Find the explicit formula for the nth term of the sequence?

And by the way, your "formula" is incorrect also. What I said was that you should put your formula in terms of k so if you're looking for the kth term then you plug in k. You should be able to find the 3rd term by plugging in k=3 into the equation.You're welcome for the help, by the way. I'm glad you appreciate it.
  • #1
Topgun_68
34
0

Homework Statement



Consider the sequence n1, n2, n3, ... that satisfies the recurrence relation nk = nk-1 / k + 1 for all integers k ≥ 2 with the initial condition that n1 = 1. Find the explicit formula nk for the nth term of the sequence?


2. The attempt at a solution

I calculated out the terms for n = 1, n = 2, n = 3 & n = 4 but there is no obvious relation that I can see because of the decimal numbers. For example:

Starting variable n1 = 1 so..

n2 = [itex]\frac{1}{3}[/itex] = .333

n3 = [itex]\frac{.333}{4}[/itex] = .08325

n4 = [itex]\frac{.08325}{5}[/itex] = .01665

Any hints on how to calculate the explicit formula for nk?
Thanks for any info!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What do you notice about the relationship between the denominators and the index k?
What relationship do you deduce about the numerators and n-sub-k?
 
  • #3
Hmm, the denominators are increasing sequentially by 1 more than k.

As the index goes up the numerator is getting smaller.

I'll keep playing with the number until something jumps out at me. I don't know where my instructor comes up with these tough problems, but I can do the easy ones in the book :cry:


SteamKing said:
What do you notice about the relationship between the denominators and the index k?
What relationship do you deduce about the numerators and n-sub-k?
 
  • #4
Topgun_68 said:

Homework Statement



Consider the sequence n1, n2, n3, ... that satisfies the recurrence relation nk = nk-1 / k + 1 for all integers k ≥ 2 with the initial condition that n1 = 1. Find the explicit formula nk for the nth term of the sequence?2. The attempt at a solution

I calculated out the terms for n = 1, n = 2, n = 3 & n = 4 but there is no obvious relation that I can see because of the decimal numbers. For example:

Starting variable n1 = 1 so..

n2 = [itex]\frac{1}{3}[/itex] = .333
It would have been better NOT to approximate with a decimal

n3 = [itex]\frac{.333}{4}[/itex] = .08325
n3= (1/3)/(3+1)= 1/(3(4))/

n4 = [itex]\frac{.08325}{5}[/itex] = .01665
n4= (1/(3(4)))/(4+ 1)= 11/(3(4)(5))

Any hints on how to calculate the explicit formula for nk?
Thanks for any info!
1/3, 1/(3(4)), 1/(3(4)(5)), should remind you of a factorial.
 
  • #5
Ah, I never would have noticed with the decimal numbers. I won't make that mistake again. It looks like the factorial starts at 3 so is he equation correct below? I get correct answers with a numerator of 2 but can't figure out how to get the 2? I just guessed it. Thanks for the help!


nk = [itex]\frac{2}{(n+1)n!}[/itex]


HallsofIvy said:
It would have been better NOT to approximate with a decimal


n3= (1/3)/(3+1)= 1/(3(4))/


n4= (1/(3(4)))/(4+ 1)= 11/(3(4)(5))


1/3, 1/(3(4)), 1/(3(4)(5)), should remind you of a factorial.
 
  • #6
Topgun_68 said:

Homework Statement



Consider the sequence n1, n2, n3, ... that satisfies the recurrence relation nk = nk-1 / k + 1 for all integers k ≥ 2 with the initial condition that n1 = 1. Find the explicit formula nk for the nth term of the sequence?


2. The attempt at a solution

I calculated out the terms for n = 1, n = 2, n = 3 & n = 4 but there is no obvious relation that I can see because of the decimal numbers. For example:

Starting variable n1 = 1 so..

n2 = [itex]\frac{1}{3}[/itex] = .333

n3 = [itex]\frac{.333}{4}[/itex] = .08325

n4 = [itex]\frac{.08325}{5}[/itex] = .01665

Any hints on how to calculate the explicit formula for nk?
Thanks for any info!

What you wrote means
[tex] n_k = \frac{n_{k-1}}{k} + 1.[/tex]
Did you mean that, or did you mean
[tex] n_k = \frac{n_{k-1}}{k+1} ?[/tex]
If you mean the latter, USE PARENTHESES, like this: nk = nk-1/(k+1).

