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 Rn−1 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 Rn−1, 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
limn→∞Vn=limn→∞πn/2√πn(n2e)n/2=limn→∞1√πn⋅limn→∞(2πen)n/2=0
since limn→∞1/√πn=0 and
limn→∞(2πen)n/2=limn→∞exp(n2ln(2πen))=limm→−∞exp(m)=0.