Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Arithmetic sequences in R^2.?

  1. Mar 15, 2010 #1
    Hi all,

    I was just wondering whether one could define arithmetic sequences in R^2 in a simmilar manner as in R.?

    Here is what i see as a natural way of doing it, but neither have i read about it, nor heard.

    [tex] \mbox{ Let } x_n \in R^2 \mbox{ be a sequence given as follows : } x_n=a+mb\\, \mbox{ where } a,b,m\in R^2.[/tex]

    [tex]\mbox{ That is, } a=(a_1,a_2),b=(b_1,b_2),m=(m_1,m_2). \mbox { So, } x_n=(a_1+m_1b_1,a_2+m_2b_2). \mbox{ We call such a sequence an arithmetic sequence in } R^2.[/tex]

    Would this definition be valid? If so, i believe one could define an arithmetic or geometric sequence in R^n as well. Right?

    EDIT: Or maybe on a second thought i think that the following change would be better:

    [tex] x_n=(a_1+nb_1,a_2+nb_2)=(a_{1n},a_{2n}). \mbox{ That is letting } m=(m_1,m_2)=(n,n).[/tex]

    Last edited: Mar 15, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 15, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your second idea is better. (can you explain why? I can name two reasons....)

    Really, all you want is a recursion
    xn+1 = xn + d​
    right? This makes sense in any context where you have "addition". (you probably want "addition" to be commutative and associative)

    In R2, you might wish to consider a sequence with two-dimensional indices satisfying
    xm+1,n = xm,n + d1
    xm,n+1 = xm,n + d2
    which, of course, can be put in closed form
    xm,n = x0,0 + m d1 + n d2

    (Hrm. Maybe this is what you were trying to think about with your first idea?)
  4. Mar 15, 2010 #3
    Well, the reason why i decided to make that change was because previously my indicies were two-dimensional, and i wanted them to be one-dimensional(i.e. from Z+.) So, setting m=(n,n) took care of that, in some sense. Is this one of your two reasons?or?

    Any hints as how to put this in closed form? I can generally work with recurrence relations, but haven't worked before with systems of recurrence relations!

    EDIT: Don't give me any hints for a couple more minutes! I will come back again. I think i have an idea that might work.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2010
  5. Mar 16, 2010 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then work with one recurrence at a time! (e.g. what if the second index is a constant?)

    The bigger problem I saw with your first idea is that it's constant -- n has no relation to anything else. The other one was a rather minor one -- while one can define multiplication of R-tuples "pointwise", it's not often something you mean to use.
  6. Mar 16, 2010 #5
    THis was exactly my idea!
    However, i have another question, what if i want my outcome to be still in R^2, rather than simply R.

    This is more what i was trying to do the first time.

    In other words, let the indices be from Z+, but the outcome, that is the sequence [tex]\{x_n\}[/tex] be from [tex]R^2[/tex], where [tex]x_n=(a_{1n},a_{2n}).[/tex]

    EDIT: I got this part...then from the recurrence relation

    [tex]x_{n+1}=x_n+d=>x_n=x_o+nd, \mbox{ with } x_o,d \in R^2.[/tex]

    Last edited: Mar 16, 2010
  7. Mar 16, 2010 #6
    I believe i got it. Here we go:

    [tex]\mbox{ First let n=const, then } m=0=>x_{1,n}=x_{0,n}+d_1 [/tex]

    [tex]m=1=> x_{2,n}=x_{0,n}+2d_1[/tex]


    Now substituting this in the other relation we get:

    [tex] x_{m,n+1}=x_{0,n}+md_1+d_2.[/tex]

    In a simmilar fashion as before, one eventually finds that :

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook