Offset between non-homogeneous and homogeneous recurrence sequences

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between non-homogeneous and homogeneous linear recurrence sequences, specifically focusing on the offset between them and the implications of steady state values. Participants explore the mathematical properties and reasoning behind these sequences, including closed forms and the validity of certain steps in deriving them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the offset between a non-homogeneous sequence (sn) and its corresponding homogeneous sequence (hn) is represented by the steady state value of sn, asserting that this value is independent of the initial values of sn.
  • Another participant presents a simpler example of a recurrence sequence with a constant term and seeks to understand the validity of deriving its closed form from a related homogeneous sequence.
  • A participant proposes an equivalence to demonstrate the relationship between the sequences, suggesting that terms cancel out under certain conditions.
  • Further discussion includes the suggestion that defining the offset with the opposite sign simplifies the equations involved, leading to a clearer representation of the steady state value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding and approaches to the problem, with no consensus reached on the underlying reasons for the properties of the sequences or the validity of specific steps in the derivations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the assumptions regarding the coefficients in the recurrence relations may affect the validity of the derived equations, and there is an acknowledgment that the method may not hold under certain conditions.

dodo
Messages
695
Reaction score
2
I have a question; help is welcome.

Let sn be a linear, non-homogeneous recurrence sequence, and let hn be a corresponding homogeneous sequence (with initial values to be determined).

As it turns out, the offset between the two (sn - hn) is given by the steady state value of sn, if the initial values of hn are offset from those of sn by the same amount. Precisely what is the reason for that?

This steady state value bears no relation to the initial values of the sequence sn; more properly, it should be called the steady state value of the recurrence rule. I believe it is clear that a linear recurrence rule will have exactly one steady state value, neither none nor multiple (as the steady state is given by the root of a first-degree polynomial). And the steady state of hn is, of course, 0 (the root of a first-degree polynomial through the origin -- d'oh!). Therefore, if the desired offset does not depend on the initial values of sn (the offset was hand-set on the initial values, but who says it will stay that way further on in the sequences?), then the difference of the two steady states (thus the steady state of sn, as the one of hn is zero) should do. But why is the part in bold true?

Thanks--
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To start with a simpler question, how would you get the closed form of this sequence? (And why?)<br /> G_n = G_{n-1} + G_{n-2} + 3<br />with initial values<br /> G_0 = 0, \quad G_1 = 1<br />(Not a homework problem; change the sequence to any other that has a constant term, if you wish.)

- - -

P.S. The answer is that you look for the closed form of<br /> F_n = F_{n-1} + F_{n-2}<br />with initial values<br /> F_0 = 3, \quad F_1 = 4<br />and then subtract 3 from that; obtaining, in the end,<br /> G_n = \frac {(3+\sqrt 5) \phi^n + (3-\sqrt 5) \psi^n} 2 - 3<br />with the usual values for<br /> \phi = \frac {1 + \sqrt 5} 2, \quad \psi = \frac {1 - \sqrt 5} 2<br />
but the question is why is the first step valid.

- - -

P.P.S.: Hmm, maybe the proof by induction that you'd use for this example can be extended to the generic case. I'll try and be back.
 
Last edited:
Dodo said:
I have a question; help is welcome.

Let sn be a linear, non-homogeneous recurrence sequence, and let hn be a corresponding homogeneous sequence (with initial values to be determined).

As it turns out, the offset between the two (sn - hn) is given by the steady state value of sn, if the initial values of hn are offset from those of sn by the same amount. Precisely what is the reason for that?

This steady state value bears no relation to the initial values of the sequence sn; more properly, it should be called the steady state value of the recurrence rule. I believe it is clear that a linear recurrence rule will have exactly one steady state value, neither none nor multiple (as the steady state is given by the root of a first-degree polynomial). And the steady state of hn is, of course, 0 (the root of a first-degree polynomial through the origin -- d'oh!). Therefore, if the desired offset does not depend on the initial values of sn (the offset was hand-set on the initial values, but who says it will stay that way further on in the sequences?), then the difference of the two steady states (thus the steady state of sn, as the one of hn is zero) should do. But why is the part in bold true?

Thanks--

I think the answer is to set up the following equivalence

s2 = A(s1) + B(s0) + C = h2 - Offset

= A*h1 + B*h0 - Offset= A*(s1 + Offset) + B*(s0 +Offset) - Offset

As you can see the terms A(s1) and B(s0) on both the right and left hand sides of the equation cancel out.
 
Last edited:
Yes, ramsey, I think that is helpful. Not just for the first three terms, but for any three successive terms, if an offset was to have these properties, it would have to comply with an equation where only A,B,C appear. (Assuming A+B is not 1, because then the whole method breaks -- but that's another story.)

It is better to define the offset with the opposite sign (so that sn = hn + Offset, and not - Offset) because then the equation simplifies to Offset = C/(1 - A - B) instead of C/(A + B - 1). The former value can be shown to be the steady state of the sequence rule:

A ( C/(1 - A - B) ) + B ( C/(1 - A - B) ) + C = (AC + BC + C(1 - A - B)) / (1 - A - B) = C/(1 - A - B)

(that is, for this value of "Offset", if sn-2 and sn-1 are both equal to Offset, then sn will be equal to Offset too).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K