How does the n drop down in this recurrence relation problem?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding how the variable 'n' transitions in a recurrence relation problem. The base case is established as 2^k = n, leading to k = log_2(n). The confusion arises when trying to relate the summation involving k to a form that includes n. By substituting k with log_2(n) in the expression (7/4)^k, the 'n' effectively appears in the exponent, clarifying its presence in the final equation. The key takeaway is that the relationship between k and n is crucial for resolving the transition in the recurrence relation.
seansrk
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
[PLAIN]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4514/ballsp.jpg
The base case is 2^{K} = n (which turns into log_{2}n = k

So I have a question on this recurrence relation problem. (I'm trying to get to make the top equation look like the bottom equation.) I know that the summation ends up becoming

\frac{((7/4)^K)-1}{(7/4)-1}

which gives us
((7/4)^log_{2}n)-1 / (3/4)

I'm lost on how the n drops down. I know how the (log[2]7-2)-1 comes to be but how does the n and log[2]7 -2 get on the same level and the exponent level disappeared?

Hopefully I didn't make this confusing. Just trying to find out how the n came down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your basic problem is that the first sum depends upon the value of "k" but there is no "k" in the second. What happened to it? And, since there is no "n" in the sum (ignore the "n^2" for the moment), how do you get that "n" in the numerator of the second formula?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Your basic problem is that the first sum depends upon the value of "k" but there is no "k" in the second. What happened to it? And, since there is no "n" in the sum (ignore the "n^2" for the moment), how do you get that "n" in the numerator of the second formula?

Well previously in the problem it was stated that 2^k = n. Which using the rules of logs we turned that into k = log base 2 n. So when we got the (7/4)^k what I did was i substituted log base 2 n into k giving us the n. in the exponent.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top