What is the limit of this sequence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamin2112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit of a sequence defined recursively as \( x_1 = \sqrt{2} \) and \( x_{n+1} = \sqrt{2 + x_n} \). Participants explore the behavior of this sequence and its convergence properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formulation of the sequence and its recursive nature. There are attempts to establish properties such as monotonicity and boundedness. Questions arise regarding the implications of continuity and limits, as well as the conditions under which the sequence converges.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the convergence of the sequence, suggesting that it approaches a limit. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the terms of the sequence and their limits, with some participants expressing uncertainty about reaching the limit.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the sequence is bounded above by 2 and that it is monotonically increasing. There is also mention of the need for a rigorous proof to establish the limit, with some participants questioning the assumptions made during the discussion.

Jamin2112
Messages
973
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



I'm almost done with an arduous math problem.

Homework Equations



Not sure about any theorems I can appeal to.

The Attempt at a Solution



My sequence is basically √2, √(2+√2), √{2 + √[2+√(2+√2)]}, ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you write down an equation for this sequence? Something along the lines of [itex]x_i = f(x_{i-1})[/itex].
 
Coto said:
Can you write down an equation for this sequence? Something along the lines of [itex]x_i = f(x_{i-1})[/itex].

x1 = √2, xn+1 = √(2 + xn).

Here's my proof so far ...

Let x1 = √2, xn+1 = √(2+xn), and P(n) be the proposition that xn < √(2+xn).

Because 2 > 0 and √2 > 0, we know that 2 < 2 + √2. Taking the square root of both sides gives us √2 < √(2+√2), that is to say, the base case P(1).

Adding 2 to both sides of P(n) gives us xn + 2 < xn+1 + 2. Taking the square root of both sides, we then get √(xn + 2) < √(xn+1 + 2) = xn+2. Thus P(n) implies P(n+1), and we can conclude that xn < xn+1 for all n.

Now assume xn ≥ 2, where n > 1. Then √(2+xn-1) ≥ 2. Squaring both sides yields 2 + xn-1 ≥ 4, and then adding (-2) to both sides yields xn-1 ≥ 2. Let n = 2 and our inequality implies x1 = √2 ≥ 2, an obvious contradiction. Thus xn < 2.

Because xn has an upper bound, namely 2, it must have a least upper bound (see Theorem II on pg. 80). Because xn is monotonically increasing, and because it has an upper bound, the sequence converges to its least upper bound (see Theorem III on pg. 81).

Let M be the least upper bound of xn. We know √2 < M ≤ 2, and so 2 < M2 ≤ 4. Because lim n→∞ √(2 + xn) = √(2 + lim n→∞ xn), it is true that 2 < 2 + lim n→∞ xn ≤ 4.

(The final paragraph is nonsense; I'm just experimenting and trying to find the limit)
 
Sounds like you have it figured out to me.

You can show that the limit of this sequence is 2 by showing that the sequence converges to 2.

That is,
[itex]\forall \epsilon > 0 \ \ \ \exists N \in \mathbb{N} \ \ \ \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ \ \ \forall n \geq N, |x_n - 2| < \epsilon[/itex].

Edit:
Hint: To do this, start by fixing epsilon, and then finding [itex]N = N(\epsilon)[/itex].
 
Coto said:
Sounds like you have it figured out to me.

You can show that the limit of this sequence is 2 by showing that the sequence converges to 2.

That is,
[itex]\forall \epsilon > 0 \ \ \ \exists N \in \mathbb{N} \ \ \ \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ \ \ \forall n \geq N, |x_n - 2| < \epsilon[/itex].

Edit:
Hint: To do this, start by fixing epsilon, and then finding [itex]N = N(\epsilon)[/itex].

Hmmmm ... I'm still not gettin' to the limit.

Here's what I know for sure:

√2 < lim n-->∞ xn2
√2 < xn < 2 for all n ≥ 2

So if M = lim n-->∞ xn, then it's obvious that M - 2 ≤ 0, that is to say, xn - M < µ for all µ > 0. I feel like I'm almost there ...
 
Jamin2112 said:
Hmmmm ... I'm still not gettin' to the limit.

Here's what I know for sure:

√2 < lim n-->∞ xn2
√2 < xn < 2 for all n ≥ 2

So if M = lim n-->∞ xn, then it's obvious that M - 2 ≤ 0, that is to say, xn - M < µ for all µ > 0. I feel like I'm almost there ...

Yes, you are almost there. If x_n=sqrt(x_(n+1)+2) and you have proved x_n has a limit, M. Then doesn't that mean M=sqrt(M+2)?
 
The argument is as follows
[tex]x_n=\sqrt{x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]
so that if the limit does exist then
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]

but since sqrt(x) is continuous on R>0 we can move the limit into sqrt() on the RHS so that

[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = \sqrt{\lim_{n\to\infty} x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]

Now, since the limit on the LHS exists and say it is some value, L, then we know that the sequence of radicands (x_(n-1)+2) must converge to L+2. You should be able to see that if a sequence x_n converges to a limit L then the sequence x_(n-1) also converges to the same limit.

Therefore,

[tex]L= \sqrt{L+2}[/tex]

and solve for L. This is a constraint on L and a unique value satisfying this equation must necessarily be the limit (as you have shown that it exists). Hopefully there is only one such L satisfying this equation.

This is precisely the argument that Dick is suggesting, I only elaborate so that you can see why such an argument is justified.
 
Last edited:
ZioX said:
The argument is as follows
[tex]x_n=\sqrt{x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]
so that if the limit does exist then
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]

but since sqrt(x) is continuous on R>0 we can move the limit into sqrt() on the RHS so that

[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = \sqrt{\lim_{n\to\infty} x_{n-1}+2}[/tex]

Now, since the limit on the LHS exists and say it is some value, L, then we know that the sequence of radicands (x_(n-1)+2) must converge to L+2. You should be able to see that if a sequence x_n converges to a limit L then the sequence x_(n-1) also converges to the same limit.

Therefore,

[tex]L= \sqrt{L+2}[/tex]

and solve for L. This is a constraint on L and a unique value satisfying this equation must necessarily be the limit (as you have shown that it exists). Hopefully there is only one such L satisfying this equation.

This is precisely the argument that Dick is suggesting, I only elaborate so that you can see why such an argument is justified.

This makes sense to me. You have xn+1 = √(2+xn), and you think, hmmmm ... It looks like our sequence will converge to 4 if xn converges to 2. Well, what does xn converge to? xn = √(2+xn-1), so it seems that xn is converging to the same thing as xn+1. Let M = lim n-->∞ xn. M = √(2+M), so M = 2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K