that xn→1, and establish
xn=1−nlnn+o(nlnn).
(From xnn=1−xn: take logarithms and bootstrap with xn=1−εn.)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.5.
g(x)=xn+x−1 increases strictly on [0,1] from −1 to 1: unique root xn. Since xnn=1−xn∈(0,1): if xn≤c<1 along a subsequence, then xnn≤cn→0, so 1−xn→0: contradiction with xn≤c. Hence xn→1.
Write xn=1−εn, εn→0+. The equation reads (1−εn)n=εn, i.e.
nln(1−εn)=lnεn⟹−nεn(1+o(1))=lnεn.
So nεn=−lnεn(1+o(1))→+∞, and taking logarithms again: lnn+lnεn=ln(−lnεn)+o(1). Since ln(−lnεn)=o(ln(1/εn)), this gives lnεn∼−lnn, whence εn=n−lnεn(1+o(1))∼nlnn:
So 1≤n!1∑k!≤1+n2: the limit is 1. Refining: n!(n−1)!=n1 and the crude bound ∑k≤n−2k!≤(n−1)! can be sharpened the same way: ∑k≤n−2k!=(n−2)!(1+O(n1))=O(n2n!). Hence
k=0∑nk!=n!(1+n1+O(n21)).
Exercise 6.8★★★
Let u0>0 and un+1=un+un1. Prove that un→∞, then that un∼2n(study un2: its increments are 2+un−2; sum), and refine:
un=2n(1+8nlnn+o(nlnn)).
(From un2=2n+∑k<nuk−2+u02 and uk2∼2k: the sum is ∼21lnn by Theorem 6.6.)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.8.
(un) increases; if bounded it would converge to ℓ with ℓ=ℓ+ℓ1: absurd. So un→∞.
Squares: un+12=un2+2+un−2, so
un2=u02+2n+k=0∑n−1uk21.
The sum is o(n) (terms tend to 0, Cesàro), so un2∼2n and un∼2n.
Refinement: uk21∼2k1, so by comparison (Theorem 6.6, or equivalents of partial sums of positive series) ∑k<nuk−2∼21lnn. Hence
(A Riemann sum with a twist) Determine the asymptotic behavior of
Sn=k=1∑nn+klnn1.
(Factor n: Sn=n1∑k(1+nklnn)−1; recognize a Riemann-type sum with a slowly varying parameter t=lnn, compute ∫011+tudu=tln(1+t), and conclude Sn∼lnnlnlnn.)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.9.
Factor n and set t=lnn:
Sn=n1k=1∑n1+tnk1.
For fixed t, the sum is a Riemann sum of u↦1+tu1 on [0,1]; the function is monotone in u, so the Riemann sum is bracketed by the integral shifted by one mesh:
∫011+tudu−n1≤Sn≤∫011+tudu+n1
(comparison of a monotone function’s Riemann sums with its integral, valid for each n with its own t=lnn). Now ∫011+tudu=tln(1+t), and n1=o(tlnt): hence
Sn=lnnln(1+lnn)+O(n1)∼lnnlnlnn.
Exercise 6.10★
Prove the identity (lnn)lnn=nlnlnn, then rank the following in increasing o(⋅) order at infinity, with proofs: n2, (lnn)lnn, 2n, n!, nn.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.10.
Identity: (lnn)lnn=elnnlnlnn=(elnn)lnlnn=nlnlnn. Ranking: compare logarithms. ln(n2)=2lnn; ln((lnn)lnn)=lnnlnlnn; ln(2n)=nln2; ln(n!)=nlnn−n+O(lnn) (Stirling, or the cruder bracketing lnn!∼nlnn); ln(nn)=nlnn. Since 2lnn=o(lnnlnlnn), lnnlnlnn=o(n), nln2=o(nlnn−n), and nlnn−n∼nlnn but n!/nn→0 (the difference of logs is −n+O(lnn)→−∞):
n2=o((lnn)lnn),(lnn)lnn=o(2n),2n=o(n!),n!=o(nn).
(For each step: the difference of logarithms tends to +∞, so the ratio tends to 0.)
Exercise 6.11★★
(Tail of ∑1/k2, two terms) Using the exact telescoping ∑k>nk(k+1)1=n+11 and the decomposition k21=k(k+1)1+k2(k+1)1, prove
k>n∑k21=n1−2n21+O(n31).
Solution
Solution of Exercise 6.11.
