$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdot cdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$.











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$



My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    Related
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    @KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
    – Batominovski
    yesterday








  • 3




    $$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    yesterday








  • 2




    I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
    – Zvi
    yesterday

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$



My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    Related
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    @KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
    – Batominovski
    yesterday








  • 3




    $$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    yesterday








  • 2




    I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
    – Zvi
    yesterday















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3






3





Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$



My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.










share|cite|improve this question















Show that
$$frac{1}{15}<(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})<frac{1}{10}$$



My attempt:
This problem is from a text book where is introduced as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
This wouldn't be a problem if I knew the sum or a product of the given numbers. Then I will use AG inequality, but I don't know how.







inequality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









dmtri

1,2261521




1,2261521










asked yesterday









Lovro Sindičić

249216




249216








  • 3




    Related
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    @KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
    – Batominovski
    yesterday








  • 3




    $$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    yesterday








  • 2




    I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
    – Zvi
    yesterday
















  • 3




    Related
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
    – Kemono Chen
    yesterday






  • 2




    @KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
    – Batominovski
    yesterday








  • 3




    $$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    yesterday








  • 2




    I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
    – Zvi
    yesterday










3




3




Related
– Kemono Chen
yesterday




Related
– Kemono Chen
yesterday




2




2




But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
yesterday




But this question is still worth answering because there is a method showing $frac2{3sqrt n}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotsfrac{(2n-1)}{2n}<frac1{sqrt n}$ and it's not suitable for that question (unfortunately I forgot that) :(
– Kemono Chen
yesterday




2




2




@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
yesterday






@KemonoChen I think the correct inequality should be $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<frac12cdotfrac34cdotldotscdotfrac{2n-1}{2n}<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}},.$$ Otherwise, the left-hand side inequality is not even true for $n=1$ (and it is never true), while the right-hand side inequality is very weak.
– Batominovski
yesterday






3




3




$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
yesterday






$$frac{1}{4^n}binom{2n}{n}approx frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac{1}{4}right)}}.$$
– Jack D'Aurizio
yesterday






2




2




I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
yesterday






I found that $$frac{1}{sqrt{pi left(n+frac12right)}}<prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}$$ with @JackD'Aurizio's estimate being extremely close. For $n=50$, the required product is between $0.07939248$ and $0.07979788$, with Jack's estimate being $0.07958972$. The actual value is $0.07958923$.
– Zvi
yesterday












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.



Observe that
$$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
In addition,
$$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
This shows that
$$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
$$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
    $$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
    Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
    $$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
    for all $n$. That is,
    $$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
    Therefore,
    $$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$



    Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
    $$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
    Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
    $$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
    for all $n$. That is,
    $$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
    Therefore,
    $$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
    $$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
    for every $n$.



    enter image description here



    enter image description here






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



      and:



      $b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



      It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :



      $frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$



      $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$



      $a^2<frac{1}{101}$$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$



      Also:



      $2a=frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



      $frac{3}{2}.b=frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



      $2a<frac{3}{2}b$$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$



      Or $a^2<frac{3}{4}ab=frac{3}{4}.frac{3}{101}$



      Since $9>4$ then $a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ and therefore:



      $a>frac{1}{15}$



      A more reliable reasoning is given as a comment for this part:



      $2a>b$$2a^2>ab=frac{1}{101}$$a^2>frac{1}{202}$$a>frac{1}{sqrt{202}}>frac{1}{sqrt{225}}=frac{1}{15}$






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 2




        I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
        – Calum Gilhooley
        yesterday










      • In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
        – sirous
        23 hours ago






      • 3




        @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
        – trancelocation
        21 hours ago












      • @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
        – Calum Gilhooley
        20 hours ago










      • @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
        – sirous
        13 hours ago


















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:



      The expression:



      $$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$



      We could use the following identities:



      Product of $n$ odd numbers =



      $$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$



      Product of $n$ even numbers =



      $$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$



      The first $4$ terms of $p$ =



      $$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$



      We may write $p$ as:



      $$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$



      $$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



      To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:



      $$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



      $$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$



      We could conclude that, for $n >=2$



      $$p<frac{1}{10}$$



      for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)



        As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.



