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

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











up vote
59
down vote

favorite
36












(Fitzpatrick Advanced Calculus 2e, Sec. 2.4 #12)



For $c gt 0$, consider the quadratic equation
$x^2 - x - c = 0, x > 0$.



Define the sequence $x_n$ recursively by fixing $|x_1| lt c$ and then, if $n$ is an index for which $x_n$ has been defined, defining



$$x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$$



Prove that the sequence $x_n$ converges monotonically to the solution of the above equation.



Note: The answers below might assume $x_1 gt 0$, but they still work, as we have $x_3 gt 0$.




This is being repurposed in an effort to cut down on duplicates, see here: Coping with abstract duplicate questions.



and here: List of abstract duplicates.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:32











  • Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
    – Michael Hardy
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:39






  • 1




    What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:49










  • Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:59






  • 1




    I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:20















up vote
59
down vote

favorite
36












(Fitzpatrick Advanced Calculus 2e, Sec. 2.4 #12)



For $c gt 0$, consider the quadratic equation
$x^2 - x - c = 0, x > 0$.



Define the sequence $x_n$ recursively by fixing $|x_1| lt c$ and then, if $n$ is an index for which $x_n$ has been defined, defining



$$x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$$



Prove that the sequence $x_n$ converges monotonically to the solution of the above equation.



Note: The answers below might assume $x_1 gt 0$, but they still work, as we have $x_3 gt 0$.




This is being repurposed in an effort to cut down on duplicates, see here: Coping with abstract duplicate questions.



and here: List of abstract duplicates.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:32











  • Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
    – Michael Hardy
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:39






  • 1




    What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:49










  • Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:59






  • 1




    I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:20













up vote
59
down vote

favorite
36









up vote
59
down vote

favorite
36






36





(Fitzpatrick Advanced Calculus 2e, Sec. 2.4 #12)



For $c gt 0$, consider the quadratic equation
$x^2 - x - c = 0, x > 0$.



Define the sequence $x_n$ recursively by fixing $|x_1| lt c$ and then, if $n$ is an index for which $x_n$ has been defined, defining



$$x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$$



Prove that the sequence $x_n$ converges monotonically to the solution of the above equation.



Note: The answers below might assume $x_1 gt 0$, but they still work, as we have $x_3 gt 0$.




This is being repurposed in an effort to cut down on duplicates, see here: Coping with abstract duplicate questions.



and here: List of abstract duplicates.







share|cite|improve this question














(Fitzpatrick Advanced Calculus 2e, Sec. 2.4 #12)



For $c gt 0$, consider the quadratic equation
$x^2 - x - c = 0, x > 0$.



Define the sequence $x_n$ recursively by fixing $|x_1| lt c$ and then, if $n$ is an index for which $x_n$ has been defined, defining



$$x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$$



Prove that the sequence $x_n$ converges monotonically to the solution of the above equation.



Note: The answers below might assume $x_1 gt 0$, but they still work, as we have $x_3 gt 0$.




This is being repurposed in an effort to cut down on duplicates, see here: Coping with abstract duplicate questions.



and here: List of abstract duplicates.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 '13 at 19:01









Martin Sleziak

43.6k6113260




43.6k6113260










asked Mar 2 '12 at 0:32









cnuulhu

42055




42055







  • 1




    I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:32











  • Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
    – Michael Hardy
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:39






  • 1




    What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:49










  • Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:59






  • 1




    I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:20













  • 1




    I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:32











  • Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
    – Michael Hardy
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:39






  • 1




    What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:49










  • Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
    – cnuulhu
    Mar 2 '12 at 0:59






  • 1




    I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:20








1




1




I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
– cnuulhu
Mar 2 '12 at 0:32





I have noted that the recursive definition of $x_n$ is identical to the first equation if $x_n+1 = x_n$, so is it sufficient to show that $x_n$ is monotonic and that $x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$? And how would I go about doing this?
– cnuulhu
Mar 2 '12 at 0:32













Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
– Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39




Clearly a solution of that equation would be a fixed point of $xmapsto sqrtc+x$. So I'd look at criteria for when a fixed point is attractive.
– Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39




