Ambiguous or informal ellipses [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • $sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$

    3 answers



I was thinking about the infinite expression:



$$sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+...$$



It seems to me a bit informal or underspecified. You could state it better by defining an infinite series:



$$a_n = sqrt6+a_n-1$$



And then ask about $lim_nrightarrowinftya_n$. But then you have to wonder what $a_0$ is. Although anyway it's not too hard to figure out that if $a_0 geq -6$, then the limit is 3. I fully understand this is the typical treatment and has been covered before. But where does this $a_0 geq -6$ come from? Is there a way to evaluate it without making any assumptions like this?



It also dawned on me that maybe you could also define this sequence going "outside-in" instead of "inside-out". For instance:



$$b_n = b_n-1^2-6$$



But this seems a bit more unruly. It diverges for values other than $3$ and $-2$.



So I guess my question is: is that original expression just underdefined, and requires a small "leap" to formalize? Or is there a better way to treat that kind of thing strictly? Are there examples of similar expressions where the "informality" is troublesome - like maybe there's more than one way to formalize it that leads to different answers?







share|cite|improve this question














marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 10 at 7:57


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
    – Wintermute
    Aug 9 at 21:20










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
    – Aryabhata
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
    – Hamed
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
    – Cave Johnson
    Aug 9 at 21:24










  • @Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:31














up vote
1
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • $sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$

    3 answers



I was thinking about the infinite expression:



$$sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+...$$



It seems to me a bit informal or underspecified. You could state it better by defining an infinite series:



$$a_n = sqrt6+a_n-1$$



And then ask about $lim_nrightarrowinftya_n$. But then you have to wonder what $a_0$ is. Although anyway it's not too hard to figure out that if $a_0 geq -6$, then the limit is 3. I fully understand this is the typical treatment and has been covered before. But where does this $a_0 geq -6$ come from? Is there a way to evaluate it without making any assumptions like this?



It also dawned on me that maybe you could also define this sequence going "outside-in" instead of "inside-out". For instance:



$$b_n = b_n-1^2-6$$



But this seems a bit more unruly. It diverges for values other than $3$ and $-2$.



So I guess my question is: is that original expression just underdefined, and requires a small "leap" to formalize? Or is there a better way to treat that kind of thing strictly? Are there examples of similar expressions where the "informality" is troublesome - like maybe there's more than one way to formalize it that leads to different answers?







share|cite|improve this question














marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 10 at 7:57


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
    – Wintermute
    Aug 9 at 21:20










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
    – Aryabhata
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
    – Hamed
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
    – Cave Johnson
    Aug 9 at 21:24










  • @Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:31












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite












This question already has an answer here:



  • $sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$

    3 answers



I was thinking about the infinite expression:



$$sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+...$$



It seems to me a bit informal or underspecified. You could state it better by defining an infinite series:



$$a_n = sqrt6+a_n-1$$



And then ask about $lim_nrightarrowinftya_n$. But then you have to wonder what $a_0$ is. Although anyway it's not too hard to figure out that if $a_0 geq -6$, then the limit is 3. I fully understand this is the typical treatment and has been covered before. But where does this $a_0 geq -6$ come from? Is there a way to evaluate it without making any assumptions like this?



It also dawned on me that maybe you could also define this sequence going "outside-in" instead of "inside-out". For instance:



$$b_n = b_n-1^2-6$$



But this seems a bit more unruly. It diverges for values other than $3$ and $-2$.



So I guess my question is: is that original expression just underdefined, and requires a small "leap" to formalize? Or is there a better way to treat that kind of thing strictly? Are there examples of similar expressions where the "informality" is troublesome - like maybe there's more than one way to formalize it that leads to different answers?







share|cite|improve this question















This question already has an answer here:



  • $sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$

    3 answers



I was thinking about the infinite expression:



$$sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+...$$



It seems to me a bit informal or underspecified. You could state it better by defining an infinite series:



$$a_n = sqrt6+a_n-1$$



And then ask about $lim_nrightarrowinftya_n$. But then you have to wonder what $a_0$ is. Although anyway it's not too hard to figure out that if $a_0 geq -6$, then the limit is 3. I fully understand this is the typical treatment and has been covered before. But where does this $a_0 geq -6$ come from? Is there a way to evaluate it without making any assumptions like this?