        We need a preliminary lemma:




        If
        $$
        k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
        $$

        then
        $$
        frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
        $$

        Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
        $$
        0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
        $$

        but of course we avoid using such calculations.




        Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
        $$
        1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
        $$

        where
        $$
        s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
        frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
        $$

        Telescoping,
        begin{align*}
        16s & <
        frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
        = frac{1}{24}, \
        16s & >
        frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
        = frac{12}{325},
        end{align*}

        therefore
        $$
        1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
        $$

        as required. $square$



        The number we wish to approximate is
        $$
        P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
        = frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
        = kQ,
        $$

        where
        begin{gather*}
        Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
        = frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
        = frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
        = frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
        end{gather*}

        Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
        begin{equation}
        tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
        frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
        < P <
        frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
        end{equation}

        Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
        begin{equation}
        tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
        frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224}.
        end{equation}

        Approximately, rounding up and down again,
        $$
        0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
        $$

        One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:



        For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
        $$
        frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
        $$

        (as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
        $$
        P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
        $$



        For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
        $$
        Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
        $$

        and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
        $$
        P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
        $$





        For a better idea of the precision of this calculation, we can rewrite eqref{ineq:2} as
        $$
        frac{489{,}609{,}908}{870{,}062{,}193}
        < frac{1}{P} - 12 <
        frac{4{,}840{,}699{,}348}{8{,}544{,}456{,}921},
        $$

        whence (this could be done by hand, although again I used a calculator)
        $$
        frac{1}{12.57} < P < frac{1}{12.56}.
        $$






        share|cite|improve this answer























          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004689%2ffrac115-frac12-cdot-frac34-cdot-frac56-cdot-cdot-cdot-cdo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
          for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.



          Observe that
          $$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
          In addition,
          $$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
          This shows that
          $$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
          Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
          $$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            4
            down vote













            Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
            for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.



            Observe that
            $$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
            In addition,
            $$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
            This shows that
            $$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
            Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
            $$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









              Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
              for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.



              Observe that
              $$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
              In addition,
              $$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
              This shows that
              $$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
              Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
              $$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$






              share|cite|improve this answer














              Let $P_n:=prodlimits_{k=1}^n,dfrac{2k-1}{2k}$ for each integer $ngeq 1$. We shall prove that $$frac{2}{3sqrt{2n}}<P_n<frac{1}{sqrt{2n}}tag{*}$$
              for every positive integer $n$, as suggested by Kemono Chen (I think there should be a factor $dfrac{1}{sqrt{2}}$ there so that (*) implies the OP's inequality for $n=50$). The asymptotic behavior of $P_n$ is given here.



              Observe that
              $$P_n^2leq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=3}^{2n},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{3}{4(2n+1)}.$$
              In addition,
              $$P_n^2geq frac{1}{2^2},left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-1}{2k}right),left(prod_{k=2}^n,frac{2k-2}{2k-1}right)=frac{1}{4},prod_{k=2}^{2n-1},frac{k}{k+1}=frac{2}{4(2n)},.$$
              This shows that
              $$frac{1}{2,sqrt{n}}leq P_nleq frac{sqrt{3}}{2,sqrt{2n+1}},.$$
              Both the inequality on the right and the inequality on the left have a unique equality case: $n=1$. Note that this implies (*). In particular, for $n=50$, we have
              $$frac{1}{15}<0.0707<frac{1}{2cdotsqrt{50}}<P_{50}<frac{sqrt{3}}{2cdot sqrt{101}}<0.0862<frac{1}{10},.$$







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              Batominovski

              31.3k23187




              31.3k23187






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
                  $$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
                  Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                  $$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
                  for all $n$. That is,
                  $$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
                  Therefore,
                  $$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$



