How to solve for f_n(x) in Stewart Calculus text's review section?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff Ford
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Stuck
AI Thread Summary
To solve for f_n(x) in the Stewart Calculus review section, the relationship f_0(f_n(x)) = f_{n+1}(x) is established, starting with f_0(x) = x^2. The discussion reveals that f_1(x) = x^4, f_2(x) = x^8, and continues with a pattern suggesting f_n(x) = x^{2^{n+1}}. However, there is confusion about whether this holds true for f_0(x) = x^2, leading to a realization that the initial conditions may have been misinterpreted. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the derived formula needs to be consistent with the base case.
Jeff Ford
Messages
154
Reaction score
2
I'm going through the review section of the Stewart Calculus text and I'm stuck on this problem.

Given
<br /> f_0(x) = x^2<br />
and
<br /> f_0(f_n(x)) = f_{n+1}(x) , n = 0,1,2...<br />
how do you solve for
<br /> f_n(x)<br />
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The only place I can think to start is making (f_n(x))^2 = f_{n+1}(x), but that's as far as I got
 
Now, f1(x) = f0(f0(x)) = f0(x2) = x4
f2(x) = f0(f1(x)) = f0(x4) = x8
f3(x) = f0(f2(x)) = ...
f4(x) = f0(f3(x)) = ...
So what's fn(x)?
Can you go from here?
Viet Dao,
 
From that I get f_n(x) = x^{2^{n+1}} but that doesn't work for f_0(x) = x^2. That's the same answer the book has, so maybe I wrote the requirements down wrong. I'll have to check when I get home if this had to work for 0.
 
Yes it does. Never mind.

Thanks Viet Dao!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top