MHB For j >1 the first 2^j digits are correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! 😊

We have the iteration formula $$x_{j+1}=2x_j-3x_j^2$$ and using the starting point $x_0=0.3$ we get the following approximations for $\frac{1}{3}$ :

\begin{align*}&x_1=2x_0-3x_0^2=2\cdot 0.3-3\cdot 0.3^2=0.33 \\ &x_2=2x_1-3x_1^2=2\cdot 0.33-3\cdot 0.33^2=0.3333 \\ &x_3=2x_2-3x_2^2=2\cdot 0.3333-3\cdot 0.3333^2=0.33333333\end{align*}

Now I want to show that for $j\geq 1$ the first $2^j$ digits of $x_j$ are correct for $\frac{1}{3}$.

It is $\frac{1}{3}=0.33333333333333333333333333\ldots$.

The approximation $x_1$ has the first $2=2^1$ digits correct.

The approximation $x_2$ has the first $4=2^2$ digits correct.

The approximation $x_3$ has the first $8=2^3$ digits correct.To show that it holds for $j\geq 1$ do we have to use induction? :unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi mathmari!

Induction seems to be the way to go yes.
So we need to write $x_j$ in terms of $2^j$. Can we find such an expression? šŸ¤”
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Induction seems to be the way to go yes.
So we need to write $x_j$ in terms of $2^j$. Can we find such an expression? šŸ¤”

As a power of $10$ we get \begin{align*}x_j&=\sum_{i=1}^{2^j}\frac{3}{10^i}=3\cdot \sum_{i=1}^{2^j}\frac{1}{10^i}=3\cdot \left (\sum_{i=0}^{2^j}\frac{1}{10^i}-1\right )=3\cdot \frac{\frac{1}{10^{2^j+1}}-1}{\frac{1}{10}-1}-3=3\cdot \frac{\frac{1}{10^{2^j+1}}-1}{-\frac{9}{10}}-3=-\frac{10}{9}\cdot 3\cdot \left (\frac{1}{10^{2^j+1}}-1\right )-3=-\frac{10}{3}\cdot \left (\frac{1}{10^{2^j+1}}-1\right )-3=-\frac{10}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^j+1}}+\frac{10}{3}-3\\ & =-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^j}}+\frac{1}{3}\end{align*} right?
So by induction on $j$ we get:

Base Case: For $j=1$ we get the desired result, as seen.

Inductive Hypothesis: We suppose that the formula is true for $j=k$, i.e. $\displaystyle{x_k=-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}+\frac{1}{3}}$.

Inductive Step: We want to show that the formula is true also for $j=k+1$ : \begin{align*}x_{k+1}=2x_k-3x_k^2\ &\overset{(IH)}{=} \ 2\left (-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}+\frac{1}{3}\right )-3\left (-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}+\frac{1}{3}\right )^2\\ & =-\frac{2}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}+2\cdot \frac{1}{3}-3\left (\frac{1}{3^2}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^{k+1}}}-2\cdot \frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}\cdot \frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3^2}\right ) \\ & =-\frac{2}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}+2\cdot \frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^{k+1}}}+2\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^k}}\cdot \frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{3}\\ & =\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^{k+1}}} \end{align*}

So we get that this hold for every $j\geq 1$ (Happy)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mathmari said:
As a power of $10$ we get \begin{align*}x_j&=-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^j}}+\frac{10}{3}\end{align*} right?
Suppose we substitute $j=1$. Then we should get $x_1=0.33$ yes?
$$x_1=-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^1}}+\frac{10}{3}=-\frac{1}{300}+\frac{10}{3}=3.33$$
That's not correct is it? :eek:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Suppose we substitute $j=1$. Then we should get $x_1=0.33$ yes?
$$x_1=-\frac{1}{3}\cdot \frac{1}{10^{2^1}}+\frac{10}{3}=-\frac{1}{300}+\frac{10}{3}=3.33$$
That's not correct is it? :eek:

I found my error! I edited my previous post and the correct result came out!
 
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 ā€œconvenient notationā€ he referred to as a ā€œdelta functionā€ 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