                  Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
                  $$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
                  Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                  $$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
                  for all $n$. That is,
                  $$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
                  Therefore,
                  $$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
                  $$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
                  for every $n$.



                  enter image description here



                  enter image description here






                  share|cite|improve this answer



























                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote













                    Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
                    $$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
                    Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                    $$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
                    for all $n$. That is,
                    $$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
                    Therefore,
                    $$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$



                    Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
                    $$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
                    Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                    $$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
                    for all $n$. That is,
                    $$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
                    Therefore,
                    $$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
                    $$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
                    for every $n$.



                    enter image description here



                    enter image description here






                    share|cite|improve this answer

























                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









                      Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
                      $$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
                      Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                      $$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
                      for all $n$. That is,
                      $$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
                      Therefore,
                      $$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$



                      Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
                      $$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
                      Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                      $$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
                      for all $n$. That is,
                      $$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
                      Therefore,
                      $$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
                      $$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
                      for every $n$.



                      enter image description here



                      enter image description here






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      Let $S_n=prod_{k=1}^nfrac{2k-1}{2k}$. From Wallis' product, we have
                      $$prod_{k=1}^inftyleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)=frac{pi}{2}.$$
                      Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                      $$prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k}{2k-1}cdotfrac{2k}{2k+1}right)<frac{pi}{2}$$
                      for all $n$. That is,
                      $$(2n+1)S_n^2=(2n+1)prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=prod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}cdotfrac{2k+1}{2k}right)>frac{2}{pi}.$$
                      Therefore,
                      $$S_n>frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}.$$



                      Similarly, Wallis' product also implies that
                      $$prod_{k=2}^inftyleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)=frac{4}{pi}.$$
                      Since each term in the product above is greater than $1$, this shows that
                      $$prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac{4}{pi}$$
                      for all $n$. That is,
                      $$2nS_n^2=2nprod_{k=1}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k}right)^2=frac12prod_{k=2}^nleft(frac{2k-1}{2k-2}cdotfrac{2k-1}{2k}right)<frac12left(frac{4}{pi}right).$$
                      Therefore,
                      $$S_n<frac{1}{sqrt{pi n}}.$$ Hence,
                      $$frac{1}{sqrt{pileft(n+frac12right)}}<S_n<frac1{sqrt{pi n}}$$
                      for every $n$.



                      enter image description here



                      enter image description here







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited yesterday

























                      answered yesterday









                      Zvi

                      3,230223




                      3,230223






















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          and:



                          $b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :



                          $frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$



                          $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$



                          $a^2<frac{1}{101}$$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$



                          Also:



                          $2a=frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          $frac{3}{2}.b=frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          $2a<frac{3}{2}b$$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Or $a^2<frac{3}{4}ab=frac{3}{4}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Since $9>4$ then $a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ and therefore:



                          $a>frac{1}{15}$



                          A more reliable reasoning is given as a comment for this part:



                          $2a>b$$2a^2>ab=frac{1}{101}$$a^2>frac{1}{202}$$a>frac{1}{sqrt{202}}>frac{1}{sqrt{225}}=frac{1}{15}$






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 2




                            I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            yesterday










                          • In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                            – sirous
                            23 hours ago






                          • 3




                            @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                            – trancelocation
                            21 hours ago












                          • @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            20 hours ago










                          • @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                            – sirous
                            13 hours ago















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          and:



                          $b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :



                          $frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$



                          $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$



                          $a^2<frac{1}{101}$$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$



                          Also:



                          $2a=frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          $frac{3}{2}.b=frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          $2a<frac{3}{2}b$$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Or $a^2<frac{3}{4}ab=frac{3}{4}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Since $9>4$ then $a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ and therefore:



                          $a>frac{1}{15}$



                          A more reliable reasoning is given as a comment for this part:



                          $2a>b$$2a^2>ab=frac{1}{101}$$a^2>frac{1}{202}$$a>frac{1}{sqrt{202}}>frac{1}{sqrt{225}}=frac{1}{15}$






