$sqrtc+sqrtc+sqrtc+cdots$, or the limit of the sequence $x_n+1 = sqrtc+x_n$
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
59
down vote
favorite
(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.
calculus sequences-and-series limits faq nested-radicals
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
59
down vote
favorite
(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.
calculus sequences-and-series limits faq nested-radicals
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?
â 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.
â Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39
1
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
59
down vote
favorite
up vote
59
down vote
favorite
(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.
calculus sequences-and-series limits faq nested-radicals
(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.
calculus sequences-and-series limits faq nested-radicals
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?
â 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.
â Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39
1
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20
 |Â
show 5 more comments
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?
â 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.
â Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39
1
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â 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?
â 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?
â 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.
â 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.
â Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39
1
1
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â cnuulhu
Mar 2 '12 at 0:59
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20
 |Â
show 5 more comments
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 itâÂÂs 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 IâÂÂll 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 itâÂÂs trivial to check that $L=r$.
Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isnâÂÂt actually necessary: all thatâÂÂs needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.
If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
add a comment |Â
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: $L=k$.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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 itâÂÂs 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 IâÂÂll 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 itâÂÂs trivial to check that $L=r$.
Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isnâÂÂt actually necessary: all thatâÂÂs needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.
If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
add a comment |Â
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 itâÂÂs 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 IâÂÂll 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 itâÂÂs trivial to check that $L=r$.
Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isnâÂÂt actually necessary: all thatâÂÂs needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.
If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
add a comment |Â
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 itâÂÂs 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 IâÂÂll 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 itâÂÂs trivial to check that $L=r$.
Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isnâÂÂt actually necessary: all thatâÂÂs needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.
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 itâÂÂs 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 IâÂÂll 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 itâÂÂs trivial to check that $L=r$.
Added: Note that although the problem gave us $x_1>0$, this isnâÂÂt actually necessary: all thatâÂÂs needed is that $x_1ge -c$, so that $x_2$ is defined, since $x_2=sqrtc+x_1ge 0$ automatically.
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)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
add a comment |Â
If possible, can you also edit your answer to include the case $-c le x_n le 0$ (if not already sufficient)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â 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)?
â 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)?
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:48
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:54
@Aryabhata: That case never arises: weâÂÂre given that $c$ and $x_1$ are positive.
â 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)
â 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)
â Aryabhata
Mar 2 '12 at 1:56
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
@Aryabhata: Now I understand. Done.
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 2:18
add a comment |Â
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: $L=k$.
add a comment |Â
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: $L=k$.
add a comment |Â
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: $L=k$.
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: $L=k$.
edited Mar 2 '12 at 1:54
answered Mar 2 '12 at 1:03
alex.jordan
37.1k559117
37.1k559117
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Jun 28 '14 at 20:49
Mark Bennet
77.1k773172
77.1k773172
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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?
â 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.
â Michael Hardy
Mar 2 '12 at 0:39
1
What do you mean by âÂÂ$x_n+1$ converges to $x_n$âÂÂ?
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 0:49
Sorry, that wasn't remotely clear. I mean, $lim_n to infty|x_n+1-x_n| = 0$
â 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. YouâÂÂve the right feel for whatâÂÂs 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.)
â Brian M. Scott
Mar 2 '12 at 1:20