Proving the convergence of the sequence defined by $x_1=3$ and $x_{n+1}=frac{1}{4-x_n}$












4












$begingroup$


Consider the sequence defined by
$$x_1=3 quadtext{and}quad x_{n+1}=dfrac{1}{4-x_n}$$



I can calculate limit by assuming limit exist and solving quadratic equation, but I first wanted to give existence of limit.



I tried to show given sequence is decreasing and bounded below by 0.



I used derivative test as
$$f^prime(x)=frac{1}{(4-x)^2}$$
but form this I am not able to show



Also, I tried to shoe $x_{n+1}-x_n<0$ but that way also I am not succeed.



Please tell me how to approach such problem










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    Consider the sequence defined by
    $$x_1=3 quadtext{and}quad x_{n+1}=dfrac{1}{4-x_n}$$



    I can calculate limit by assuming limit exist and solving quadratic equation, but I first wanted to give existence of limit.



    I tried to show given sequence is decreasing and bounded below by 0.



    I used derivative test as
    $$f^prime(x)=frac{1}{(4-x)^2}$$
    but form this I am not able to show



    Also, I tried to shoe $x_{n+1}-x_n<0$ but that way also I am not succeed.



    Please tell me how to approach such problem










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      Consider the sequence defined by
      $$x_1=3 quadtext{and}quad x_{n+1}=dfrac{1}{4-x_n}$$



      I can calculate limit by assuming limit exist and solving quadratic equation, but I first wanted to give existence of limit.



      I tried to show given sequence is decreasing and bounded below by 0.



      I used derivative test as
      $$f^prime(x)=frac{1}{(4-x)^2}$$
      but form this I am not able to show



      Also, I tried to shoe $x_{n+1}-x_n<0$ but that way also I am not succeed.



      Please tell me how to approach such problem










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Consider the sequence defined by
      $$x_1=3 quadtext{and}quad x_{n+1}=dfrac{1}{4-x_n}$$



      I can calculate limit by assuming limit exist and solving quadratic equation, but I first wanted to give existence of limit.



      I tried to show given sequence is decreasing and bounded below by 0.



      I used derivative test as
      $$f^prime(x)=frac{1}{(4-x)^2}$$
      but form this I am not able to show



      Also, I tried to shoe $x_{n+1}-x_n<0$ but that way also I am not succeed.



      Please tell me how to approach such problem







      real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 2 '18 at 5:56









      Blue

      47.8k870152




      47.8k870152










      asked Dec 2 '18 at 5:48









      MathLoverMathLover

      49310




      49310






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          You will want to show $x>f(x)$ in order to establish that the sequence is decreasing. So consider $g(x) = x - dfrac{1}{4-x}.$



          Since $g'(x) = 1-dfrac{1}{(4-x)^2} =dfrac{(x-5)(x-3)}{(4-x)^2},$ it suggest that your intuition true if $x_nleq 3$ for $n>1$, which can be easily established by induction.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Dec 2 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Dec 2 '18 at 10:59












          • $begingroup$
            "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Dec 2 '18 at 21:22



















          6












          $begingroup$

          It can be approached in a graphical manner:




          • Draw the graph of $y = frac{1}{4-x}$ to scale while marking the essentials.

          • Asymptote at $x=4$; Value at $x = 3$ is $1$.

          • Comparing it to the previous value of the sequence would require the plot of $y=x$ on the same axes.

          • Mark the intersection as $x=2-sqrt3$ whereas $x=2+sqrt3$ is near $x=4$.


          If through, notice that starting the sequence from $x=3$ means that the next value is $1$ from the hyperbola which is well below the straight line. Now to get the next value put $x=1$ and get the next value from the hyperbola, which is again less than $1$ as the straight line depicts.



          If you follow the pattern, you would tend to reach the intersection $x=2-sqrt3$ as the gap between both the curves decreases to zero which gives the limit of the sequence as $x=2-sqrt3$ (the limit only, not one of the terms of the sequence, since these are all rational numbers).