1




1




What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
– Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49




What do you mean by ‘$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$’?
– Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49












Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
– cnuulhu
Mar 2 '12 at 0:59




Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
– cnuulhu
Mar 2 '12 at 0:59




1




1




I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
– Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20





I guessed that that was what you meant, but I figured that it was best to be sure. You’ve the right feel for what’s going on, but the details take a bit of work: see my answer. (By the way, it would be better to edit your question to include the information in your first comment, so as to make it self-contained.)
– Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
25
down vote



accepted










Assuming that you know that a monotone, bounded sequence converges, you want to do two things. First, show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is monotone and bounded, and then show that its limit is the positive root of $x^2-x-c=0$.



If $c=x_1=1$, $x_2=sqrt2>x_1$, while if $c=1$ and $x_1=2$, $x_2=sqrt3<x_1$, so if the sequence is monotonic, the direction in which it’s monotonic must depend on $c$ and $x_1$. A good first step would be to try to figure out how this dependence works.



The positive root of the quadratic is $frac12(1+sqrt1+4c)$, which I’ll denote by $r$. If $x_nto r$, as claimed, and does so monotonically, it must be the case that the sequence increases monotonically if $x_1<r$ and decreases monotonically if $x_1>r$. In the examples in the last paragraph, $r=frac12(1+sqrt5)approx 1.618$, so they behave as predicted.



This suggests that your first step should be to show that if $x_n<r$, then $x_n<x_n+1<r$, while if $x_n>r$, $x_n>x_n+1>r$; that would be enough to show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is both monotone and bounded and hence that it has a limit.



Suppose that $0le x_n<r$; you can easily check that $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$, i.e., that $x_n^2<x_n+c$. On the other hand, $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$, so $x_n+1^2>x_n^2$, and therefore $x_n+1>x_n$. Is it possible that $x_n+1ge r$? That would require that $x_n+1^2-x_n+1-cge 0$ (why?) and hence that $$x_n+1^2ge x_n+1+c>x_n+c=x_n+1^2;,$$ which is clearly impossible. Thus, if $0le x_n<r$, we must have $x_n<x_n+1<r$, as desired. I leave the case $x_n>r$ to you.



Once this is done, you still have to show that the limit of the sequence really is $r$. Let $f(x)=sqrtc+x$; clearly $f$ is continuous, so if the sequence converges to $L$, we have $$L=lim_ntoinftyx_n=lim_ntoinftyx_n+1=lim_ntoinftyf(x_n)=f(L);,$$ and from there it’s trivial to check that $L=r$.



Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isn’t actually necessary: all that’s needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
    – Aryabhata
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:48











  • @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:54










  • I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
    – Aryabhata
    Mar 2 '12 at 1:56











  • @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
    – Brian M. Scott
    Mar 2 '12 at 2:18

















up vote
3
down vote













Let $k$ be the positive root to your polynomial. Note that $y=x^2-x-c$ is an upward opening parabola with its vertex below the $x$-axis and an initial downward slope. This implies that positive $x$-values less than $k$ produce negative output, while $x$-values greater than $k$ produce positive output.



Note also that all $x_n$ are positive, so it will be acceptable to preserve equalities and inequalities involving $x_n^2$ after taking a square root.



If $x_0=k$, then $x_1^2=c+k=k^2$, so $x_1=k$. The sequence continues like this, and is constant.



If $x_n<k$, then $x_n+1^2=c+x_n<c+k=k^2$. So $x_n+1<k$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1>k$.) This establishes that the sequence is either bounded above or below, depending on where $x_0$ is in relation to $k$.



If $x_n<k$, then $x$ is a positive number to the left of the root of your polynomial. $x$-values in this region produce negative output, so $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$. That implies that $x_n+1^2=c+x_n>x_n^2$, and so $x_n+1>x_n$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1<x_n$.)



Thus if $x_0<k$ you will have an increasing sequence bounded above. And if $x_0>k$ you will have a decreasing sequence bounded below.



