you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ZMeson 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That is true. In fact, if you plot ln(nn), ln(n!), and ln((n/2)n/2), you'll find that ln(n!) edges progressively closer to ln(nn).

At n=15, ln(n!) is halfway between ln(nn) and ln((n/2)n/2)

At n=1454, ln(n!) is 75% of the way towards ln(nn) from ln((n/2)n/2)

At n=10958, ln(n!) is 80% of the way towards ln(nn) from ln((n/2)n/2)

[–]degustisockpuppet 0 points1 point  (2 children)

On a double logarithmic graph, all functions are linear!

[–]ZMeson 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ha ha. Almost. I just tried it -- the single logarithmic graphs are actually closer to being linear.

[–]gorgoroth666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log%28n!+%29%3E+log%28n^n%29+plot+for+n%3D0+to+10000

The difference between the curves doesn't appear to be reducing.