On the basis of today's lecture you can attempt Examples Sheet 1, #3, #4, #16. You might also look at #14 and think about how using a multinomial coefficient might help sort this one out.
The proof of Stirling's formula is not examinable. So why do we include it? Well, it would be a pity to so often use in our other work a result whose proof we did not understand. I also think it is interesting for you to see how a careful analysis of an asymptotic like this can be made.
Section 3.3 on Improved Stirling's formula (not examinable), which shows that n!/(√2πnn+1/2e−n) lies between e1/(12n+1) and e1/(12n). This is from a paper, A remark on Stirling's formula, by Herbert Robbins.
Tim Gowers once lectured this course and wrote a blog post called Removing the magic from Stirling’s formula. He was looking for a more natural proof. He comments: It turned out to be hard to find a proof that didn’t look magic: the arguments had a “consider the following formula, do such-and-such, observe that this is less than that, bingo it drops out” sort of flavour.
I tried to explain in this lecture how we can understand the motivation behind most of the steps in this proof so that it feels less like pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat.
Why do we need to make the definition In=∫π/20sinnθdθ? Why not directly define I2n=1234⋯2n−12nπ2 and I2n+1=2345⋯2n2n+1?
The answer is that we need to show that In is decreasing in n, and this follows from the fact that sinnθ is decreasing in n since 0<sinθ<1.
Our calculation today of I2n/I2n+1→1 is related to a proof of Wallis's product. This is 212343456567⋯=π2.
The proof of Stirling's formula is not examinable. So why do we include it? Well, it would be a pity to so often use in our other work a result whose proof we did not understand. I also think it is interesting for you to see how a careful analysis of an asymptotic like this can be made.
Section 3.3 on Improved Stirling's formula (not examinable), which shows that n!/(√2πnn+1/2e−n) lies between e1/(12n+1) and e1/(12n). This is from a paper, A remark on Stirling's formula, by Herbert Robbins.
Tim Gowers once lectured this course and wrote a blog post called Removing the magic from Stirling’s formula. He was looking for a more natural proof. He comments: It turned out to be hard to find a proof that didn’t look magic: the arguments had a “consider the following formula, do such-and-such, observe that this is less than that, bingo it drops out” sort of flavour.
I tried to explain in this lecture how we can understand the motivation behind most of the steps in this proof so that it feels less like pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat.
Why do we need to make the definition In=∫π/20sinnθdθ? Why not directly define I2n=1234⋯2n−12nπ2 and I2n+1=2345⋯2n2n+1?
The answer is that we need to show that In is decreasing in n, and this follows from the fact that sinnθ is decreasing in n since 0<sinθ<1.
Our calculation today of I2n/I2n+1→1 is related to a proof of Wallis's product. This is 212343456567⋯=π2.
Perhaps the trickiest thing in the proof was the evaluation of the constant √2π. The following is a method of doing it in a less magical way. Suppose n!∼Bnn+1/2e−n. Then p=2−2n(2nn)=(2n)!/(2nn!)2∼√2/n/B is the probability that in 2n tosses of a fair coin there are n heads and n tails. If we knew the central limit theorem (Lecture 23), we could use it to estimate p=1/√nπ, and from that find B=√2π.