So the limit exists under all possible cases. It's value has to be a solution to $L=sqrtc+L$. There is only one such solution: $L=k$.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Let $r=frac 1+sqrt 1+4c2$ be the positive root of the quadratic, so that $r^2=r+c$ and $rgt 1$



    Note that for $ngt 1$ we have $x_ngt 0$



    Now suppose $rgt x_n$ so with $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$ we have $$r^2-x_n+1^2=(r+c)-(c+x_n)=r-x_ngt 0$$and $$r-x_n+1=frac r-x_nr+x_n+1lt r-x_n$$



    Whence $x_n$ is monotonically increasing, and getting closer to $r$ - the difference reduces at least as fast as $r^-n$, so the limit is easy to prove.



    On the other hand if $rlt x_n$ we have $$x_n+1^2-r^2=(c+x_n)-(r+c)=x_n-rgt 0$$and $$x_n+1-r=frac x_n-rx_n+1+rlt x_n-r$$and the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by $r$, and it is once again easy to prove that this is the limit.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115501%2fsqrtc-sqrtc-sqrtc-cdots-or-the-limit-of-the-sequence-x-n1-sq%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      25
      down vote



      accepted










      Assuming that you know that a monotone, bounded sequence converges, you want to do two things. First, show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is monotone and bounded, and then show that its limit is the positive root of $x^2-x-c=0$.



      If $c=x_1=1$, $x_2=sqrt2>x_1$, while if $c=1$ and $x_1=2$, $x_2=sqrt3<x_1$, so if the sequence is monotonic, the direction in which it’s monotonic must depend on $c$ and $x_1$. A good first step would be to try to figure out how this dependence works.



      The positive root of the quadratic is $frac12(1+sqrt1+4c)$, which I’ll denote by $r$. If $x_nto r$, as claimed, and does so monotonically, it must be the case that the sequence increases monotonically if $x_1<r$ and decreases monotonically if $x_1>r$. In the examples in the last paragraph, $r=frac12(1+sqrt5)approx 1.618$, so they behave as predicted.



      This suggests that your first step should be to show that if $x_n<r$, then $x_n<x_n+1<r$, while if $x_n>r$, $x_n>x_n+1>r$; that would be enough to show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is both monotone and bounded and hence that it has a limit.



      Suppose that $0le x_n<r$; you can easily check that $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$, i.e., that $x_n^2<x_n+c$. On the other hand, $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$, so $x_n+1^2>x_n^2$, and therefore $x_n+1>x_n$. Is it possible that $x_n+1ge r$? That would require that $x_n+1^2-x_n+1-cge 0$ (why?) and hence that $$x_n+1^2ge x_n+1+c>x_n+c=x_n+1^2;,$$ which is clearly impossible. Thus, if $0le x_n<r$, we must have $x_n<x_n+1<r$, as desired. I leave the case $x_n>r$ to you.



      Once this is done, you still have to show that the limit of the sequence really is $r$. Let $f(x)=sqrtc+x$; clearly $f$ is continuous, so if the sequence converges to $L$, we have $$L=lim_ntoinftyx_n=lim_ntoinftyx_n+1=lim_ntoinftyf(x_n)=f(L);,$$ and from there it’s trivial to check that $L=r$.



      Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isn’t actually necessary: all that’s needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















      • If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:48











      • @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:54










      • I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:56











      • @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 2:18














      up vote
      25
      down vote



      accepted










      Assuming that you know that a monotone, bounded sequence converges, you want to do two things. First, show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is monotone and bounded, and then show that its limit is the positive root of $x^2-x-c=0$.



      If $c=x_1=1$, $x_2=sqrt2>x_1$, while if $c=1$ and $x_1=2$, $x_2=sqrt3<x_1$, so if the sequence is monotonic, the direction in which it’s monotonic must depend on $c$ and $x_1$. A good first step would be to try to figure out how this dependence works.



      The positive root of the quadratic is $frac12(1+sqrt1+4c)$, which I’ll denote by $r$. If $x_nto r$, as claimed, and does so monotonically, it must be the case that the sequence increases monotonically if $x_1<r$ and decreases monotonically if $x_1>r$. In the examples in the last paragraph, $r=frac12(1+sqrt5)approx 1.618$, so they behave as predicted.