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 2




                            I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            yesterday










                          • In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                            – sirous
                            23 hours ago






                          • 3




                            @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                            – trancelocation
                            21 hours ago












                          • @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            20 hours ago










                          • @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                            – sirous
                            13 hours ago













                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote









                          Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          and:



                          $b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :



                          $frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$



                          $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$



                          $a^2<frac{1}{101}$$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$



                          Also:



                          $2a=frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          $frac{3}{2}.b=frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          $2a<frac{3}{2}b$$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Or $a^2<frac{3}{4}ab=frac{3}{4}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Since $9>4$ then $a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ and therefore:



                          $a>frac{1}{15}$



                          A more reliable reasoning is given as a comment for this part:



                          $2a>b$$2a^2>ab=frac{1}{101}$$a^2>frac{1}{202}$$a>frac{1}{sqrt{202}}>frac{1}{sqrt{225}}=frac{1}{15}$






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          Let $a=frac{1}{2}.frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          and:



                          $b=frac{2}{3}.frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          It is clear that $a<b$ because each factor of $a$ is less than its corresponding factor in $b$ :



                          $frac{1}{2}<frac{2}{3}, frac{3}{4}<frac{4}{5}. . . frac{99}{100}<frac{100}{101}$



                          $a^2 < ab=(frac{1}{2}.frac{2}{3}).(frac{3}{4}.frac{4}{5}). . . .(frac{99}{100}.frac{100}{101})=frac{1}{101}$



                          $a^2<frac{1}{101}$$a<frac{1}{sqrt{101}}<frac{1}{10}$



                          Also:



                          $2a=frac{3}{4}.frac{5}{6}. . . .frac{99}{100}$



                          $frac{3}{2}.b=frac{4}{5}.frac{6}{7}. . . frac{100}{101}$



                          $2a<frac{3}{2}b$$2a^2<frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Or $a^2<frac{3}{4}ab=frac{3}{4}.frac{3}{101}$



                          Since $9>4$ then $a^2 >frac{4}{9times 101}$ and therefore:



                          $a>frac{1}{15}$



                          A more reliable reasoning is given as a comment for this part:



                          $2a>b$$2a^2>ab=frac{1}{101}$$a^2>frac{1}{202}$$a>frac{1}{sqrt{202}}>frac{1}{sqrt{225}}=frac{1}{15}$







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited 10 hours ago

























                          answered yesterday









                          sirous

                          1,5331513




                          1,5331513








                          • 2




                            I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            yesterday










                          • In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                            – sirous
                            23 hours ago






                          • 3




                            @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                            – trancelocation
                            21 hours ago












                          • @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            20 hours ago










                          • @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                            – sirous
                            13 hours ago














                          • 2




                            I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            yesterday










                          • In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                            – sirous
                            23 hours ago






                          • 3




                            @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                            – trancelocation
                            21 hours ago












                          • @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                            – Calum Gilhooley
                            20 hours ago










                          • @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                            – sirous
                            13 hours ago








                          2




                          2




                          I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                          – Calum Gilhooley
                          yesterday




                          I've lost count of how many times I've read the last line, and I still can't understand: (i) how you get $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$, when surely it should be $frac{3}{2}ab=frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{1}{101}$; (ii) how you get from $2a^2<frac{3}{2}cdotfrac{3}{101}$ to $a^2>frac{4}{9times101}$, when surely it should be $frac{1}{a^2}>frac{4times101}{9}$; or (iii) generally, how a lower bound for $a$ could possibly be obtained from an upper bound for $a$! (My reading comprehension sometimes goes on the blink, so, in view of the upvotes, I guess it must have happened again!)
                          – Calum Gilhooley
                          yesterday












                          In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                          – sirous
                          23 hours ago




                          In the line $a^2<ab=...$ just eliminate the first term , because it is moved to LHS as 2a and (3/2)ab.
                          – sirous
                          23 hours ago




