Recursive sequences convergence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of the recursive sequence defined by a_n+1 = a_n/[sqrt(0.5a_n + 1) + 1]. Participants are exploring whether the sequence converges to 0 and the implications of this convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the sequence approaching 0, questioning how to rigorously prove this limit. Some suggest viewing the sequence as a function and exploring its fixed points. Others consider using definitions of limits and comparisons to establish convergence.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various approaches being explored. Some participants have offered insights into using function transformations and comparisons to demonstrate convergence, while others express concerns about the rigor of these arguments. There is no explicit consensus on the best method to prove convergence.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the ambiguity in the original problem statement and the potential issues with convergence for negative values of the sequence. There is a focus on ensuring that the analysis remains within the positive domain of the sequence.

ricardianequiva
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let the sequence {a_n} defined by:

a_n+1 = a_n/[sqrt(0.5a_n + 1) + 1]

Prove that {a_n} converges to 0

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I tried manipulating the equation but to no avail...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the sequence approaches 0, then lim(n->infinity) a_n should be 0 as should a_n+1 correct?

If the series converges, then a_n and a_n+1 should both approach the limit L of the sequence as n becomes large.
 
Last edited:
yes. but i don't see how that helps
 
ricardianequiva said:
yes. but i don't see how that helps

Ok let me try it a different way. Suppose instead of explicitly labeling the sequence as a sequence, I say that the sequence is actually a function f(x) which takes x_n and transforms it into x_n+1.

For this sequence, f(x)=\frac{x}{\sqrt{x/2+1}+1}. If the sequence converges to a limit L, then clearly f(L)=L. Does that make more sense?
 
Last edited:
yes, i can see how that shows that the limit is 0, but i don't think its rigorous enough.
is there some way to actually show that the limit is 0, perhaps using definitions of limits?
 
I had to delete my previous post because I found an error in it, but I think the argument can be made by comparison. Using the definition of a limit, for every \epsilon > 0, you want to prove there exists an N such that for n > N,|x_n - L| < \epsilon.

The question is vague enough and seems to ignore the lack of convergence if x_n = -2 so I'm going to restrict my argument to x_n > 0. Clearly for arbitrary w and u > 0 such that w > u, then \frac{1}{\sqrt{0.5w+1}+1} < \frac{1}{\sqrt{0.5u+1}+1}. Using this, you can place an upper bound on the ratio of subsequent terms of the sequence x_{n+1} = \frac{x_n}{\sqrt{0.5x_n+1}+1} to say that x_{n+1} \leq \frac{1}{2} x_n, which is much easier to work with.

I don't think attempts to directly apply the definition of a limit without using this kind of workaround would be met with much success.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K