      This suggests that your first step should be to show that if $x_n<r$, then $x_n<x_n+1<r$, while if $x_n>r$, $x_n>x_n+1>r$; that would be enough to show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is both monotone and bounded and hence that it has a limit.



      Suppose that $0le x_n<r$; you can easily check that $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$, i.e., that $x_n^2<x_n+c$. On the other hand, $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$, so $x_n+1^2>x_n^2$, and therefore $x_n+1>x_n$. Is it possible that $x_n+1ge r$? That would require that $x_n+1^2-x_n+1-cge 0$ (why?) and hence that $$x_n+1^2ge x_n+1+c>x_n+c=x_n+1^2;,$$ which is clearly impossible. Thus, if $0le x_n<r$, we must have $x_n<x_n+1<r$, as desired. I leave the case $x_n>r$ to you.



      Once this is done, you still have to show that the limit of the sequence really is $r$. Let $f(x)=sqrtc+x$; clearly $f$ is continuous, so if the sequence converges to $L$, we have $$L=lim_ntoinftyx_n=lim_ntoinftyx_n+1=lim_ntoinftyf(x_n)=f(L);,$$ and from there it’s trivial to check that $L=r$.



      Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isn’t actually necessary: all that’s needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















      • If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:48











      • @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:54










      • I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:56











      • @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 2:18












      up vote
      25
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      25
      down vote



      accepted






      Assuming that you know that a monotone, bounded sequence converges, you want to do two things. First, show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is monotone and bounded, and then show that its limit is the positive root of $x^2-x-c=0$.



      If $c=x_1=1$, $x_2=sqrt2>x_1$, while if $c=1$ and $x_1=2$, $x_2=sqrt3<x_1$, so if the sequence is monotonic, the direction in which it’s monotonic must depend on $c$ and $x_1$. A good first step would be to try to figure out how this dependence works.



      The positive root of the quadratic is $frac12(1+sqrt1+4c)$, which I’ll denote by $r$. If $x_nto r$, as claimed, and does so monotonically, it must be the case that the sequence increases monotonically if $x_1<r$ and decreases monotonically if $x_1>r$. In the examples in the last paragraph, $r=frac12(1+sqrt5)approx 1.618$, so they behave as predicted.



      This suggests that your first step should be to show that if $x_n<r$, then $x_n<x_n+1<r$, while if $x_n>r$, $x_n>x_n+1>r$; that would be enough to show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is both monotone and bounded and hence that it has a limit.



      Suppose that $0le x_n<r$; you can easily check that $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$, i.e., that $x_n^2<x_n+c$. On the other hand, $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$, so $x_n+1^2>x_n^2$, and therefore $x_n+1>x_n$. Is it possible that $x_n+1ge r$? That would require that $x_n+1^2-x_n+1-cge 0$ (why?) and hence that $$x_n+1^2ge x_n+1+c>x_n+c=x_n+1^2;,$$ which is clearly impossible. Thus, if $0le x_n<r$, we must have $x_n<x_n+1<r$, as desired. I leave the case $x_n>r$ to you.



      Once this is done, you still have to show that the limit of the sequence really is $r$. Let $f(x)=sqrtc+x$; clearly $f$ is continuous, so if the sequence converges to $L$, we have $$L=lim_ntoinftyx_n=lim_ntoinftyx_n+1=lim_ntoinftyf(x_n)=f(L);,$$ and from there it’s trivial to check that $L=r$.



      Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isn’t actually necessary: all that’s needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      Assuming that you know that a monotone, bounded sequence converges, you want to do two things. First, show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is monotone and bounded, and then show that its limit is the positive root of $x^2-x-c=0$.



      If $c=x_1=1$, $x_2=sqrt2>x_1$, while if $c=1$ and $x_1=2$, $x_2=sqrt3<x_1$, so if the sequence is monotonic, the direction in which it’s monotonic must depend on $c$ and $x_1$. A good first step would be to try to figure out how this dependence works.