                          3




                          3




                          @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                          – trancelocation
                          21 hours ago






                          @CalumGilhooley I have the same problem. But one could reason as follows: $$2a = frac{3}{4}cdot frac{5}{6} cdots frac{99}{100} color{blue}{cdot 1} > frac{2}{3}cdot frac{4}{5} cdots frac{100}{101} = b$$ $$Rightarrow 2a^2 > ab = frac{1}{101} Rightarrow a > frac{1}{sqrt{202}} > frac{1}{sqrt{225}} = frac{1}{15}$$
                          – trancelocation
                          21 hours ago














                          @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                          – Calum Gilhooley
                          20 hours ago




                          @sirous I imagine your reply, which I couldn't understand, was meant to be an explanation of $2a<frac{3}{2}b$, which wasn't any of the three things I was asking about, and which was one of the only two parts of the last line that I didn't need to have explained! In contrast, trancelocation's reply made perfect sense.
                          – Calum Gilhooley
                          20 hours ago












                          @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                          – sirous
                          13 hours ago




                          @CalumGilhooley, I edited my answer for more clarification. The reasoning of -trancelocation is also good.
                          – sirous
                          13 hours ago










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:



                          The expression:



                          $$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$



                          We could use the following identities:



                          Product of $n$ odd numbers =



                          $$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$



                          Product of $n$ even numbers =



                          $$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$



                          The first $4$ terms of $p$ =



                          $$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$



                          We may write $p$ as:



                          $$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$



                          $$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                          To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:



                          $$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                          $$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$



                          We could conclude that, for $n >=2$



                          $$p<frac{1}{10}$$



                          for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote













                            Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:



                            The expression:



                            $$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$



                            We could use the following identities:



                            Product of $n$ odd numbers =



                            $$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$



                            Product of $n$ even numbers =



                            $$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$



                            The first $4$ terms of $p$ =



                            $$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$



                            We may write $p$ as:



                            $$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$



                            $$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                            To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:



                            $$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                            $$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$



                            We could conclude that, for $n >=2$



                            $$p<frac{1}{10}$$



                            for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.






                            share|cite|improve this answer

























                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote









                              Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:



                              The expression:



                              $$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$



                              We could use the following identities:



                              Product of $n$ odd numbers =



                              $$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$



                              Product of $n$ even numbers =



                              $$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$



                              The first $4$ terms of $p$ =



                              $$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$



                              We may write $p$ as:



                              $$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$



                              $$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                              To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:



                              $$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                              $$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$



                              We could conclude that, for $n >=2$



                              $$p<frac{1}{10}$$



                              for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              Just a thought, that may be worth mentioning:



                              The expression:



                              $$p=(frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdot cdot cdotcdotfrac{99}{100})$$



                              We could use the following identities:



                              Product of $n$ odd numbers =



                              $$p_o = frac{(2n!)}{(n!)2^{n}}$$



                              Product of $n$ even numbers =



                              $$p_e = (n!)2^{n}$$



                              The first $4$ terms of $p$ =



                              $$frac{1.3.5.7}{2.4.6.8}=frac{105}{1152}=0.2734$$



                              We may write $p$ as:



                              $$p=frac{odd_numbers}{even_numbers}=frac{p_o}{p_e}=$$



                              $$p=frac{(2n)!}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                              To prove $p<frac{1}{10}$, we know that (2n)! < n! (for n>1), so we can write:



                              $$p<frac{(n!)}{((n!)2^{n})^2}$$



                              $$p<frac{1}{(n!)({n})^2}$$



                              We could conclude that, for $n >=2$



                              $$p<frac{1}{10}$$



                              for the lower bound, any of the other solution presented may be considered or check stovf-math p between 1/13 and 1/15 may also be considered.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited yesterday

























                              answered yesterday









                              NoChance

                              3,58121221




                              3,58121221






















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)



                                  As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.