          Also, one can thus say that if $x_1 in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$ then the sequence would be decreasing and would converge at $x=2-sqrt3$ and that all the terms $x in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Dec 2 '18 at 10:37










          • $begingroup$
            The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
            $endgroup$
            – Sameer Baheti
            Dec 2 '18 at 10:38










          • $begingroup$
            You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Dec 2 '18 at 10:42










          • $begingroup$
            It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
            $endgroup$
            – Sameer Baheti
            Dec 2 '18 at 10:44



















          1












          $begingroup$

          Suppose $p(y)=y^2-4y+1=0$ and let $x_n=y+z_n$ then $$y+z_{n+1}=frac 1{4-y-z_n}$$ so that $$-yz_n+(4-y)z_{n+1}=y^2-4y+1=0$$ and $$z_{n+1}=frac y{4-y}z_n$$



          So if $0lt ylt 2$ the error term $z_n$ has the same sign and is decreasing in magnitude in constant proportion so tends to zero. It is easy to test that there is a root of the quadratic in the required range by noting $p(0)=1, p(2)=-3$





          Note: the equations hold for the other possible value of $y$ too, but the inequality does not then apply to prove that the error term tends to zero. Also this was done without computing $y$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            To show that $x_n$ is decreasing, use induction to prove that $x_n> x_{n+1}$. To show that $x_n$ is bounded below by zero show a stronger assertion that $0<x_n<2+sqrt{3}$ by using induction.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
              $endgroup$
              – Oscar Lanzi
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:49










            • $begingroup$
              Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
              $endgroup$
              – user9077
              Dec 2 '18 at 15:11



















            0












            $begingroup$

            Hint: after finding the limit $l$ from $l={1over 4-l}$ to make sure that the sequence tends to $l$, define $e_n=a_n-l$ and by substituting it in $a_{n+1}={1over 4-a_n}$ conclude that $e_n to 0$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022296%2fproving-the-convergence-of-the-sequence-defined-by-x-1-3-and-x-n1-frac1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes








              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              0












              $begingroup$

              You will want to show $x>f(x)$ in order to establish that the sequence is decreasing. So consider $g(x) = x - dfrac{1}{4-x}.$



              Since $g'(x) = 1-dfrac{1}{(4-x)^2} =dfrac{(x-5)(x-3)}{(4-x)^2},$ it suggest that your intuition true if $x_nleq 3$ for $n>1$, which can be easily established by induction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 9:21












              • $begingroup$
                Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:59












              • $begingroup$
                "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 21:22
















              0












              $begingroup$

              You will want to show $x>f(x)$ in order to establish that the sequence is decreasing. So consider $g(x) = x - dfrac{1}{4-x}.$



              Since $g'(x) = 1-dfrac{1}{(4-x)^2} =dfrac{(x-5)(x-3)}{(4-x)^2},$ it suggest that your intuition true if $x_nleq 3$ for $n>1$, which can be easily established by induction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 9:21












              • $begingroup$
                Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:59












              • $begingroup$
                "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 21:22














              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              You will want to show $x>f(x)$ in order to establish that the sequence is decreasing. So consider $g(x) = x - dfrac{1}{4-x}.$



              Since $g'(x) = 1-dfrac{1}{(4-x)^2} =dfrac{(x-5)(x-3)}{(4-x)^2},$ it suggest that your intuition true if $x_nleq 3$ for $n>1$, which can be easily established by induction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              You will want to show $x>f(x)$ in order to establish that the sequence is decreasing. So consider $g(x) = x - dfrac{1}{4-x}.$



              Since $g'(x) = 1-dfrac{1}{(4-x)^2} =dfrac{(x-5)(x-3)}{(4-x)^2},$ it suggest that your intuition true if $x_nleq 3$ for $n>1$, which can be easily established by induction.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Dec 2 '18 at 9:27

























              answered Dec 2 '18 at 6:09









              dezdichadodezdichado

              6,3161929




              6,3161929












              • $begingroup$
                1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 9:21












              • $begingroup$
                Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:59












              • $begingroup$
                "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 21:22


















              • $begingroup$
                1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 9:21












              • $begingroup$
                Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:59












              • $begingroup$
                "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 21:22
