      The positive root of the quadratic is $frac12(1+sqrt1+4c)$, which I’ll denote by $r$. If $x_nto r$, as claimed, and does so monotonically, it must be the case that the sequence increases monotonically if $x_1<r$ and decreases monotonically if $x_1>r$. In the examples in the last paragraph, $r=frac12(1+sqrt5)approx 1.618$, so they behave as predicted.



      This suggests that your first step should be to show that if $x_n<r$, then $x_n<x_n+1<r$, while if $x_n>r$, $x_n>x_n+1>r$; that would be enough to show that $langle x_n:ninmathbbZ^+rangle$ is both monotone and bounded and hence that it has a limit.



      Suppose that $0le x_n<r$; you can easily check that $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$, i.e., that $x_n^2<x_n+c$. On the other hand, $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$, so $x_n+1^2>x_n^2$, and therefore $x_n+1>x_n$. Is it possible that $x_n+1ge r$? That would require that $x_n+1^2-x_n+1-cge 0$ (why?) and hence that $$x_n+1^2ge x_n+1+c>x_n+c=x_n+1^2;,$$ which is clearly impossible. Thus, if $0le x_n<r$, we must have $x_n<x_n+1<r$, as desired. I leave the case $x_n>r$ to you.



      Once this is done, you still have to show that the limit of the sequence really is $r$. Let $f(x)=sqrtc+x$; clearly $f$ is continuous, so if the sequence converges to $L$, we have $$L=lim_ntoinftyx_n=lim_ntoinftyx_n+1=lim_ntoinftyf(x_n)=f(L);,$$ and from there it’s trivial to check that $L=r$.



      Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isn’t actually necessary: all that’s needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Mar 2 '12 at 2:17

























      answered Mar 2 '12 at 1:17









      Brian M. Scott

      449k39495885




      449k39495885











      • If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:48











      • @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:54










      • I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:56











      • @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
















      • If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:48











      • @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:54










      • I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
        – Aryabhata
        Mar 2 '12 at 1:56











      • @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
        – Brian M. Scott
        Mar 2 '12 at 2:18















      If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
      – Aryabhata
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:48





      If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
      – Aryabhata
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:48













      @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
      – Brian M. Scott
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:54




      @Aryabhata: That case never arises: we’re given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
      – Brian M. Scott
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:54












      I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
      – Aryabhata
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:56





      I know. I just want the answer to cater to the case when $x_1 lt 0$. I am trying to get this to be one of the abstract parents. See my edits to the question. So it would be great if you can do it (if not, I will edit your answer later). (It is a simple noting that $x_2 gt 0$ and rest of the argument works, I suppose)
      – Aryabhata
      Mar 2 '12 at 1:56













      @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
      – Brian M. Scott
      Mar 2 '12 at 2:18




      @Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
      – Brian M. Scott
      Mar 2 '12 at 2:18










      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Let $k$ be the positive root to your polynomial. Note that $y=x^2-x-c$ is an upward opening parabola with its vertex below the $x$-axis and an initial downward slope. This implies that positive $x$-values less than $k$ produce negative output, while $x$-values greater than $k$ produce positive output.



      Note also that all $x_n$ are positive, so it will be acceptable to preserve equalities and inequalities involving $x_n^2$ after taking a square root.



      If $x_0=k$, then $x_1^2=c+k=k^2$, so $x_1=k$. The sequence continues like this, and is constant.



      If $x_n<k$, then $x_n+1^2=c+x_n<c+k=k^2$. So $x_n+1<k$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1>k$.) This establishes that the sequence is either bounded above or below, depending on where $x_0$ is in relation to $k$.



      If $x_n<k$, then $x$ is a positive number to the left of the root of your polynomial. $x$-values in this region produce negative output, so $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$. That implies that $x_n+1^2=c+x_n>x_n^2$, and so $x_n+1>x_n$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1<x_n$.)



      Thus if $x_0<k$ you will have an increasing sequence bounded above. And if $x_0>k$ you will have a decreasing sequence bounded below.



