First of all, I'm sorry if this question has been already asked and answered, as far as I searched, I couldn't find such a question on this site. So, I've been thinking about the limit of the sequence $\left(\root{2n+1}\of{-1}\right)_{n\geq 0}$. Since the order of the root is odd for every $n$, this sequence, is obviously a constant sequence with the general term $a_n = -1$. So, from this follows that $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \root{2n+1}\of{-1} = -1 $$. We can even do an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show this (and it's realy easy actually): $$ \forall \epsilon > 0 \hspace{0.5cm} \exists N \geq 0 \hspace{0.3cm} \text{s.t.} \hspace{0.3cm} \left|\root{2n+1}\of{-1}+1\right|<\epsilon \hspace{0.5cm} \forall n \geq N \\ \left|\root{2n+1}\of{-1} + 1\right| = \left|-1 + 1\right| = 0 < \epsilon \hspace{0.5cm} \forall n \geq 0 \\ N = 0 \ _\blacksquare $$.
However, if we use tehniques ussualy used for solving limits, we end up with a different result: $$ \begin{align*} \lim_{n\to\infty} \root{2n+1}\of{-1} &= \lim_{n\to\infty} (-1)^{1\over 2n+1} \\ &= \left(\lim_{n\to\infty}-1\right)^{\lim_{n\to\infty}{1\over 2n+1}} \\ &= (-1)^0 \\ &= 1 \end{align*} $$.
What is wrong here? Why do the two methods give different results?
Edit: To make everything clear, I'm assuming the real root as defined by $\root n \of {} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ for odd $n$ and treating this as a real-analysis problem. Also, it's pretty explicit from my question that I'm working with a sequence and not with a function. The limit only goes through natural values of $n$
Edit 2: I've figured it out. Thank you all for your answers esspecially to @Jack who pointed out the theorem I've been using $\lim_{n\to\infty}(a_n^{b_n}) = (\lim_{n\to\infty} a_n)^{(\lim_{n\to\infty} b_n)}$ is not true in general. I've consulted my textbook again and saw that I've missed the part where they said $a_n > 0, \forall n \in \mathbb{N}$. Of course, we can think of this problem also from the viewpoint of functions and the fact that the function $(-1)^x$ is not continuous is another gap in using something like the above theorem. Thank you all again for being so kind and giving me so many answers.