3
$\begingroup$

I just wrote a blog post and wasn't sure how to word a particular sentence. Say I have the following function:

\begin{equation} f(x) = x^2 \end{equation}

Then I can say that the value of f(x) grows quadratically with x*. Similarly with this function:

\begin{equation} f(x) = e^x \end{equation}

...I could say that f(x) grows exponentially with x. But what about this?

\begin{equation} f(x) = x! \end{equation}

Do I say that f(x) grows "factorially"? What's the proper term?


*I worded this wrong at first. It should be right now. Wait, is that even right? Or would "exponentially" imply f(x) = kx? Should the first term be "quadratically" instead?

  • 1
    $f(x) = x^2$ grows quadratically with $x$. $f(x) = e^x$ grows exponentially.2011-01-23
  • 0
    @Moron: Thanks, you pointed that out just as I started to realize my mistake (see my edits—I've now corrected that part).2011-01-23
  • 0
    I think you mean $e^x$ where you wrote $e^2$.2011-01-23
  • 0
    @Rahul: Yes I did, thanks for pointing that out! (Man, clearly it pays to proofread your math.)2011-01-23

1 Answers 1

4

Using Stirling's formula,

$$n! \times e^n \approx Cn^{n + 1/2}$$

I am not sure if there is a name for that kind of growth. It is super-exponential and might be enough to get the point across, I suppose.

btw, $f(x) = x^2$ is said to grow quadratically, not exponentially.

  • 0
    @Moron: You forgot about the $e^{-n}$-term in Stirling's formula.2011-01-23
  • 0
    @Rasmus: Yes, was editing :-)Thanks for pointing that out.2011-01-23
  • 1
    Well, $n^n$ can be described as **tetration**, in which case it could be denoted ${}^2n$. Not sure how that word could be turned into an adjective though, and it's not exactly widely used I guess :)2011-01-23
  • 0
    @Will: Yes, but $n!$ is $n^{n+1/2}$ divided by $e^n$, so it is not exactly tetration... There is also that $\sqrt{n}$ factor.2011-01-24
  • 0
    I'd say this, combined with Will's comment, answers my question. Thanks!2011-01-24
  • 0
    @Dan: I'd still prefer factorially, however.2011-01-24
  • 0
    @Rasmus: Oh, that's what I went with.2011-01-24