Anyway, do not use limited decimal representations; 1/3 is NOT 0.333, 1/12 is NOT 0.8325 (it is actually .08333333333333333 ...) The errors you get are building up more and more as you increase the number of steps, and using decimals like that serves no useful purpose here.
 
  • #7
Topgun_68 said:
Ah, I never would have noticed with the decimal numbers. I won't make that mistake again. It looks like the factorial starts at 3 so is he equation correct below? I get correct answers with a numerator of 2 but can't figure out how to get the 2? I just guessed it. Thanks for the help!nk = [itex]\frac{2}{(n+1)n!}[/itex]

Since you have

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k}[/tex]

and

[tex]\frac{1}{k!}=\frac{1}{2.3.4.5...k}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{3.4.5...k}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot n_k[/tex]

Does this manipulation make sense so far?

So finally, what is nk?EDIT: Also, you guessed the formula to be

[tex]\frac{2}{(n+1)n!}[/tex]

which I should note is equivalent to

[tex]=\frac{2}{(n+1)!}[/tex]

And also, you're looking for the kth term, not the nth term. Your formula should be in terms of k.

[tex]n_k = f(k)[/tex]

So if you're looking for n2 then you plug k=2 into the formula.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Sorry, I am trying to learn how to put the equations in using the correct symbols, so I forgot the parenthesis, which I know totally changes the equation. I meant the later..

[tex] n_k = \frac{(n_{k-1})}{(k+1)} ?[/tex]

Ray Vickson said:
What you wrote means
[tex] n_k = \frac{n_{k-1}}{k} + 1.[/tex]
Did you mean that, or did you mean
[tex] n_k = \frac{n_{k-1}}{k+1} ?[/tex]
If you mean the latter, USE PARENTHESES, like this: nk = nk-1/(k+1).

Anyway, do not use limited decimal representations; 1/3 is NOT 0.333, 1/12 is NOT 0.8325 (it is actually .08333333333333333 ...) The errors you get are building up more and more as you increase the number of steps, and using decimals like that serves no useful purpose here.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Thanks for all the clarifications. I have been mixing up the terms and it's been hurting my grades.

so would it be

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

Thanks. That's what I like about this forums. You can always count on everyone to correct all these errors. I have been learning a lot from them :approve:



Mentallic said:
Since you have

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k}[/tex]

and

[tex]\frac{1}{k!}=\frac{1}{2.3.4.5...k}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{3.4.5...k}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot n_k[/tex]

Does this manipulation make sense so far?

So finally, what is nk?


EDIT: Also, you guessed the formula to be

[tex]\frac{2}{(n+1)n!}[/tex]

which I should note is equivalent to

[tex]=\frac{2}{(n+1)!}[/tex]

And also, you're looking for the kth term, not the nth term. Your formula should be in terms of k.

[tex]n_k = f(k)[/tex]

So if you're looking for n2 then you plug k=2 into the formula.
 
  • #10
Topgun_68 said:
so would it be

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

No. Look back to my derivation. I ended up with

[tex]\frac{1}{k!}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot n_k[/tex]

so then

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{k!}[/tex]

Did it make sense to you?
 
  • #11
Yes I can see how you did all the math to acquire the answer, but how you got the [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex] confuses me a little. Is it because the question stated k ≥ 2 so you pulled it out of the factorial? Than you multiply both sides by 2 to isolate the nk.

Thanks for your patience with me!

Mentallic said:
No. Look back to my derivation. I ended up with

[tex]\frac{1}{k!}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot n_k[/tex]

so then

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{k!}[/tex]

Did it make sense to you?
 
  • #12
Sorry for misleading you, but I just wrote down the pattern for myself and noticed I did make a big blunder, you were right, it's

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

My derivation in the earlier post still follows the same procedure, except that we begin with

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)}[/tex]

So then

[tex]\frac{1}{(k+1)!} =\frac{1}{2.3.4.5...k(k+1)} =\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)} = \frac{1}{2}n_k[/tex]

Hence we have that

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

Sorry about that.

Topgun_68 said:
Yes I can see how you did all the math to acquire the answer, but how you got the [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex] confuses me a little. Is it because the question stated k ≥ 2 so you pulled it out of the factorial? Than you multiply both sides by 2 to isolate the nk.

Thanks for your patience with me!

