MHB Sequence of b_{k} with Explicit Formula: Proving by Math Induction

Click For Summary
The sequence defined by the recurrence relation b_k = b_{k-1}/2 + b_{k-1} with b_0 = 1 leads to confusion regarding its explicit formula. A proposed explicit formula is b_n = 2/(n+2), but this does not match the calculated terms of the sequence. Clarification is needed on whether the correct recurrence should be b_k = 3b_{k-1}/2 or b_k = b_{k-1}/(2 + b_{k-1}), as both yield different sequences. The accurate sequence appears to be {1, 1/3, 1/7, 1/15, ...}, suggesting a formula of 1/(2^{n+1} - 1). Further discussion is required to establish the correct explicit formula and its proof by mathematical induction.
hkhgg
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
$$b_{k} = b_{k - 1}/2 +b_{k-1} $$
$$b_{0} = 1 $$

What would be the sequence for this expression, I calculated it to be 1, 2/3, 2/5, 2/7 ...

Is it right?

My explicit formula is $$b_{n} = 2/n+2 $$

What would be the explicit formula in your view and how can that formula be proved by mathematical induction? thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, what is the formula defining the sequence? You wrote $b_k= b_{k-1}/2+ b_{k-1}$ but since that would be more simply written as $3b_{k-1}/2$ I wonder if you did not intend $b_k= \frac{b_{k-1}}{2+ b_{k-1}}$.

Assuming what you wrote was correct, since $b_0= 1$, $b_1= 1/2+ 1= 3/2$, $b_2= (3/2)/2+ (3/2)= 3/4+ 3/2=3/4+ 6/4=10/4=5/2$... That is not what you write so apparently that is not what you intend.

With $b_k= \frac{b_{k-1}}{2+b_{k-1}}$ and $b_0=1$, $b_1= \frac{1}{2+ 1}= \frac{2}{3}$, $b_2= \frac{\frac{2}{3}}{2+ \frac{2}{3}}= \frac{\frac{2}{3}}{\frac{6}{3}+ \frac{2}{3}}= \frac{\frac{2}{3}}{\frac{8}{3}}= \frac{2}{3}\frac{3}{8}= \frac{2}{8}= \frac{1}{4}$.

That is also not what you have so, no, you are not correct.

I can't respond to the rest of you questions because I do not know whether you intend $b_k= \frac{b_{k-1}}{2}+ b_k= \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)b_{k-1}$ or $b_k= \frac{b_{k-1}}{2+ b_{k-1}}$.
 
$b_k = \dfrac{b_{k-1}}{2+b_{k-1}}$

$\displaystyle \bigg\{ 1, \dfrac{1}{3}, \dfrac{1}{7}, \dfrac{1}{15}, … , \dfrac{1}{2^{n+1}-1} , … \bigg \}$
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K