Find the limit of the sequence

  • Thread starter Thread starter KungPeng Zhou
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The sequence defined by a_n = √(2a_{n-1}) converges to a limit, which is proposed to be 2. To confirm this, it is essential to show that the sequence is bounded and monotonic, specifically that a_n ≤ 2 for all n. By induction, it can be demonstrated that if a_{n-1} < 2, then a_n remains less than 2, establishing the upper bound. Additionally, since the sequence is strictly increasing and bounded above, the supremum is confirmed as 2, leading to the conclusion that the limit of the sequence is indeed 2. Thus, the original assertion about the limit is validated through rigorous proof.
KungPeng Zhou
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Homework Statement
##{\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}, \sqrt{2\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}}... }##
Relevant Equations
The way to calculate limit of sequence
First, we can know
##a_{n}=\sqrt{2a_{n-1}}##
When##n\rightarrow \infty##
##a_{n}=\sqrt{2a_{n-1}}##
And we can get the answer is 2.
Is this solution right? And is any other way to solve the question?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it is definitely not right. For starters, how do you know this sequence is bounded? Clearly the sequence is monotone. Show, for instance by induction, that ## a_n\leqslant 2 ## for every ##n##. Follow up by showing that ##\sup a_n = 2##. Then may we conclude that ##\lim a_n= 2##.
 
nuuskur said:
No, it is definitely not right.
I think that's a bit harsh: clearly ## a = 2 ## is the only solution to ## a = \sqrt{2a} ## so if a limit exists, than it is 2.

nuuskur said:
For starters, how do you know this sequence is bounded?
By Herschfeld's Convergence Theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy and nuuskur
KungPeng Zhou said:
When##n\rightarrow \infty## ##a_{n}=\sqrt{2a_{n-1}}##
This doesn't make sense, you already stated ##a_{n}=\sqrt{2a_{n-1}}## for any ## n ##. Did you mean to write ##a_{\infty}=\sqrt{2a_{\infty}}##? This notation is a bit of a shortcut (I would prefer " let## a = \lim_{n \to \infty} a_n ## then we have ## a = \sqrt{2a} ##") but it gets the job done for me.
 
I consider only what was written. Had all of that from #3 been written in #1 I'd have no problem with it. As it stands right now, it feels more like "is my solution right, because I guessed the limit?". Maybe I'm being unreasonably uncharitable.
 
It's not sufficient to note the existence of a fixed point of the iteration. The fixed point might be unstable, or if it is stable then the initial value might not be in its domain of stability. Those things need to be checked.

In this case, you can show that for any x \geq 0, <br /> \left|\sqrt{2x} -2\right| &lt; |x - 2| from which the result follows.
 
nuuskur said:
No, it is definitely not right. For starters, how do you know this sequence is bounded? Clearly the sequence is monotone. Show, for instance by induction, that ## a_n\leqslant 2 ## for every ##n##. Follow up by showing that ##\sup a_n = 2##. Then may we conclude that ##\lim a_n= 2##.
Ok, there is good way to proof this sequence is bounded.
From##a_{n}=\sqrt{2a_{n-1}}##
##a_{n}<2## as ## a_{n-1}<2##
However we know##a_{1}=\sqrt{2}<2##
So we kown##a_{2}<2... a_{n}<2##
 
That works. You can express this more clearly. We have ##a_1\leqslant 2##. Assume ##a_n\leqslant 2##, then ##a_{n+1} = \sqrt{2a_n} \leqslant \sqrt{2\cdot 2} = 2.##

As for the initial problem, one may note that ##1<a_n<2## for all ##n## and ##a_n## is strictly increasing. Hence, ##\sup a_n=2## is forced.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K