                                  We need a preliminary lemma:




                                  If
                                  $$
                                  k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
                                  $$

                                  then
                                  $$
                                  frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
                                  $$

                                  Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
                                  $$
                                  0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
                                  $$

                                  but of course we avoid using such calculations.




                                  Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
                                  $$
                                  1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
                                  $$

                                  where
                                  $$
                                  s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
                                  frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
                                  $$

                                  Telescoping,
                                  begin{align*}
                                  16s & <
                                  frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
                                  = frac{1}{24}, \
                                  16s & >
                                  frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
                                  = frac{12}{325},
                                  end{align*}

                                  therefore
                                  $$
                                  1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
                                  $$

                                  as required. $square$



                                  The number we wish to approximate is
                                  $$
                                  P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
                                  = frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
                                  = kQ,
                                  $$

                                  where
                                  begin{gather*}
                                  Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
                                  = frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
                                  = frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
                                  = frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
                                  end{gather*}

                                  Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
                                  begin{equation}
                                  tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
                                  frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
                                  < P <
                                  frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
                                  end{equation}

                                  Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
                                  begin{equation}
                                  tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
                                  frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224}.
                                  end{equation}

                                  Approximately, rounding up and down again,
                                  $$
                                  0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
                                  $$

                                  One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:



                                  For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
                                  $$
                                  frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
                                  $$

                                  (as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
                                  $$
                                  P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
                                  $$



                                  For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
                                  $$
                                  Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
                                  $$

                                  and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
                                  $$
                                  P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
                                  $$





                                  For a better idea of the precision of this calculation, we can rewrite eqref{ineq:2} as
                                  $$
                                  frac{489{,}609{,}908}{870{,}062{,}193}
                                  < frac{1}{P} - 12 <
                                  frac{4{,}840{,}699{,}348}{8{,}544{,}456{,}921},
                                  $$

                                  whence (this could be done by hand, although again I used a calculator)
                                  $$
                                  frac{1}{12.57} < P < frac{1}{12.56}.
                                  $$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer



























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)



                                    As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.



                                    We need a preliminary lemma:




                                    If
                                    $$
                                    k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
                                    $$

                                    then
                                    $$
                                    frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
                                    $$

                                    Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
                                    $$
                                    0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
                                    $$

                                    but of course we avoid using such calculations.




                                    Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
                                    $$
                                    1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
                                    $$

                                    where
                                    $$
                                    s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
                                    frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
                                    $$

                                    Telescoping,
                                    begin{align*}
                                    16s & <
                                    frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
                                    = frac{1}{24}, \
                                    16s & >
                                    frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
                                    = frac{12}{325},
                                    end{align*}

                                    therefore
                                    $$
                                    1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
                                    $$

                                    as required. $square$



                                    The number we wish to approximate is
                                    $$
                                    P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
                                    = frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
                                    = kQ,
                                    $$

                                    where
                                    begin{gather*}
                                    Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
                                    = frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
                                    = frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
                                    = frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
                                    end{gather*}

                                    Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
                                    begin{equation}
                                    tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
                                    frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
                                    < P <
                                    frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
                                    end{equation}

                                    Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
                                    begin{equation}
                                    tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
                                    frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224}.
                                    end{equation}

                                    Approximately, rounding up and down again,
                                    $$
                                    0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
                                    $$

                                    One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:



                                    For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
                                    $$
                                    frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
                                    $$

                                    (as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
                                    $$
                                    P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
                                    $$



                                    For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
                                    $$
                                    Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
                                    $$

                                    and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
                                    $$
                                    P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
                                    $$





                                    For a better idea of the precision of this calculation, we can rewrite eqref{ineq:2} as
                                    $$
                                    frac{489{,}609{,}908}{870{,}062{,}193}
                                    < frac{1}{P} - 12 <
                                    frac{4{,}840{,}699{,}348}{8{,}544{,}456{,}921},
                                    $$

                                    whence (this could be done by hand, although again I used a calculator)
                                    $$
                                    frac{1}{12.57} < P < frac{1}{12.56}.
                                    $$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer

























                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)



                                      As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.