Decompose k21=k(k+1)1+k2(k+1)1 and sum for k>n:
k>n∑k21=n+11+k>n∑k2(k+1)1,
the first sum telescoping exactly (k(k+1)1=k1−k+11). For the second: k2(k+1)1=k31+O(k41) (since k2(k+1)1−k31=k3(k+1)−1), and by the integral comparison ∑k>nk31=2n21+O(n31), ∑k>nk41=O(n31). Hence
Summing vk+1−vk=1+O(1) first gives vn=n+O(n), hence vn≥cn eventually; re-summing with 2vk1=O(k1) gives vn=n+O(lnn). One more pass: 2vk1=2k1(1+O(klnk)), so
6.6 Problem: Bootstrapping, from Euler–Maclaurin to the Primes
An implicit or accumulated quantity rarely hands over its asymptotics at once; one extracts them in passes, each pass feeding the previous estimate back into the defining relation. This weekend problem trains that loop on fresh equations, proves the first-order Euler–Maclaurin formula (the trapezoid upgrade of the series–integral comparison, with rigorous error bars), inverts xlnx=n, and cashes the method’s most famous cheque: from the admitted prime number theorem, the asymptotic law pn∼nlnn of the n-th prime.
Problem 6.1
Weekend problem — the Euler–Maclaurin correction and the asymptotics of the n-th prime
Part I — The bootstrap loop on a fresh equation.
Prove the uniqueness claim of Definition 6.2: if f=∑i≤kciφi+o(φk)=∑i≤kci′φi+o(φk) along the same scale, then ci=ci′ for all i. Then push the course’s mixed example one rung further:
x−lnx1=x1+x2lnx+x3(lnx)2+o(x3(lnx)2)(x→+∞),
and explain why no term x2c appears.
Show that for every n≥1 the equation ex+x=n has exactly one real solution xn, and that xn→+∞ with xn∼lnn.
Bootstrap twice:
xn=lnn−nlnn−2n2(lnn)2+o(n2(lnn)2).
Check numerically at n=1000: compare x1000≈6.90083 with the one-, two- and three-term values of question 3, to five decimals.
Part II — Euler–Maclaurin, order one.
Prove the trapezoid kernel identity: for g of class C2 on [0,1],
∫01g(t)dt=2g(0)+g(1)−21∫01t(1−t)g′′(t)dt
(integrate 21t(1−t)g′′ by parts twice).
Let f be C2 on [1,+∞) with ∫1∞∣f′′∣<∞. Show that
En=k=1∑nf(k)−∫1nf−2f(1)+f(n)
converges to a constant E, with the tail bound ∣E−En∣≤81∫n∞∣f′′∣: the Euler–Maclaurin formula to first order.
Extract the next coefficient: show εn=−12n21+o(n21)(the increments of En are 21∫01t(1−t)f′′(n+t)dt=121f′′(n)+o(f′′(n)); sum the tail with Theorem 6.6).
Apply question 6 to f=ln: re-derive in three lines the convergence of dn=lnn!−(n+21)lnn+n (Step 1 of Theorem 6.13), with the bonus error rate dn=d+O(n1).
Apply question 6 to f(t)=t1: show
k=1∑nk1=2n+c+2n1+O(n3/21)
for some constant c, and evaluate all terms at n=104 (the constant is c≈−1.4604).
Part III — Inversion: the equation xlnx=n.
Show that xlnx=n has exactly one solution xn∈[1,+∞) for n≥1, that xn→∞, and that lnxn∼lnn.
Deduce the one-term inversion xn∼lnnn, then bootstrap once more:
Test at n=106: the true root is x≈87848; compare with the one-term (≈72382) and two-term (≈86140) values, and explain the slow gain (the expansion parameter is lnnlnlnn, only ≈0.19 at n=106).
We now admit the prime number theorem: the number π(x) of primes ≤x satisfies π(x)∼lnxx as x→∞ (proved honestly in the Year 3 volume). Writing pn for the n-th prime, justify π(pn)=n, and run the inversion of questions 11–12 to prove
pn∼nlnn.
Dividends: (a) show ∑k≤npk∼2n2lnn(compare ∑klnk with ∫tlntdt); (b) compute the approximate chance that a uniformly random integer with 100 digits is prime (ln10100≈230.26: about one in 230).
Part IV — The method exported: xtanx=1.
Show that for each n≥1 the equation tanx=x1 has exactly one solution xn in (nπ,nπ+2π), and that zn=xn−nπ→0+.