      So the limit exists under all possible cases. It's value has to be a solution to $L=sqrtc+L$. There is only one such solution: $L=k$.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        Let $k$ be the positive root to your polynomial. Note that $y=x^2-x-c$ is an upward opening parabola with its vertex below the $x$-axis and an initial downward slope. This implies that positive $x$-values less than $k$ produce negative output, while $x$-values greater than $k$ produce positive output.



        Note also that all $x_n$ are positive, so it will be acceptable to preserve equalities and inequalities involving $x_n^2$ after taking a square root.



        If $x_0=k$, then $x_1^2=c+k=k^2$, so $x_1=k$. The sequence continues like this, and is constant.



        If $x_n<k$, then $x_n+1^2=c+x_n<c+k=k^2$. So $x_n+1<k$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1>k$.) This establishes that the sequence is either bounded above or below, depending on where $x_0$ is in relation to $k$.



        If $x_n<k$, then $x$ is a positive number to the left of the root of your polynomial. $x$-values in this region produce negative output, so $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$. That implies that $x_n+1^2=c+x_n>x_n^2$, and so $x_n+1>x_n$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1<x_n$.)



        Thus if $x_0<k$ you will have an increasing sequence bounded above. And if $x_0>k$ you will have a decreasing sequence bounded below.



        So the limit exists under all possible cases. It's value has to be a solution to $L=sqrtc+L$. There is only one such solution: $L=k$.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          Let $k$ be the positive root to your polynomial. Note that $y=x^2-x-c$ is an upward opening parabola with its vertex below the $x$-axis and an initial downward slope. This implies that positive $x$-values less than $k$ produce negative output, while $x$-values greater than $k$ produce positive output.



          Note also that all $x_n$ are positive, so it will be acceptable to preserve equalities and inequalities involving $x_n^2$ after taking a square root.



          If $x_0=k$, then $x_1^2=c+k=k^2$, so $x_1=k$. The sequence continues like this, and is constant.



          If $x_n<k$, then $x_n+1^2=c+x_n<c+k=k^2$. So $x_n+1<k$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1>k$.) This establishes that the sequence is either bounded above or below, depending on where $x_0$ is in relation to $k$.



          If $x_n<k$, then $x$ is a positive number to the left of the root of your polynomial. $x$-values in this region produce negative output, so $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$. That implies that $x_n+1^2=c+x_n>x_n^2$, and so $x_n+1>x_n$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1<x_n$.)



          Thus if $x_0<k$ you will have an increasing sequence bounded above. And if $x_0>k$ you will have a decreasing sequence bounded below.



          So the limit exists under all possible cases. It's value has to be a solution to $L=sqrtc+L$. There is only one such solution: $L=k$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Let $k$ be the positive root to your polynomial. Note that $y=x^2-x-c$ is an upward opening parabola with its vertex below the $x$-axis and an initial downward slope. This implies that positive $x$-values less than $k$ produce negative output, while $x$-values greater than $k$ produce positive output.



          Note also that all $x_n$ are positive, so it will be acceptable to preserve equalities and inequalities involving $x_n^2$ after taking a square root.



          If $x_0=k$, then $x_1^2=c+k=k^2$, so $x_1=k$. The sequence continues like this, and is constant.



          If $x_n<k$, then $x_n+1^2=c+x_n<c+k=k^2$. So $x_n+1<k$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1>k$.) This establishes that the sequence is either bounded above or below, depending on where $x_0$ is in relation to $k$.



          If $x_n<k$, then $x$ is a positive number to the left of the root of your polynomial. $x$-values in this region produce negative output, so $x_n^2-x_n-c<0$. That implies that $x_n+1^2=c+x_n>x_n^2$, and so $x_n+1>x_n$. (Similarly if $x_n>k$, then $x_n+1<x_n$.)



          Thus if $x_0<k$ you will have an increasing sequence bounded above. And if $x_0>k$ you will have a decreasing sequence bounded below.



