Prove that this sequence converges

  • Thread starter Thread starter playboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a sequence defined recursively as \( a_{0} = a > 1 \) and \( a_{n+1} = a^{a_n} \). The original poster seeks to prove that the sequence converges for values of \( a < e^{1/e} \approx 1.44467 \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the monotonicity and boundedness of the sequence, with some suggesting induction as a method to show boundedness. Others express confusion about the bounds and the implications of the sequence being increasing.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations of the bounds being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the implications of the sequence's behavior under certain conditions, while others question the validity of the calculations being performed.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific values for \( a \) and the potential for misunderstanding in calculations, particularly regarding the order of operations in exponentiation. Participants are also clarifying the correct interpretation of the sequence's recursive definition.

playboy

Homework Statement



Let [itex]a_{0} = a >1[/itex] and let [itex]a_{n+1} = a^{a_n}[/itex].
Show that {[itex]a_{n}[/itex]} comverges for [itex]a < e^{e^-1} = 1.4446678[/itex]



Homework Equations



This is a theorem I learned in Real Analysis and hope to apply it to this problem:


theorem: If a sequence is montonically increasing and bounded, then it is convergent



The Attempt at a Solution



{[itex]a_{n}[/itex]} = {[itex]a, a^a, a^{a^a}, ...[/itex]}

Clearly, {[itex]a_{n}[/itex]} is monotonically increasing is is bounded below by a.

How do I show that it is bounded above?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
try induction assuming that a(o) is less than the maximum a value...
 
dmoravec said:
try induction assuming that a(o) is less than the maximum a value...


Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say...

Clearly,

[itex]a < a^a < a^{a^a} < ...[/itex] ... So I am having a hard time explaining how this is bounded for a>1
 
This doesn't mean anything. A sequence could be increasing and still be bounded. And [tex]e^{e-1} = 5.574941539[/tex]. I don't think that's what you meant...
 
Last edited:
Werg22 said:
This doesn't mean anything. A sequence could be increasing and still be bounded. And [tex]e^{e-1} = 5.574941539[/tex]. I don't think that's what you meant...

He meant e^(1/e). The formatting didn't come out 100% clear.
 
If a<e^(1/e) and x<e, what can you tell me about a^x?
 
Dick said:
He meant e^(1/e). The formatting didn't come out 100% clear.

Thank you for the correction Dick...I allways have trouble with this latex stuff :confused:


Dick said:
If a<e^(1/e) and x<e, what can you tell me about a^x?

If a<e^(1/e) and x<e, we can conclude that a^x < e

so a^x < e

hence,

:confused:

a < e^(1/x) ...


Can you please give me another push ?
 
Ok. a=a0<e^(1/e)<e. a1=a^a0. So a1<e. a2=a^a1. a1<e. So a2<e. a3=a^a2. a2<e. So a3<e. a4=a^a3. a3<e. So a4<e. How long do you want me to keep this up?
 
Dick said:
Ok. a=a0<e^(1/e)<e. a1=a^a0. So a1<e. a2=a^a1. a1<e. So a2<e. a3=a^a2. a2<e. So a3<e. a4=a^a3. a3<e. So a4<e. How long do you want me to keep this up?

Okay...I see it now.

it is bounded above by e.

a
a^a
a^a^a
a^a^a^a
.
.
.
.

for 1 < a < e^(1/e)
 
  • #10
You've got it.
 
  • #11
I can follow your example, but when i practicly pund these numers in my calculator, i find that it is not bounded by e.

for example,

a = 1.3

a < a < 1^(1/e) = 1.444...

(1.3)^(1.3)^(1.3)^...^(1.3) >>> e ... hence, not bounded by e.
 
  • #12
playboy said:
I can follow your example, but when i practicly pund these numers in my calculator, i find that it is not bounded by e.

for example,

a = 1.3

a < a < 1^(1/e) = 1.444...

(1.3)^(1.3)^(1.3)^...^(1.3) >>> e ... hence, not bounded by e.

(%o1) f(x) := 1.3^x;
(%i2) f(1.3);
(%o2) 1.406456673237886
(%i3) f(%);
(%o3) 1.446293346285982
(%i4) f(%);
(%o4) 1.461488869891772
(%i5) f(%);
(%o5) 1.467327108831111
(%i6) f(%);
(%o6) 1.469576402415039
(%i7) f(%);
(%o7) 1.470443905739509
(%i8) f(%);
(%o8) 1.470778619613915
(%i9) f(%);
(%o9) 1.470907784591691
(%i10) f(%);
(%o10) 1.470957631962913
(%i11) f(%);
(%o11) 1.470976869521044
(%i12) f(%);
(%o12) 1.470984293924533
(%i13) f(%);
(%o13) 1.470987159254924
(%i14)

Are you sure the calculator isn't doing f(x):=x^1.3? That's quite different.
 
  • #13
>> a = 1.3

a =

1.3000

>> a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a

ans =

110.1660




>> (((((((a^a)^a)^a)^a)^a)^a)^a)

ans =

5.1877


Perhaps i am miss-understanding how you are computing it.
 
  • #14
You are computing:
[tex]a_n = (a_{n-1})^a[/tex]

You need:
[tex]a_n = a^{a_{n-1}}[/tex]

It's a subtle difference in this case.
 
  • #15
Which do you believe, your reasoning or your calculator?

(%i8) a^(a^(a^(a^(a^(a^(a^a))))));
(%o8) 1.470778619613915
 
  • #16
Why would my calculator/matlab give a different answer.

The reasoing is correct, so shouldn't the calculator give the same answer as your showing?
 
  • #17
Is the warranty still valid on the calculator? Seriously, did you explicitly parenthesize it like I did? Powers are not associative.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K