MHB Solving a Functional Equation Problem: Finding f(3)-f(0)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saitama
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functional
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the functional equation for a continuous function f, defined by the equation f(x) - 2f(x/2) + f(x/4) = x^2. The initial attempts to find f(3) and f(0) lead to confusion, particularly regarding the value of f(0), which is not definitively zero. Participants suggest repeatedly applying the functional equation to derive a series for f(x) that converges, ultimately leading to an expression for f(x) - f(0). The conversation concludes with a clearer understanding of how to sum the series to find the desired values.
Saitama
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
93
Problem:
Let $f:R\rightarrow R$ be a continuous function such that
$$f(x)-2f\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)+f \left( \frac{x}{4} \right)=x^2$$
Find $f(3)-f(0)$.

Attempt:
I really don't know how should I approach this problem. I could only deduce that $f(0)=0$. Then I tried putting a few values for $x$ i.e $x=1,2,3$ but that doesn't seem to help. I honestly don't know what should I do to find the value of $f(3)$.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

(I am not sure if this should belong to the Algebra section)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Pranav said:
Problem:
Let $f:R\rightarrow R$ be a continuous function such that
$$f(x)-2f\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)+f \left( \frac{x}{4} \right)=x^2$$
Find $f(3)-f(0)$.

Attempt:
I really don't know how should I approach this problem. I could only deduce that $f(0)=0$. Then I tried putting a few values for $x$ i.e $x=1,2,3$ but that doesn't seem to help. I honestly don't know what should I do to find the value of $f(3)$.
To start with, I do not see why $f(0)$ should be $0$. If you put $x=0$ in the above equation then you just get $0=0$.

Next, suppose that you repeatedly apply the definition to fractions of $x$, like this: $$\begin{aligned} f(x) &= x^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + 2\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr)\Bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x{16}\bigr)\Bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) \\ &= \ldots .\end{aligned}$$ Continuing in that way, you should find a series for $f(x)$ that converges to a limit, giving a expression for $f(x) - f(0).$
 
Hi Opalg! :)

Opalg said:
To start with, I do not see why $f(0)$ should be $0$. If you put $x=0$ in the above equation then you just get $0=0$.

Sorry about that. :o

Next, suppose that you repeatedly apply the definition to fractions of $x$, like this: $$\begin{aligned} f(x) &= x^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + 2\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr)\Bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x{16}\bigr)\Bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) \\ &= \ldots .\end{aligned}$$ Continuing in that way, you should find a series for $f(x)$ that converges to a limit, giving a expression for $f(x) - f(0).$

I don't get this. If I continue from where you left,
$$f(x)=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+5f\left( \frac{x}{8}\right)-3\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)$$
$$=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+5\left(\frac{x^2}{4^3}+2f\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)-f\left(\frac{x}{32}\right)\right)-3f\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)$$
$$=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+\frac{5x^2}{4^3}+7\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)-5f\left(\frac{x}{32}\right)$$
I don't see what I have to do with the above, I can keep on expanding the above and I will end up with a series plus (something)*f(x/something'). :confused:
 
Pranav said:
Opalg said:
To start with, I do not see why $f(0)$ should be $0$. If you put $x=0$ in the above equation then you just get $0=0$.

Next, suppose that you repeatedly apply the definition to fractions of $x$, like this: $$\begin{aligned} f(x) &= x^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + 2\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x2\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr)\Bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3f\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr) - 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) \\ &= x^2 + \tfrac{2x^2}4 + 3\Bigl(\bigl(\tfrac x4\bigr)^2 + 2f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr) - f\bigl(\tfrac x{16}\bigr)\Bigr) - \color{red}{2}f\bigl(\tfrac x8\bigr)\quad \color{red}{\text{I left out a 2 from the previous line!}} \\ &= \ldots .\end{aligned}$$ Continuing in that way, you should find a series for $f(x)$ that converges to a limit, giving a expression for $f(x) - f(0).$
I don't get this. If I continue from where you left,
$$f(x)=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+5f\left( \frac{x}{8}\right)-3\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)$$
$$=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+5\left(\frac{x^2}{4^3}+2f\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)-f\left(\frac{x}{32}\right)\right)-3f\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)$$
$$=\frac{3x^2}{2}+\frac{3x^2}{4^2}+\frac{5x^2}{4^3}+7\left(\frac{x}{16}\right)-5f\left(\frac{x}{32}\right)$$
I don't see what I have to do with the above, I can keep on expanding the above and I will end up with a series plus (something)*f(x/something'). :confused:
Putting in the $2$ that I left out, you should end up with a series looking like $$\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(k+1)x^2}{4^k} + (n+2)\,f\bigl(\tfrac x{2^{n+1}}\Bigr) - (n+1)\,f\bigl(\tfrac x{2^{n+2}}\Bigr).$$ As $n\to\infty$, the continuity of $f$ at $x=0$ tells you that $$f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(k+1)x^2}{4^k} + f(0).$$ Then you just have to sum that series.
 
Opalg said:
Putting in the $2$ that I left out, you should end up with a series looking like $$\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(k+1)x^2}{4^k} + (n+2)\,f\bigl(\tfrac x{2^{n+1}}\Bigr) - (n+1)\,f\bigl(\tfrac x{2^{n+2}}\Bigr).$$ As $n\to\infty$, the continuity of $f$ at $x=0$ tells you that $$f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(k+1)x^2}{4^k} + f(0).$$ Then you just have to sum that series.

That is great! Thanks a lot Opalg! :)

I am sorry for being careless. :o

(I really miss the thanks button.)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K