Square root in suqare root in square root in square root in

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
11 replies · 4K views
songoku
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
395
square root in suqare root in square root in square root in...

Homework Statement


Find the value of:
[tex]\sqrt{1001\sqrt{1002\sqrt{1003\sqrt{1004...}}}}[/tex]


Homework Equations


exponential and surd


The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to square it but didn't find any patterns because the radicands are not the same. Help...

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org


not sure if it will work, but how about writing as
[tex](1001(1002...)^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]

then maybe see if you can simplify and take a logarithm?
 


songoku said:

Homework Statement


Find the value of:
[tex]\sqrt{1001\sqrt{1002\sqrt{1003\sqrt{1004...}}}}[/tex]


Homework Equations


exponential and surd


The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to square it but didn't find any patterns because the radicands are not the same. Help...

Thanks

Here is a suggestion which I have actually tried---and it works. Look at successive approximations: let S[1](x) = sqrt(x), S[2](x) = sqrt(x*S[1](x)),... S[n+1](x) = sqrt(x*S[n](x)),.. and compute S[1](x),..., S[n](x) numerically for a few values of x and for n up to about 20-30; for example, you could use a spreadsheet. The results may surprise you, as they did me. The answer for lim_{n->infinity}S[n](1001) is then clear, which may then help in finding a way to prove it. It is always easier to prove something when you know what you are looking for.

RGV
 


Ray Vickson said:
Here is a suggestion which I have actually tried---and it works. Look at successive approximations: let S[1](x) = sqrt(x), S[2](x) = sqrt(x*S[1](x)),... S[n+1](x) = sqrt(x*S[n](x)),.. and compute S[1](x),..., S[n](x) numerically for a few values of x and for n up to about 20-30; for example, you could use a spreadsheet. The results may surprise you, as they did me. The answer for lim_{n->infinity}S[n](1001) is then clear, which may then help in finding a way to prove it. It is always easier to prove something when you know what you are looking for.

RGV

That's always a good first strategy. The numerical approach at first APPEARS to converge to 1002 to a good approximation. Which would be surprising! But I don't think that's actually the limit. It's a bit less than 1002. I really don't think this is a function you can compute analytically. It would be interesting to be shown it could, though. You CAN show it does converge using lanedance's suggestion. And you CAN write a numerical approximation to the answer. But I think that's all you can do.
 
Last edited:


As Lanedance suggested, the expression can be written in the form

[tex]\prod_1^n{(1000+k)^{\frac{1}{2^k}}}[/tex].

Taking the logarithm, it is a series and some of the convergence-criteria can be applied to show that it is convergent or not, and can find a lower limit.

ehild
 


ehild said:
As Lanedance suggested, the expression can be written in the form

[tex]\prod_1^n{(1000+k)^{\frac{1}{2^k}}}[/tex].

Taking the logarithm, it is a series and some of the convergence-criteria can be applied to show that it is convergent or not, and can find a lower limit.

ehild

Sir, shouldn't the exponent be ( 1 / 2k ) ?

If not so, could you please elaborate.

Thanks.
 


I think the answer lies in the finding of f(x)

where

f**2(x-1) = ( x-1 ) * f(x)

f squared of (x-1 ) equals ( x minus 1 ) times ( f of x )

f(x-1) * f(x-1) = (x-1) * f(x)

if we can solve this equation and find f(x)

We can then plug in the value x=1001

and find out what f(1001) is.
 


Dick said:
That's always a good first strategy. The numerical approach at first APPEARS to converge to 1002 to a good approximation. Which would be surprising! But I don't think that's actually the limit. It's a bit less than 1002. I really don't think this is a function you can compute analytically. It would be interesting to be shown it could, though. You CAN show it does converge using lanedance's suggestion. And you CAN write a numerical approximation to the answer. But I think that's all you can do.

If S(x) = sqrt(x*sqrt(x+1)*sqrt(... ))), taking logarithms gives L(x) = lnS(x) = sum_{k=0..infinity} ln(k+x)/2^(k+1). The ratio test show that the series is convergent for any x > 0. We can get good numerical values for L(x) just by taking many terms, in a simple spreadsheet or programmable hand-held calculator. For example, by performing an error analysis on the infinite series we are guaranteed that taking 41 terms (sum_{k=0..40}) gives more than full 6-decimal accuracy for S(1001) = exp(L(1001)).

RGV
 
Last edited:


Just for fun I download the mpmath package for Python. The following is the evaluation for [strike]7000[/strike] 6999 terms at 1200 dp precision. :smile:

Code:
from mpmath import mp

mp.dps=1200
s=mp.mpf(0)
p2=mp.mpf(2)

for k in range(1,7000) :
    x=mp.mpf(1000+k)
    s=s+mp.log(x)/p2
    p2=p2+p2

print mp.exp(s)

Code:
1001.99900397913691898234439715244344613729998738717041977274676200148199509558817554545417076124318480940610680361311614854981603236455318607100162785113625170638256422574541347581096615035978851664139085456338883594740422731293953208208144172243868905270361292059529263885996278587885993677025105711750619813487545990403024502836716136675785661195184541807980681958180327723191234228986168561284824245851495221985327190918407653825883156881071095089445088055616086340359845081535782146671200814749246453040284862549740844129680298559371650374132490575305619530188927496517152722612153193833757754310883347426813571188377508484422925408646686318012394719790714830903494186462930528915274650314653701307950669845027675076978273020036611482127244665921724832927562221042065147872776648580806362571880958572257635842221805174250500907725156069329281841466085876234699317471711743482677662082232151927374650792614369602453252418264601925148261436388726832874441122942437367419289549047172944608662444481832971555133410691363743174251382431045383895821360549236143488774247447599308457363870075777157976111773915678002918789458376189266258999122256218899692315961897948080517046667533746089790257098403498
 


You can also use the power series expansion of log(1+x) to start writing the expression in terms of powers of n=1000. n*exp(2/n-6/(2n^2)+...). The n*exp(2/n) part shows you why the result is close to 1002.
 


It is easy to find a lower and an upper bound for the original expression, S.

The logarithm of the original expression is

[itex]L=ln(S)=\sum_1^{\infty}ln(1000+k)(\frac{1}{2})^k[/itex]

[itex]L>ln(1000+1)\sum_1^{\infty}(\frac{1}{2})^k=ln(1001)[/itex], so S>1001.

To find an upper bound, multiply L by 2 and subtract L.

[itex]2L=ln(1001)+\sum_1^{\infty}ln(1001+k)(\frac{1}{2})^k[/itex]

[itex]2L-L=ln(1001)+\sum_1^{\infty}ln(\frac{1001+k}{1000+k})(\frac{1}{2})^k[/itex]

[itex]ln(\frac{1001+k}{1000+k})=ln(1+\frac{1}{1000+k})<ln(1.001)[/itex],

[itex]L<ln1001+ln1.001\sum_1^{\infty}(\frac{1}{2})^k=ln1001+ln1.001=ln(1002.001)[/itex]

S<1002.001

ehild