It also dawned on me that maybe you could also define this sequence going "outside-in" instead of "inside-out". For instance:



$$b_n = b_n-1^2-6$$



But this seems a bit more unruly. It diverges for values other than $3$ and $-2$.



So I guess my question is: is that original expression just underdefined, and requires a small "leap" to formalize? Or is there a better way to treat that kind of thing strictly? Are there examples of similar expressions where the "informality" is troublesome - like maybe there's more than one way to formalize it that leads to different answers?





This question already has an answer here:



  • $sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$

    3 answers









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 9 at 21:36

























asked Aug 9 at 21:15









Joe K

1,280710




1,280710




marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 10 at 7:57


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 10 at 7:57


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 1




    Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
    – Wintermute
    Aug 9 at 21:20










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
    – Aryabhata
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
    – Hamed
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
    – Cave Johnson
    Aug 9 at 21:24










  • @Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:31












  • 1




    Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
    – Wintermute
    Aug 9 at 21:20










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
    – Aryabhata
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
    – Hamed
    Aug 9 at 21:23










  • There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
    – Cave Johnson
    Aug 9 at 21:24










  • @Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:31







1




1




Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
– Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20




Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
– Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20












Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
– Aryabhata
Aug 9 at 21:23




Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/…
– Aryabhata
Aug 9 at 21:23












You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
– Hamed
Aug 9 at 21:23




You do not have to think of this as a sequence and limit case (which will get you in trouble with $a_0$ and whatnot). Instead, think of this number as the solution to $x=sqrt6+x$.
– Hamed
Aug 9 at 21:23












There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
– Cave Johnson
Aug 9 at 21:24




There is no contradiction here. The "outside-in" method you wrote is just not finding the limit of the given expression.
– Cave Johnson
Aug 9 at 21:24












@Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
– Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31




@Hamed doesn't that only work if you first assume the epxression converges or a solution exists? For instance, doing that with $6+(6+(6+(6+...)^3)^3)^3$ gives the answer $-2$, but maybe that expression should just be divergent?
– Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













Actually it is not ambiguous. The map $f:xmapsto sqrt6+x$ is a contraction of the metric space $[-1,7]$, due to $f'(x)=frac12sqrt6+x$, so by the Banach fixed point theorem for any $xin[-1,7]$ the sequence
$$ x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),ldots $$
converges towards the unique fixed point of $f$ in $[-1,7]$, i.e. $3$. Summarizing
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:33











  • @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
    – Jack D'Aurizio♦
    Aug 9 at 21:36


















up vote
2
down vote













The use of "$cdots$" in this way will always indicate a limit. On the face of it, it indicates repeating some process an infinite number of times -- which is of course impossible. You can only take the limit of a sequence of finite performable operations (or determine that such a limit does not exist). So the expression $$sqrt6 + sqrt6 + sqrt6 + ldots$$
can only mean the limit of the sequence $s_n$ (if it exists), where



$$s_0 =sqrt6$$
$$s_1 = sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt6 + s_0$$
$$s_2 = sqrt 6 + sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt 6 + s_1$$
and so
$$s_n = sqrt6 + s_n-1$$
So in other words, your expression means unambiguously
$$lim_ntoinftys_n$$
if this limit exists.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Actually it is not ambiguous. The map $f:xmapsto sqrt6+x$ is a contraction of the metric space $[-1,7]$, due to $f'(x)=frac12sqrt6+x$, so by the Banach fixed point theorem for any $xin[-1,7]$ the sequence
    $$ x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),ldots $$
    converges towards the unique fixed point of $f$ in $[-1,7]$, i.e. $3$. Summarizing
    $$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
      – Joe K
      Aug 9 at 21:33











    • @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
      – Jack D'Aurizio♦
      Aug 9 at 21:36















    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Actually it is not ambiguous. The map $f:xmapsto sqrt6+x$ is a contraction of the metric space $[-1,7]$, due to $f'(x)=frac12sqrt6+x$, so by the Banach fixed point theorem for any $xin[-1,7]$ the sequence
    $$ x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),ldots $$
    converges towards the unique fixed point of $f$ in $[-1,7]$, i.e. $3$. Summarizing
    $$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
      – Joe K
      Aug 9 at 21:33











    • @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
      – Jack D'Aurizio♦
      Aug 9 at 21:36