                                      We need a preliminary lemma:




                                      If
                                      $$
                                      k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
                                      $$

                                      then
                                      $$
                                      frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
                                      $$

                                      Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
                                      $$
                                      0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
                                      $$

                                      but of course we avoid using such calculations.




                                      Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
                                      $$
                                      1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
                                      $$

                                      where
                                      $$
                                      s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
                                      frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
                                      $$

                                      Telescoping,
                                      begin{align*}
                                      16s & <
                                      frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
                                      = frac{1}{24}, \
                                      16s & >
                                      frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
                                      = frac{12}{325},
                                      end{align*}

                                      therefore
                                      $$
                                      1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
                                      $$

                                      as required. $square$



                                      The number we wish to approximate is
                                      $$
                                      P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
                                      = frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
                                      = kQ,
                                      $$

                                      where
                                      begin{gather*}
                                      Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
                                      = frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
                                      = frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
                                      = frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
                                      end{gather*}

                                      Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
                                      begin{equation}
                                      tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
                                      frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
                                      < P <
                                      frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
                                      end{equation}

                                      Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
                                      begin{equation}
                                      tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
                                      frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224}.
                                      end{equation}

                                      Approximately, rounding up and down again,
                                      $$
                                      0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
                                      $$

                                      One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:



                                      For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
                                      $$
                                      frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
                                      $$

                                      (as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
                                      $$
                                      P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
                                      $$



                                      For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
                                      $$
                                      Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
                                      $$

                                      and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
                                      $$
                                      P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
                                      $$





                                      For a better idea of the precision of this calculation, we can rewrite eqref{ineq:2} as
                                      $$
                                      frac{489{,}609{,}908}{870{,}062{,}193}
                                      < frac{1}{P} - 12 <
                                      frac{4{,}840{,}699{,}348}{8{,}544{,}456{,}921},
                                      $$

                                      whence (this could be done by hand, although again I used a calculator)
                                      $$
                                      frac{1}{12.57} < P < frac{1}{12.56}.
                                      $$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      This is tedious and unsophisticated, but don't knock it, it works! :)



                                      As well as answering the present question, it also answers the linked question, prove $frac{1}{13}<frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}<frac{1}{12}$.



                                      We need a preliminary lemma:




                                      If
                                      $$
                                      k = left(1 - frac{1}{52^2}right)left(1 - frac{1}{56^2}right)cdotsleft(1 - frac{1}{96^2}right),
                                      $$

                                      then
                                      $$
                                      frac{383}{384} < k < frac{1300}{1303}.
                                      $$

                                      Rounding up and down, as appropriate, this is approximately
                                      $$
                                      0.997395 < k < 0.997698,
                                      $$

                                      but of course we avoid using such calculations.




                                      Proof. By the Weierstrass product inequality, we have
                                      $$
                                      1 - s < k < frac{1}{1 + s},
                                      $$

                                      where
                                      $$
                                      s = frac{1}{52^2} + frac{1}{56^2} + cdots + frac{1}{96^2} =
                                      frac{1}{16}left(frac{1}{13^2} + frac{1}{14^2} + cdots + frac{1}{24^2}right).
                                      $$

                                      Telescoping,
                                      begin{align*}
                                      16s & <
                                      frac{1}{12cdot13} + frac{1}{13cdot14} + cdots + frac{1}{23cdot24}
                                      = frac{1}{24}, \
                                      16s & >
                                      frac{1}{13cdot14} + frac{1}{14cdot15} + cdots + frac{1}{24cdot25}
                                      = frac{12}{325},
                                      end{align*}

                                      therefore
                                      $$
                                      1 - frac{1}{384} < k < frac{1}{1 + frac{3}{1300}},
                                      $$

