A curious hypersphere property

Last time when I derived the formula for the volume of a hypersphere in n dimensions I forgot to point out a curious consequence of the formula, namely that the volume tends to zero as n tends to infinity.

When I was an undergraduate I remember a professor of mine pointing this out and then declaring “That doesn’t make sense!”. At the time it didn’t seem too surprising to me, since I could see that the unit circle in R2 took up more of the surrounding square [1,1]2 than the unit sphere in R3 took up of [1,1]3. Consquently, I thought it likely that the ratio of the volume of the unit sphere in Rn to the volume of [1,1]n should go to zero as n.

However, I misunderstood the claim being made: not only does the above ratio of hypersphere-to-hypercube volume go to zero, the volume of the hypersphere itself goes to zero. This was something I hadn’t even considered: since as n the hypersphere is “growing”, I presumably took for granted that its volume should go to infinity, not zero!

Of course, one can consider the unit sphere in Rn1 as a subset of the unit sphere in Rn, since for example the unit sphere in R3 contains the unit circle as a “slice”. In this way as n the hypersphere is growing. However, though the “slice” has volume in Rn1, it has no volume in Rn; as the dimension increases it becomes “harder” to make volume in a sense. This allows the hypersphere to “grow” as n while still shrink in volume.

Algebraically, as we’ve seen, the volume of the unit sphere in Rn is given by

Vn=πn/2(n/2)!.

If one knows Stirling’s approximation

n!2πn(ne)n

then it isn’t too hard to see that the denominator of Vn grows asymptotically faster than the numerator, and therefore Vn tends to 0. Explicitly, we have

limnVn=limnπn/2πn(n2e)n/2=limn1πnlimn(2πen)n/2=0

since limn1/πn=0 and

limn(2πen)n/2=limnexp(n2ln(2πen))=limmexp(m)=0.