Looking for insights about this sequence:

  • Thread starter Thread starter realitybugll
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Insights Sequence
realitybugll
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
1, 1, 2, 3/2, 4/(3/2), 5/(4/(3/2)), ...

I suppose there are a lot of variations, but the general idea is the terms are defined by:

f(n)*f(n+1)=n, where n is an integer. The top row is the term # (n), and the bottom one is the actual value of the term

Particularly, I am looking for a way to find the partial sums of the terms.Any responses are appreciated. Sorry for the unclear formatting...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
realitybugll said:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1, 1, 2, 3/2, 4/(3/2), 5/(4/(3/2)), ...

I suppose there are a lot of variations, but the general idea is the terms are defined by:

f(n)*f(n+1)=n, where n is an integer. The top row is the term # (n), and the bottom one is the actual value of the term

Particularly, I am looking for a way to find the partial sums of the terms.Any responses are appreciated. Sorry for the unclear formatting...

Here's a start; closed forms for the odd and even terms. However, I have started your series counting from 0. That is, where you write f(1) I have f(0). Otherwise it's the same.
\begin{align*}<br /> f(2n) &amp; = 4^n n!^2 / (2n)! \\<br /> f(2n+1) &amp; = (2n+1)! / n!^2 / 4^n<br /> \end{align*}​
Try it.

Cheers -- sylas
 
Last edited:
sylas,

Wow! thank you.

Could you maybe give me a hint as to how you found that?
 
realitybugll said:
sylas,

Wow! thank you.

Could you maybe give me a hint as to how you found that?

Sure. Basically, I noted that the form of your fractions is as follows.
\frac{n(n-2)(n-4)(n-6)...}{(n-1)(n-3)(n-5)(n-7)...}​
To make life easy for myself, I started by looking only at even values of n. What I actually did was consider cases for 2n, so the equation becomes
\frac{2n(2n-2)(2n-4)(2n-6)...2}{(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)(2n-7)...1}​
This looks a lot like a factorial, so I immediate thought about dividing everything by 2. Once I have a formula for the top line, I can see I will be able to get the bottom line by dividing (2n)! by the top line, so I just focus on the top line. There are n terms being multiplied, so the top line is
2^n n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)...1 = 2^n n!​
The bottom line is therefore
\frac{(2n)!}{2^n n!}​
So we divide these two, and obtain:
\frac{(2^n n!)^2}{(2n)!} = \frac{4^n n!^2}{(2n)!}​
Given the way you numbered equations, this would actually be term number 2n+1. So I simply started numbering from 0. I'm also a pure mathematician, and for programming I like C better than Fortran... so I usually start counting from zero anyway. It often simplifies a problem like this.

Finding the equation for the odd terms was a breeze, using f(n)*f(n-1) = n, which you was your defining relation (adjusted to start counting at zero).

Cheers -- sylas
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I read over it and then went through it myself and got the same thing :approve:
 
Last edited:
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 “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” 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.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
5K
Back
Top