One term: zn∼nπ1.
Show that the expansion of zn has non2c term: zn=nπ1+O(n31).
Three terms: using arctanu=u−3u3+O(u5) and xn1=nπ1−(nπ)2zn+O(n−3⋅zn2), prove
xn=nπ+nπ1−3π3n34+o(n31).
Check at n=3: true root x3≈9.5293344; compare the one- and three-term values, and contrast in one sentence with the course’s tanx=x (Example 6.23): where each sequence sits in its window, and why.
Part V — A dynamical bootstrap, rules of the game, synthesis.
Let u0∈(0,π) and un+1=sinun. Show un→0 decreasingly, and compute the limit of un+121−un21(expand sin−2 via sinu=u−6u3+o(u3)).
Deduce, via Cesàro means (Year 1 volume), the classic
un∼n3.
(Certified numerics) Using question 7’s rigorous bound, show that evaluating lnn+γ+2n1 at n=106 yields H106 with error at most 1.25⋅10−13 — a million-term sum computed to thirteen digits by three terms.
(Rules of the game) Prove or refute, with proofs or counterexamples: (a) if un∼vn→+∞ then lnun∼lnvn; (b) if un∼vn then eun∼evn; (c) if f∼g at +∞ (f,g differentiable) then f′∼g′.
(Synthesis) In one sentence each: the bootstrap loop of Method 6.22 as used in Parts I, III, IV; what the trapezoid correction adds to Theorem 6.6; why inversion of xlnx is exactly the bridge from π(x) to pn; and which of question 24’s rules protected which step. Name the two summits: the Euler–Maclaurin formula (first order), and the asymptotic law of the n-th prime.
Solution
Solution of Problem 6.1.
1. Subtracting the two expansions: ∑i(ci−ci′)φi=o(φk). If some coefficient differs, let i0 be the first: dividing by φi0 and using φj=o(φi0) for j>i0 gives ci0−ci0′=o(1): zero, contradiction. For the expansion: with u=xlnx→0,
No x2c term appears because the expansion is a geometric series in u=xlnx: every term carries as many powers of lnx as of x1 beyond the first; the scale rung x21 (coefficient of (lnx)0) is simply absent, with coefficient 0.
2.f(x)=ex+x is continuous, strictly increasing, with limits −∞ and +∞: a bijection R→R, so xn=f−1(n) exists and is unique, and xn→+∞ (f−1 increases to +∞). From exn=n−xn: xn=ln(n−xn)≤lnn, so xn/n→0 and xn=lnn+ln(1−xn/n)=lnn+o(1)∼lnn.
3. Write un=xn/n. Second pass: un=nlnn+o(1), so
4. At n=1000: ln1000≈6.90776 (error 7⋅10−3); two terms: 6.90085 (error 2⋅10−5); three terms: 6.90082 (error below 10−5), against x1000≈6.90083. Each pass buys roughly the predicted factor nlnn.
5. Two integrations by parts, starting from the right: with dtd[21t(1−t)]=21−t and t(1−t) vanishing at both ends,
Since 0≤t(1−t)≤41: ∣En+1−En∣≤81∫nn+1∣f′′∣, whose sum over n converges by hypothesis: (En) converges (absolutely summable increments) to some E, with
with c=E−23. At n=104: 2n=200, c≈−1.46035, 2n1=0.005: predicted 198.54465, and indeed ∑k≤104k−1/2=198.544645… — three terms, seven digits.
11.t↦tlnt is continuous and strictly increasing on [1,∞) (derivative lnt+1≥1), from 0 to +∞: a unique xn exists, and xn→∞ (else xnlnxn would stay bounded). Taking logarithms in xnlnxn=n: lnxn+lnlnxn=lnn; since lnlnxn=o(lnxn), dividing by lnxn gives lnxnlnn→1: lnxn∼lnn.
12. From xn=lnxnn and lnxn∼lnn: xn∼lnnn. Next pass: lnlnxn=ln(lnn(1+o(1)))=lnlnn+o(1), so lnxn=lnn−lnlnn+o(1) and
13. At n=106: lnnn≈72382 (off by 18%), two terms give ≈86140 (off by 1.9%), against the true x≈87848. The gain per pass is only the factor lnnlnlnn≈13.82.63≈0.19: logarithmic scales converge with maddening slowness — a fact of life wherever primes are involved.