The factor of 1/2 came from the fact that when we noticed the pattern for nk to be

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)}[/tex]

The denominator is nearly

[tex](k+1)! = 2.3.4.5...k(k+1)[/tex]

But we're missing the 2, so we put in there! But if we multiplied the denominator by 2, then in order to keep it equal, we need to multiply the numerator by 2 as well:

[tex]\frac{1}{3.4.5...(k+1)}=\frac{2}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{3.4.5...(k+1)} = \frac{2}{2.3.4...(k+1)}=\frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

If the question was instead changed to "for integers [itex]k\geq 1[/itex]" then our initial condition would have to be on n0, so let n0=1, then

[tex]n_1=\frac{n_0}{1+1}=\frac{1}{2}[/tex]

[tex]n_2=\frac{n_1}{2+1}=\frac{1/2}{3}=\frac{1}{2.3}[/tex]

Following this pattern, we can see that kth term will be

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{2.3.4...k(k+1)}[/tex]

Which is simply

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{(k+1)!}[/tex]
 
  • #13
Ah, that's where the two came from. It cancels out the almost factorial :approve:

Thanks again for everyone's assistance. I like how everyone on here helps you figure out the answer for yourself, which is turn makes it's easier to understand come exam time.



Mentallic said:
Sorry for misleading you, but I just wrote down the pattern for myself and noticed I did make a big blunder, you were right, it's

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

My derivation in the earlier post still follows the same procedure, except that we begin with

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)}[/tex]

So then

[tex]\frac{1}{(k+1)!} =\frac{1}{2.3.4.5...k(k+1)} =\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)} = \frac{1}{2}n_k[/tex]

Hence we have that

[tex]n_k = \frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

Sorry about that.



The factor of 1/2 came from the fact that when we noticed the pattern for nk to be

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{3.4.5...k(k+1)}[/tex]

The denominator is nearly

[tex](k+1)! = 2.3.4.5...k(k+1)[/tex]

But we're missing the 2, so we put in there! But if we multiplied the denominator by 2, then in order to keep it equal, we need to multiply the numerator by 2 as well:

[tex]\frac{1}{3.4.5...(k+1)}=\frac{2}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{3.4.5...(k+1)} = \frac{2}{2.3.4...(k+1)}=\frac{2}{(k+1)!}[/tex]

If the question was instead changed to "for integers [itex]k\geq 1[/itex]" then our initial condition would have to be on n0, so let n0=1, then

[tex]n_1=\frac{n_0}{1+1}=\frac{1}{2}[/tex]

[tex]n_2=\frac{n_1}{2+1}=\frac{1/2}{3}=\frac{1}{2.3}[/tex]

Following this pattern, we can see that kth term will be

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{2.3.4...k(k+1)}[/tex]

Which is simply

[tex]n_k = \frac{1}{(k+1)!}[/tex]
 

1. What is an explicit formula for the nth term of a sequence?

An explicit formula for the nth term of a sequence is a mathematical expression that allows you to calculate the value of any term in the sequence based on its position or index. It is also known as a closed-form formula because it does not use any previous terms in the sequence to calculate the value.

2. How do you find the explicit formula for a sequence?

To find the explicit formula for a sequence, you need to observe the pattern of the sequence and determine the relationship between the terms. You can then use this relationship to create a general formula that can be used to calculate the value of any term in the sequence.

3. Can an explicit formula be used for any sequence?

No, an explicit formula can only be used for sequences that have a consistent pattern and follow a specific relationship between the terms. Some sequences, such as random or chaotic sequences, do not have a predictable pattern and cannot be represented by an explicit formula.

4. What is the difference between an explicit formula and a recursive formula?

An explicit formula is a closed-form formula that directly calculates the value of a term in a sequence without using any previous terms. A recursive formula, on the other hand, uses one or more previous terms to calculate the value of the next term in the sequence. Recursive formulas are useful for describing sequences that have a recursive or repetitive pattern.

5. How do you know if you have found the correct explicit formula for a sequence?

To determine if you have found the correct explicit formula for a sequence, you can plug in different values for n and see if the resulting values match the terms in the sequence. You can also use the explicit formula to calculate the value of a term that is not given in the sequence and see if it matches the expected value. Additionally, you can graph the sequence and the explicit formula together to visually confirm if they match.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
640
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
930
Replies
1
Views
937
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
943
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top