MHB Arithmetic Sequence Confusion // a{n-1} and a{n+1}

Machara
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So I have this problem I'm stuck on wrapping my head around a particular problem "In the sequence a{n}, let a{0}=2. If a{n+1} = 3 a{n} −1, then what is the value of a3?"

I understand it's following the pattern of each term, and that with Arithmetic sequence a{n-1} means you would use the a{n} term immediately prior (e.g solving for a{2} you would use the result of a{1}) but in this particular problem the sequence is a{n+1} which one would assume you would use the result of the term after? since it's Plus 1 not Minus 1, but that doesn't make sense.

On top of I can elaborate the solutions answer on my worksheet to explain what's happening, and it's saying for a{2} you would input the solution from a{1} to solve for a{2} but wouldn't that be implying the sequence is a{n-1} not a{n+1}?

What's the difference? am I missing something?
This is the elaborated solution that the webpage answers for me:

"Explanation:

To find a{3}
, first find a{1} and a{2}. The sequence says a(n+1)=3a{n}−1, and we know a{0}=2. So, we can find the rest of the sequence, starting with a{1}

.
a{0}=2
a{1}=3(2)−1=5
a{2}=3(5)−1=14
a{3}=3(14)−1=41

So, a{3}=41"
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Machara said:
So I have this problem I'm stuck on wrapping my head around a particular problem "In the sequence a{n}, let a{0}=2. If a{n+1} = 3 a{n} −1, then what is the value of a3?"
Do you understand what "a{0}= 2, a{n+1}= 3a{n}- 1" means?

You are told that a{0}= 2. a{1}= a{0+ 1} so a{1}= 3a{0}- 1= 3(2) -1= 5. Then a{2}= a{1+ 1}= 3a{1}- 1= 3(5)- 1= 15- 1= 14. Finally, a{3}= a(2+ 1}= 3a(2)- 1= 3(14)- 1= 42- 1= 4.

I understand it's following the pattern of each term, and that with Arithmetic sequence a{n-1} means you would use the a{n} term immediately prior (e.g solving for a{2} you would use the result of a{1}) but in this particular problem the sequence is a{n+1} which one would assume you would use the result of the term after? since it's Plus 1 not Minus 1, but that doesn't make sense.

On top of I can elaborate the solutions answer on my worksheet to explain what's happening, and it's saying for a{2} you would input the solution from a{1} to solve for a{2} but wouldn't that be implying the sequence is a{n-1} not a{n+1}?
I have no idea where you got "a-1". The problem clearly says a{n+1}

What's the difference? am I missing something?
This is the elaborated solution that the webpage answers for me:

"Explanation:

To find a{3}
, first find a{1} and a{2}. The sequence says a(n+1)=3a{n}−1, and we know a{0}=2. So, we can find the rest of the sequence, starting with a{1}

.
a{0}=2
a{1}=3(2)−1=5
a{2}=3(5)−1=14
a{3}=3(14)−1=41

So, a{3}=41"
I don't see what you could be misunderstanding about this. They took each "a" value, in turn, and calculated 3a(n)- 1 to find the next "a".
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top