14. There are exactly n primes ≤pn (namely p1,…,pn): π(pn)=n. The prime number theorem (admitted; Year 3 volume) gives n=π(pn)∼lnpnpn, i.e. pn∼nlnpn: this is the equation xlnx≈n read backwards. Taking logarithms: lnpn=lnn+lnlnpn+o(1), and lnlnpn=o(lnpn) forces lnpn∼lnn as in question 11. Substituting back:
pn∼nlnpn=nlnnlnnlnpn∼nlnn.
15. (a) Fix ε>0; for k large, (1−ε)klnk≤pk≤(1+ε)klnk. By comparison with the increasing tlnt (Theorem 6.6-type bracketing), ∑k≤nklnk=∫1ntlntdt+O(nlnn)=2n2lnn−4n2+O(nlnn)∼2n2lnn. Hence ∑k≤npk=2n2lnn(1+O(ε)+o(1)) for every ε: ∑k≤npk∼2n2lnn. (b) By the prime number theorem, among the integers up to 10100 a proportion ∼ln101001=230.26…1 are prime: a uniformly random 100-digit integer is prime with probability about 2301.
16. On (nπ,nπ+2π), g(x)=tanx−x1 is continuous and strictly increasing (g′=1+tan2x+x21>0), with g→−nπ1<0 at the left end and g→+∞ at the right: exactly one root xn. Since tanzn=tanxn=xn1→0 with zn∈(0,2π): zn→0+.
17.tanzn∼zn and xn1∼nπ1: zn∼nπ1.
18.zn=arctanxn1 and arctanu=u+O(u3). With zn=O(n1):
so zn=nπ1+O(n31): the n2c rung carries coefficient 0, because the first correction to xn1 is itself of size n2zn=O(n−3).
19. Insert zn=nπ1+O(n−3) into the previous display:
xn1=nπ1−n3π31+O(n51),
then zn=arctanxn1=xn1−31(xn1)3+O(n51)=nπ1−n3π31−3n3π31+O(n51):
xn=nπ+nπ1−3π3n34+O(n51).
20. At n=3: one term 9.53088, three terms 9.52929, true root 9.52933: errors 1.5⋅10−3 and 5⋅10−5. Contrast: for tanx=x the root must make tan huge, so it hugs the right end nπ+2π of the window, at distance ∼nπ1 before the asymptote; for xtanx=1 the root must make tan tiny, so it sits just past the left end nπ, at distance ∼nπ1 after the zero. Same method, mirror geography.
21.sinu<u on (0,π) and sin maps (0,π) into (0,1]⊆(0,π): after one step u1∈(0,1], then (un) decreases and is bounded below by 0: it converges to a fixed point of sin, i.e. to 0. Expansion: sinu=u(1−6u2+o(u2)), so
so un2∼n3 and, all terms being positive, un∼3/n.
23. By question 7, Hn−lnn−γ−2n1≤8n21. At n=106 this bound is 8⋅10121=1.25⋅10−13: three computed terms deliver the million-term harmonic sum to thirteen digits, with a fully rigorous error certificate — the whole point of an asymptotic formula with explicit remainder.
24. (a) True: lnun−lnvn=lnvnun→0 while lnvn→+∞, so the ratio of logarithms tends to 1. (b) False: un=n+1∼vn=n, but eun/evn=e=1. Equivalence tolerates additive errors o(1) in the exponent, not O(1). (c) False: f(x)=x+sin(x2)∼g(x)=x at +∞, but f′(x)=1+2xcos(x2) oscillates unboundedly while g′=1: derivatives of equivalent functions need not be comparable at all.
25. The loop of Method 6.22 ran identically three times: localize the root, extract a crude term, feed it back for the next order — on ex+x=n (Part I), on xlnx=n (Part III), on xtanx=1 (Part IV). The trapezoid correction upgrades the series–integral comparison from “the difference converges” to an explicit 2f(1)+f(n) term with a certified O(∫n∞∣f′′∣) remainder — constants and error bars instead of mere convergence. The bridge to primes is pure inversion: the prime number theorem says π(x)lnx≈x, so pn, defined by π(pn)=n, solves an xlnx=n equation — and inherits its asymptotics. Rule (a) of question 24 legitimized every passage from un∼vn to lnun∼lnvn (questions 11, 14); the falsity of (b) is why we never exponentiate equivalences. Summits: the Euler–Maclaurin formula to first order (question 6), and the asymptotic law pn∼nlnn of the n-th prime (question 14).