# How can I simplify $\lim_{n\to \infty } \, \int_0^n e^{-x} \left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^n \, dx$?

How can I simplify $$\lim_{n\to \infty } \, \int_0^n e^{-x} \left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^n \, dx$$ ?

Limit[Integrate[(1 - x/n)^n/E^x,
{x, 0, n}], n -> Infinity]


The result was

Limit[ConditionalExpression[$$\left.e^{-n} (-n)^{-n} (\Gamma (n+1,-n)-\Gamma (n+1)),\Re(n)>0\land \Im(n)=0\right],n\to \infty]$$

Limit[ConditionalExpression[
(-Gamma[1 + n] + Gamma[1 + n,
-n])/(E^n*(-n)^n),
Re[n] > 0 && Im[n] == 0],
n -> Infinity]


was supposed to be $$1$$ since

$$\int_0^{\infty } e^{-x} \, dx=1$$

Integrate[E^(-x), {x, 0, Infinity}]


I did try Simplify and Reduce but neither work.

• People here generally like users to post code as Mathematica code instead of just images or TeX, so they can copy-paste it. It makes it convenient for them and more likely you will get someone to help you. You may find this meta Q&A helpful Jun 22, 2019 at 23:55
• What happens if you use Assumptions? Jun 22, 2019 at 23:56
• @MichaelE2 I edited my question Jun 23, 2019 at 0:02
• Shouldn't the limit be the integral of $e^{-2x}$ instead of $e^{-x}$? i.e., 1/2? Have you tried DiscreteLimit? Jun 23, 2019 at 0:42
• For large $n$ the integral is $\frac12 - \frac{1}{8n} - \frac{1}{32 n^2} + \frac{1}{128 n^3}+O(n^{-4})$. I don't know how to get there in Mathematica though. Jun 23, 2019 at 0:53

$$(1-\frac{x}{n})^n$$ may be approximated by $$exp(-\frac{x}{n})^n$$

Exp[-1/n x] // Series[#, {x, 0, 3}] &


Limit[Exp[-1/n x]^n - (1 - x/n)^n, n -> Infinity]


=>

0

Limit[Integrate[Exp[-x]*Exp[-1/n x]^n, {x, 0, n}], n -> Infinity]


=>

1/2

Table[Exp[-1/n x]^n - (1 - x/n)^n, {n, 500, 10000, 500}] //
Plot[#, {x, 0, 100}] &


• Your addition "About the error" is not good: the range of the integration is $[0,n]$ and the maximum value is reached around $x=2$ up to the results of Table[Maximize[{Exp[-1/n x]^n - (1 - x/n)^n, x >= 0 && x <= n}, x], {n, 10, 110, 20}];N[%] $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0.0280001 & \{x\to 1.931\} \\ 0.00912372 & \{x\to 1.97753\} \\ 0.00544974 & \{x\to 1.98658\} \\ 0.00388522 & \{x\to 1.99043\} \\ 0.00301863 & \{x\to 1.99257\} \\ 0.00246812 & \{x\to 1.99392\} \\ \end{array} \right).$$ Jun 24, 2019 at 11:31
• @user64494 "not good" is not a clear statement. It is even more confusing as your example clearly shows that the error decreases with n and what matters is n->Infinity. Maybe I missed your point, but you were previously asked to elaborate and decided to just repost it .
– Kuba
Jun 25, 2019 at 8:23

You can move the limit inside the integral (please see Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Third Edition, Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, p. 321):

Limit[Integrate[Exp[-x] Limit[(1 - x/n)^n, n -> \[Infinity]],
{x, 0, n}], n -> \[Infinity]]


 1/2


As you surely know, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^n = e^{-x}$$

So the integral becomes

$$\int_0^\infty e^{-2x} dx=\frac{1}{2}$$

• Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Kuba
Jun 25, 2019 at 8:00

Workaround:

We have a functionE^(-a*x) (1 - x/n)^n where a=1 then:

func=E^(-a*x) (1 - x/n)^n;
sol1 = InverseLaplaceTransform[func, a, s]
(*(1 - x/n)^n DiracDelta[s - x]*)
sol2 = Integrate[sol1, {x, 0, n}, Assumptions -> {s > 0, n < Infinity}]
(*(1 - s/n)^n (DiscreteDelta[n] + HeavisideTheta[n - s] - HeavisideTheta[-n, n - s])*)
sol3 = Limit[sol2, n -> Infinity, Assumptions -> s > 0]
(*E^-s*)
sol4 = LaplaceTransform[sol3, s, a]
(*1/(1 + a)*)
Limit[sol4, a -> 1]
(*1/2*)


By numerics:

f[n_?NumericQ] := NIntegrate[(1 - x/n)^n*E^(-x), {x, 0, n}, Method -> "LocalAdaptive"];
Table[f[10^n], {n, 0, 6}]
(*{0.367879, 0.487198, 0.498747, 0.499875, 0.499987, 0.499999, 0.5} *)


Answer is 1/2 not 1.

• Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Kuba
Jun 23, 2019 at 20:51
• Thank you @Kuba (and apologies to everyone who made inoffensive comments in various parts of this thread). Jun 23, 2019 at 21:21

Firstly, it is not entirely correct to approximate $$\left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^n$$ as $$e^{-x}$$ because even though $$n$$ goes to infinity, the integration probes the region $$x\sim n$$, hence there are contributions in the integral for which $$\frac{x}{n}$$ is not arbitrarily small!

Of course $$e^{-x}$$ suppresses all such contributions; nonetheless, IMHO it is not warranted to apply the limit inside the integral.

Let us instead consider the following. With the change of variables $$x=n a$$, we have $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{n}e^{-x}\left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^ndx=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{1}ne^{-na}\left(1-a\right)^nda=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{1}ne^{-na}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^ka^k\binom{n}{k}da$$ Note that the Taylor expansion behaves well for all integration region as $$0. Thus $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{n}e^{-x}\left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^ndx=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\binom{n}{k}\int\limits_{0}^{1}e^{-na}a^kda$$

We can do the integration (e.g. with Mathematica) to find $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{n}e^{-x}\left(1-\frac{x}{n}\right)^ndx=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}n^{-k}\binom{n}{k}\left(k!-\Gamma(k+1,n)\right)=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k$$

Therefore, the limit does not exist! (Thanks to @user64494 for pointing out my typo) However, we can always get the regularized result (a.k.a do analytical continuation from the region it does exist):

Sum[(-1)^k, {k, 0, \[Infinity]}, Regularization -> "Abel"]


gives 1/2.

• However, Table[NIntegrate[Exp[-x]*(1 - x/10^n)^(10^n), {x, 0, 10^n}], {n, 1, 4}] performs $\{0.487198,0.498747,0.499875,0.499987\}$, confirming $\frac 1 2$. Jun 26, 2019 at 10:49
• The limit exists or does not exist. The statement "the limit is NOT convergent! " is your invention. Jun 26, 2019 at 10:51
• This was a nice idea! How do you justify changing the order of integration and summation?
– mjw
Jun 27, 2019 at 2:30
• @mjw Rigorously speaking, I am not. However, as the terms are integrable and bounded, I think the interchange should be fine (in the spirit of Fubini's theorem, considering the sum as another integral). In my opinion, the real issue is when I take the limit inside the sum: this may be too far. Jun 27, 2019 at 2:47
• Also, relying on regularization to evaluate a limit does not exist may not be a convincing argument.
– mjw
Jun 27, 2019 at 3:05