Proving the Convergence of a Recursive Sequence

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the recursive sequence defined by a_{1}=1 and a_{n+1}=sqrt(6+a_{n}) converges and remains bounded below 3. Participants clarify that since a_{1} is less than 3, and if a_{k} is less than 3, then a_{k+1} will also be less than 3, establishing that all terms in the sequence are bounded above by 3 through induction. Concerns about the sequence potentially exceeding this limit are addressed, emphasizing that each term is independent and does not accumulate like a sum. The importance of understanding induction in this context is highlighted, leading to a clearer grasp of the sequence's behavior. Ultimately, the sequence converges to a limit below 3, reinforcing the validity of the inductive proof.
Linday12
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let a_n be defined recursively by
a_{1}=1, a_{n+1}=sqrt(6+a_{n}) (n=1,2,3,...).
Show that lim n->infinity a_{n} exists and find its value

The Attempt at a Solution


Observe that a_{2}=\sqrt{6+1}=\sqrt{7} > a_{1}. If a_{k+1} > a_{k}, then a_{k+2} = \sqrt{6+a_{k+1}} > \sqrt{6+a_k} = a_{k+1}, so {a_{n}} is increasing by induction. I get that part, its the next part I'm a little confused about:

Now, observe that a_{1}=1 < 3. If a_{k} < 3, then a_{k+1}=\sqrt{6+a_k} < \sqrt{6+3}, so a_{n} < 3 for every n by induction. How does this show that for all n, the value will be less than 3? Sorry, I'm not really sure how it shows that if you keep going on in the sequence it won't go past 3 eventually.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Linday12! :wink:

(have a square-root: √ and try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
Linday12 said:
Now, observe that a_{1}=1 < 3. If a_{k} < 3, then a_{k+1}=\sqrt{6+a_k} < \sqrt{6+3}, so a_{n} < 3 for every n by induction. How does this show that for all n, the value will be less than 3? Sorry, I'm not really sure how it shows that if you keep going on in the sequence it won't go past 3 eventually.

But you've proved it!

If an < 3, then an+1 < 3 …

what is worrying you about that? :smile:
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm just not seeing how it shows that. I've memorized it and am not really worried about getting it wrong, but it's really not helpful if I don't understand that it keeps under the limit. I guess my induction skills are lacking.

Ok, so if ak < 3, then ak+1 = \sqrt{6+a_{k}} < \sqrt{6+3}, so an < 3 for every n by induction.

What I'm not seeing is how this shows that it is below 3 for n. For example, as you keep going up to something like a100, how do you know that it won't add up to enough to push over 3. My (wrongful) reasoning is that if you keep adding more and more, it finally accumulates enough to surpass 3 and go to infinity. I can't seem to see how it approaches the limit. :frown:
 
Linday12 said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm just not seeing how it shows that. I've memorized it and am not really worried about getting it wrong, but it's really not helpful if I don't understand that it keeps under the limit. I guess my induction skills are lacking.

Ok, so if ak < 3, then ak+1 = \sqrt{6+a_{k}} < \sqrt{6+3}, so an < 3 for every n by induction.

What I'm not seeing is how this shows that it is below 3 for n. For example, as you keep going up to something like a100, how do you know that it won't add up to enough to push over 3. My (wrongful) reasoning is that if you keep adding more and more, it finally accumulates enough to surpass 3 and go to infinity. I can't seem to see how it approaches the limit. :frown:

What you have just proved is: (\star) the validity of the statement "a_k&lt;3" implies the validity of the statement "a_{k+1}&lt;3." What this allows you to do is essentially re-use (\star) over and over. We know that a_1&lt;3. By (\star), the validity of a_1 &lt; 3 implies the validity of a_2 &lt; 3. But, again by (\star), the validity of a_2&lt;3 implies the validity of a_3&lt;3 and so on.

In induction proofs, what you're proving is that the validity of the k-th case implies the validity of the (k+1)-th case. Along with the base case, this allows you to conclude the statement is true for all values of k.
 
Hi Linday12! :smile:

(just got up :zzz: …)
Linday12 said:
My (wrongful) reasoning is that if you keep adding more and more, it finally accumulates enough to surpass 3 and go to infinity.

Nothing is accumulating, there's no sum, each an is on its own.
… I guess my induction skills are lacking. …

Yes, you need to convince yourself that induction is valid.

Go over what rs1n :smile: has said, and try to convince yourself that it makes sense (it does! :biggrin:).

Then try to apply it in other examples (such as an greater than 3 in this case). :smile:
 
Thank you both very much! Those two posts cleared up my problems with it. I was thinking of it in an accumulating way :rolleyes: (I have no idea why, series and sequence mix up I guess :blushing:), so now it makes sense.

:cool: Thanks again!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K