Ambiguous or informal ellipses [duplicate]
Clash 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?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos
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.
add a comment |Â
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?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, Xander Henderson, Taroccoesbrocco, Lord Shark the Unknown, José Carlos Santos
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 $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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.
â 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?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31
add a comment |Â
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?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
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
real-analysis sequences-and-series
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
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
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 $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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.
â 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?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31
add a comment |Â
1
Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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.
â 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?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31
1
1
Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â Aryabhata
Aug 9 at 21:23
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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?
â 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?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31
add a comment |Â
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
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
add a comment |Â
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
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
add a comment |Â
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
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$
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
$$ sqrt6+sqrt6+sqrt6+ldots=3.$$
answered Aug 9 at 21:29
Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
271k31266631
271k31266631
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
add a comment |Â
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:33
Why must $x$ be constrained to $[-1,7]$?
â 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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
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.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Aug 9 at 21:36
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Aug 9 at 21:41
MPW
28.4k11853
28.4k11853
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1
Why isn't it just straight forward to say $a_0 = sqrt6$?
â Wintermute
Aug 9 at 21:20
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/115501/â¦
â 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 $x=sqrt6+x$.
â 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.
â 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?
â Joe K
Aug 9 at 21:31