Uncovering the Math Behind a Mysterious Paradox

ramsey2879
Messages
841
Reaction score
3
I discovered a mathamatical truth that seems to have no clear logical foundation. Could anyone here explain the math behind the following?

A.Given the following recursive series:

S(1) = 3
S(2) = 2
S(n) = 6*S(n-1) - S(n-2) - 4

Define a new series as follows
N(i) = (S(i) + S(i+1) + 1)/2

B.Now note that for all i
1) S(i)*S(i+1) = N(i)*(N(i) + 1)/2
2) (N(i) + N(i +1) + 1)/4 = S(i+1)
3) N(i)*N(i+1)/4 = S(i+1)*(S(i+1) + 1)/2

C. A even more amazing paradox is that you can rewrite line 2 of part A as S(2) = 12, and make no other changes except to redo the math. Still B1, B2, and B3 again hold true!

What factors lurk in the background of this paradox?
Could yet another number be substituted for the numbers 2 or 12 in line 2 of part A?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You know there's a straightforward procedure to solve recurrence relations of that type, right?

Second order linear homogeneous recurrences like that are of the form
S(n) = A rn + B sn
unless they degenerate; I forget how to treat them when they degenerate.


Paradox? :confused:
 
Hurkyl said:
You know there's a straightforward procedure to solve recurrence relations of that type, right?

Second order linear homogeneous recurrences like that are of the form
S(n) = A rn + B sn
unless they degenerate; I forget how to treat them when they degenerate.


Paradox? :confused:

I saw that before but I lost the book that it was in. Is the a website that explains how to do so. Don't worry about the -4 in the recursive relation of my amended post. By subtracting 1 from each S(i) term you get a series that is truly S(n) = 6*S(n-1)-S(n-2)! So I would subtract 1 from each term solve to get the series S'(n) then write S(n) = Ar^{n} + Bs^{n} + 1 where A and B are derived from the series S'(n).
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top