| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1056.1 | | AITG::DERAMO | Daniel V. {AITG,ZFC}:: D'Eramo | Thu Apr 13 1989 17:50 | 3 |
| That's nothing. Give us a harder problem.
Dan
|
| 1056.2 | | HPSTEK::XIA | | Thu Apr 13 1989 18:22 | 5 |
| re -1
Ok, try 1058 then :-).
Eugene
|
| 1056.3 | The other problems look harder | HIBOB::SIMMONS | Tristram Shandy as an equestrian | Thu Apr 13 1989 18:49 | 5 |
| Stirling's formula works here, just look at the limit of the log
of the thing which is minus infinity when you substitute for the
factorial so the answer is zero.
Chuck
|
| 1056.4 | | HPSTEK::XIA | | Thu Apr 13 1989 21:05 | 11 |
| re -1
Yep, that works, but there are simpler methods though. The reason
I posed it is because I like the neat trick. The trick is as follow:
take the log of that thing. Then you get
-(sum ln(k) /n) which is the minus of the average of ln(k) which goes
to oo. ==> the thing is 0.
Eugene
|