Can you find the general formula for A_n+3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kezman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula General
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a general formula for the sequence defined by the recurrence relation A_{n+3} = 3A_{n+2} - 3A_{n+1} + A_n, with initial conditions A_1 = 3, A_2 = 7, and A_3 = 13. Participants are exploring various approaches to derive this formula, including the use of summation and mathematical induction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of different formulations for A_n, including A_n = A_{n-1} + 2n and A_n = 3 + ∑_{i=2}^n 2i. There are questions about the correctness of these formulations and how they relate to the original recurrence relation.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the proof by induction, while others are attempting to clarify their understanding of the formulas. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationships between the different expressions for A_n and the implications of the recurrence relation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can use or the methods they can apply. There is also a mention of the need to prove certain statements before proceeding with the derivation of the general formula.

kezman
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi I have many problems trying to find the general formula and the demonstration by induction.
Let
[tex]A_1 = 3[/tex]
[tex]A_2 = 7[/tex]
[tex]A_3 = 13[/tex]
A_n+3 = 3A_n+2 - 3A_n+1 + A_n
I could only find this.
A_n+1 = A_n + 2n
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What sort of class are you in?


A_n+1 = A_n + 2n
How did you arrive at this? It can't be right, though: it doesn't work for n=1 or n=2.

Oh, I bet you meant [itex]A_n = A_{n-1} + 2n[/itex], or [itex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/itex]. (Incidentally, you could try proving this formula by induction, to make sure you're on the right track)


One trick that's often useful is to not do arithmetic. If [itex]A_n = A_{n-1} + 2n[/itex], then write [itex]A_2 = 3 + 2\cdot2[/itex] instead of [itex]A_2 = 7[/itex].
 
sorry I am in my way of learning Latex.
I mean:
[itex]A_n = A_{n-1} + 2n[/itex]
And the formula given in the problem is:
[itex]A_{n+3} = 3A_{n+2} - 3A_{n+1} + A_n[/itex]
With the three A1 A2 A3 defined.
Ive been trying but I couldn't find the general formula.
 
Last edited:
kezman said:
...I mean:
[itex]A_n = A_{n-1} + 2n[/itex]
So far so good.
Now, you can follow Hurkyl's suggestion:
A1 = 3
A2 = A1 + 2 . 2 = 3 + 2 . 2
A3 = A2 + 2 . 3 = 3 + 2 . 2 + 2 . 3
A4 = 3 + 2 . 2 + 2 . 3 + 2 . 4
A5 = 3 + 2 . 2 + 2 . 3 + 2 . 4 + 2 . 5
A6 = 3 + 2 . 2 + 2 . 3 + 2 . 4 + 2 . 5 + 2 . 6
...
An = 3 + 2 . 2 + 2 . 3 + 2 . 4 + 2 . 5 + 2 . 6 + 2 . 7 + ... + 2 . n
Now, do you see anything that can be factored out?
Can you go from here? :)
 
For
[itex]A_n = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^n 2i[/itex]
then
[itex]A_1 = 3[/itex]
Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
If you can prove it by induction, it's correct. :smile:
 
Induction:
1)
[itex]A_1 = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^1 2i = 3[/itex]
(Is this OK?)
2) I had this result :[itex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/itex]

With [itex]A_n = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^n 2i[/itex] =>
[itex]A_{n+1} = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^{n+1} 2i[/itex] (the upper index of the summatory in this case is (n+1))
=> [itex]A_{n+1} = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^n 2i + 2(n+1)[/itex]
=> [itex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/itex]

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
Well, you've done it backwards!

[tex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/tex]

is the statement you know to be true, whereas

[tex]A_{n+1} = 3 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^{n+1} 2i[/tex]

is the statement you were trying to prove.

(given the assumption that [itex]A_n = 3 + \sum_{i = 2}^n 2i[/itex])



(Actually, I'm assuming you've already given a proof of [itex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/itex] is correct given the original recurrence relation. If you have not yet done so, then you should work with the original recurrence)
 
Yes is true.I still have to prove first [tex]A_{n+1} = A_n + 2(n+1)[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K