                                      as required. $square$



                                      The number we wish to approximate is
                                      $$
                                      P = frac{1}{2}cdotfrac{3}{4}cdotfrac{5}{6}cdotsfrac{99}{100}
                                      = frac{51cdot53cdot55cdots97cdot99}{2^{25}cdot4cdot8cdot12cdots96cdot100}
                                      = kQ,
                                      $$

                                      where
                                      begin{gather*}
                                      Q = frac{52^2cdot56^2cdots96^2cdot99}{2^{75}cdot25!}
                                      = frac{13cdot14cdots24cdot99}{2^{27}cdot12!cdot25}
                                      = frac{13cdot15cdot17cdot19cdot21cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot6!cdot25} \
                                      = frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{25}cdot25}.
                                      end{gather*}

                                      Therefore, using the bounds obtained for $k$ in the lemma,
                                      begin{equation}
                                      tag{$1$}label{ineq:1}
                                      frac{7cdot13cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot33cdot383}{2^{32}cdot25}
                                      < P <
                                      frac{7cdot13^2cdot17cdot19cdot23cdot99}{2^{23}cdot1303}.
                                      end{equation}

                                      Although this is well within the range of easy hand calculation, I lazily used a calculator for most of the work (only doubling $2^{22}cdot1303 = 5{,}465{,}178{,}112$ at the last stage by hand), to get
                                      begin{equation}
                                      tag{$2$}label{ineq:2}
                                      frac{8{,}544{,}456{,}921}{107{,}374{,}182{,}400} < P < frac{870{,}062{,}193}{10{,}930{,}356{,}224}.
                                      end{equation}

                                      Approximately, rounding up and down again,
                                      $$
                                      0.079576 < P < 0.079601.
                                      $$

                                      One way to "simplify" eqref{ineq:1} (although it seems simpler to me to calculate eqref{ineq:2} and be done with it!) is as follows:



                                      For the upper bound, observe that $7cdot13cdot19 = 1729 = 1 + 12^3$ (famously!), and $1302 = 2cdot3cdot7cdot31$, so
                                      $$
                                      frac{7cdot13cdot19}{1303} < frac{1728}{2cdot3cdot7cdot31} = frac{288}{217} < frac{288}{216} = frac{4}{3},
                                      $$

                                      (as one can now easily verify with hindsight), therefore
                                      $$
                                      P < frac{13cdot17cdot23cdot99}{2^{21}cdot3} < frac{17cdot300cdot100}{2^{11}cdot3cdot1000} = frac{85}{1024} < frac{1}{12}.
                                      $$



                                      For the lower bound, first simplify $Q$ by noticing that $7cdot17cdot19cdot23 = 52003 > 52000 = 2^5cdot5^3cdot13$, whence
                                      $$
                                      Q > frac{5cdot13^2cdot99}{2^{20}} = frac{5cdot13cdot1287}{2^{20}} > frac{5cdot13cdot1280}{2^{20}} = frac{5^2cdot13}{2^{12}},
                                      $$

                                      and then, instead of using the lower bound from the lemma directly, weaken it to $P > frac{64}{65}Q$, which gives
                                      $$
                                      P > frac{5}{64} > frac{1}{13}.
                                      $$





                                      For a better idea of the precision of this calculation, we can rewrite eqref{ineq:2} as
                                      $$
                                      frac{489{,}609{,}908}{870{,}062{,}193}
                                      < frac{1}{P} - 12 <
                                      frac{4{,}840{,}699{,}348}{8{,}544{,}456{,}921},
                                      $$

                                      whence (this could be done by hand, although again I used a calculator)
                                      $$
                                      frac{1}{12.57} < P < frac{1}{12.56}.
                                      $$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer














                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      edited 11 hours ago

























                                      answered yesterday









                                      Calum Gilhooley

                                      3,982529




                                      3,982529






























                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded



















































                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004689%2ffrac115-frac12-cdot-frac34-cdot-frac56-cdot-cdot-cdot-cdo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Berounka

                                          Sphinx de Gizeh

                                          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...