          So the limit exists under all possible cases. It's value has to be a solution to $L=sqrtc+L$. There is only one such solution: $L=k$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Mar 2 '12 at 1:54

























          answered Mar 2 '12 at 1:03









          alex.jordan

          37.1k559117




          37.1k559117




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Let $r=frac 1+sqrt 1+4c2$ be the positive root of the quadratic, so that $r^2=r+c$ and $rgt 1$



              Note that for $ngt 1$ we have $x_ngt 0$



              Now suppose $rgt x_n$ so with $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$ we have $$r^2-x_n+1^2=(r+c)-(c+x_n)=r-x_ngt 0$$and $$r-x_n+1=frac r-x_nr+x_n+1lt r-x_n$$



              Whence $x_n$ is monotonically increasing, and getting closer to $r$ - the difference reduces at least as fast as $r^-n$, so the limit is easy to prove.



              On the other hand if $rlt x_n$ we have $$x_n+1^2-r^2=(c+x_n)-(r+c)=x_n-rgt 0$$and $$x_n+1-r=frac x_n-rx_n+1+rlt x_n-r$$and the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by $r$, and it is once again easy to prove that this is the limit.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Let $r=frac 1+sqrt 1+4c2$ be the positive root of the quadratic, so that $r^2=r+c$ and $rgt 1$



                Note that for $ngt 1$ we have $x_ngt 0$



                Now suppose $rgt x_n$ so with $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$ we have $$r^2-x_n+1^2=(r+c)-(c+x_n)=r-x_ngt 0$$and $$r-x_n+1=frac r-x_nr+x_n+1lt r-x_n$$



                Whence $x_n$ is monotonically increasing, and getting closer to $r$ - the difference reduces at least as fast as $r^-n$, so the limit is easy to prove.



                On the other hand if $rlt x_n$ we have $$x_n+1^2-r^2=(c+x_n)-(r+c)=x_n-rgt 0$$and $$x_n+1-r=frac x_n-rx_n+1+rlt x_n-r$$and the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by $r$, and it is once again easy to prove that this is the limit.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Let $r=frac 1+sqrt 1+4c2$ be the positive root of the quadratic, so that $r^2=r+c$ and $rgt 1$



                  Note that for $ngt 1$ we have $x_ngt 0$



                  Now suppose $rgt x_n$ so with $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$ we have $$r^2-x_n+1^2=(r+c)-(c+x_n)=r-x_ngt 0$$and $$r-x_n+1=frac r-x_nr+x_n+1lt r-x_n$$



                  Whence $x_n$ is monotonically increasing, and getting closer to $r$ - the difference reduces at least as fast as $r^-n$, so the limit is easy to prove.



                  On the other hand if $rlt x_n$ we have $$x_n+1^2-r^2=(c+x_n)-(r+c)=x_n-rgt 0$$and $$x_n+1-r=frac x_n-rx_n+1+rlt x_n-r$$and the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by $r$, and it is once again easy to prove that this is the limit.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Let $r=frac 1+sqrt 1+4c2$ be the positive root of the quadratic, so that $r^2=r+c$ and $rgt 1$



                  Note that for $ngt 1$ we have $x_ngt 0$



                  Now suppose $rgt x_n$ so with $x_n+1^2=c+x_n$ we have $$r^2-x_n+1^2=(r+c)-(c+x_n)=r-x_ngt 0$$and $$r-x_n+1=frac r-x_nr+x_n+1lt r-x_n$$



                  Whence $x_n$ is monotonically increasing, and getting closer to $r$ - the difference reduces at least as fast as $r^-n$, so the limit is easy to prove.



                  On the other hand if $rlt x_n$ we have $$x_n+1^2-r^2=(c+x_n)-(r+c)=x_n-rgt 0$$and $$x_n+1-r=frac x_n-rx_n+1+rlt x_n-r$$and the sequence is decreasing and bounded below by $r$, and it is once again easy to prove that this is the limit.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jun 28 '14 at 20:49









                  Mark Bennet

                  77.1k773172




                  77.1k773172



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115501%2fsqrtc-sqrtc-sqrtc-cdots-or-the-limit-of-the-sequence-x-n1-sq%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                      Mutual Information Always Non-negative

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