    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    down vote









    Actually it is not ambiguous. The map $f:xmapsto sqrt6+x$ is a contraction of the metric space $[-1,7]$, due to $f'(x)=frac12sqrt6+x$, so by the Banach fixed point theorem for any $xin[-1,7]$ the sequence
    $$ x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),ldots $$
    converges towards the unique fixed point of $f$ in $[-1,7]$, i.e. $3$. Summarizing
    $$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Actually it is not ambiguous. The map $f:xmapsto sqrt6+x$ is a contraction of the metric space $[-1,7]$, due to $f'(x)=frac12sqrt6+x$, so by the Banach fixed point theorem for any $xin[-1,7]$ the sequence
    $$ x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),ldots $$
    converges towards the unique fixed point of $f$ in $[-1,7]$, i.e. $3$. Summarizing
    $$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 9 at 21:29









    Jack D'Aurizio♦

    271k31266631




    271k31266631











    • Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
      – Joe K
      Aug 9 at 21:33











    • @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
      – Jack D'Aurizio♦
      Aug 9 at 21:36

















    • Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
      – Joe K
      Aug 9 at 21:33











    • @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
      – Jack D'Aurizio♦
      Aug 9 at 21:36
















    Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:33





    Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
    – Joe K
    Aug 9 at 21:33













    @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
    – Jack D'Aurizio♦
    Aug 9 at 21:36





    @JoeK: it mustn't. You may take any other closed neighbourhood of the origin which is mapped into itself by $f$, provided by $left|f'right|<1$ over there. $[-1,7]$ just looked like a convenient choice.
    – Jack D'Aurizio♦
    Aug 9 at 21:36











    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The use of "$cdots$" in this way will always indicate a limit. On the face of it, it indicates repeating some process an infinite number of times -- which is of course impossible. You can only take the limit of a sequence of finite performable operations (or determine that such a limit does not exist). So the expression $$sqrt6 + sqrt6 + sqrt6 + ldots$$
    can only mean the limit of the sequence $s_n$ (if it exists), where



    $$s_0 =sqrt6$$
    $$s_1 = sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt6 + s_0$$
    $$s_2 = sqrt 6 + sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt 6 + s_1$$
    and so
    $$s_n = sqrt6 + s_n-1$$
    So in other words, your expression means unambiguously
    $$lim_ntoinftys_n$$
    if this limit exists.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The use of "$cdots$" in this way will always indicate a limit. On the face of it, it indicates repeating some process an infinite number of times -- which is of course impossible. You can only take the limit of a sequence of finite performable operations (or determine that such a limit does not exist). So the expression $$sqrt6 + sqrt6 + sqrt6 + ldots$$
      can only mean the limit of the sequence $s_n$ (if it exists), where



      $$s_0 =sqrt6$$
      $$s_1 = sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt6 + s_0$$
      $$s_2 = sqrt 6 + sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt 6 + s_1$$
      and so
      $$s_n = sqrt6 + s_n-1$$
      So in other words, your expression means unambiguously
      $$lim_ntoinftys_n$$
      if this limit exists.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        The use of "$cdots$" in this way will always indicate a limit. On the face of it, it indicates repeating some process an infinite number of times -- which is of course impossible. You can only take the limit of a sequence of finite performable operations (or determine that such a limit does not exist). So the expression $$sqrt6 + sqrt6 + sqrt6 + ldots$$
        can only mean the limit of the sequence $s_n$ (if it exists), where



        $$s_0 =sqrt6$$
        $$s_1 = sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt6 + s_0$$
        $$s_2 = sqrt 6 + sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt 6 + s_1$$
        and so
        $$s_n = sqrt6 + s_n-1$$
        So in other words, your expression means unambiguously
        $$lim_ntoinftys_n$$
        if this limit exists.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The use of "$cdots$" in this way will always indicate a limit. On the face of it, it indicates repeating some process an infinite number of times -- which is of course impossible. You can only take the limit of a sequence of finite performable operations (or determine that such a limit does not exist). So the expression $$sqrt6 + sqrt6 + sqrt6 + ldots$$
        can only mean the limit of the sequence $s_n$ (if it exists), where



        $$s_0 =sqrt6$$
        $$s_1 = sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt6 + s_0$$
        $$s_2 = sqrt 6 + sqrt 6 + sqrt6 = sqrt 6 + s_1$$
        and so
        $$s_n = sqrt6 + s_n-1$$
        So in other words, your expression means unambiguously
        $$lim_ntoinftys_n$$
        if this limit exists.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 9 at 21:41









        MPW

        28.4k11853




        28.4k11853












            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Carbon dioxide