              $begingroup$
              1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 9:21






              $begingroup$
              1. The formula for $g'(x)$ is wrong. 2. Computing $g'(x)$ is not necessary at all to solve the question. (But two upvotes and an accepted answer in 1 hour...)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 9:21














              $begingroup$
              Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:59






              $begingroup$
              Since my first comment, a silent correction of $g'(x)$ occurred. Point 2. still stands, fully.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:59














              $begingroup$
              "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 21:22




              $begingroup$
              "This comment is rude or condescending. Learn more in our Code of Conduct."
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 21:22











              6












              $begingroup$

              It can be approached in a graphical manner:




              • Draw the graph of $y = frac{1}{4-x}$ to scale while marking the essentials.

              • Asymptote at $x=4$; Value at $x = 3$ is $1$.

              • Comparing it to the previous value of the sequence would require the plot of $y=x$ on the same axes.

              • Mark the intersection as $x=2-sqrt3$ whereas $x=2+sqrt3$ is near $x=4$.


              If through, notice that starting the sequence from $x=3$ means that the next value is $1$ from the hyperbola which is well below the straight line. Now to get the next value put $x=1$ and get the next value from the hyperbola, which is again less than $1$ as the straight line depicts.



              If you follow the pattern, you would tend to reach the intersection $x=2-sqrt3$ as the gap between both the curves decreases to zero which gives the limit of the sequence as $x=2-sqrt3$ (the limit only, not one of the terms of the sequence, since these are all rational numbers).



              Also, one can thus say that if $x_1 in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$ then the sequence would be decreasing and would converge at $x=2-sqrt3$ and that all the terms $x in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:37










              • $begingroup$
                The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:38










              • $begingroup$
                You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:42










              • $begingroup$
                It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:44
















              6












              $begingroup$

              It can be approached in a graphical manner:




              • Draw the graph of $y = frac{1}{4-x}$ to scale while marking the essentials.

              • Asymptote at $x=4$; Value at $x = 3$ is $1$.

              • Comparing it to the previous value of the sequence would require the plot of $y=x$ on the same axes.

              • Mark the intersection as $x=2-sqrt3$ whereas $x=2+sqrt3$ is near $x=4$.


              If through, notice that starting the sequence from $x=3$ means that the next value is $1$ from the hyperbola which is well below the straight line. Now to get the next value put $x=1$ and get the next value from the hyperbola, which is again less than $1$ as the straight line depicts.



              If you follow the pattern, you would tend to reach the intersection $x=2-sqrt3$ as the gap between both the curves decreases to zero which gives the limit of the sequence as $x=2-sqrt3$ (the limit only, not one of the terms of the sequence, since these are all rational numbers).



              Also, one can thus say that if $x_1 in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$ then the sequence would be decreasing and would converge at $x=2-sqrt3$ and that all the terms $x in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:37










              • $begingroup$
                The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:38










              • $begingroup$
                You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:42










              • $begingroup$
                It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:44














              6












              6








              6





              $begingroup$

              It can be approached in a graphical manner:




              • Draw the graph of $y = frac{1}{4-x}$ to scale while marking the essentials.

              • Asymptote at $x=4$; Value at $x = 3$ is $1$.

              • Comparing it to the previous value of the sequence would require the plot of $y=x$ on the same axes.

              • Mark the intersection as $x=2-sqrt3$ whereas $x=2+sqrt3$ is near $x=4$.


              If through, notice that starting the sequence from $x=3$ means that the next value is $1$ from the hyperbola which is well below the straight line. Now to get the next value put $x=1$ and get the next value from the hyperbola, which is again less than $1$ as the straight line depicts.



              If you follow the pattern, you would tend to reach the intersection $x=2-sqrt3$ as the gap between both the curves decreases to zero which gives the limit of the sequence as $x=2-sqrt3$ (the limit only, not one of the terms of the sequence, since these are all rational numbers).



              Also, one can thus say that if $x_1 in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$ then the sequence would be decreasing and would converge at $x=2-sqrt3$ and that all the terms $x in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              It can be approached in a graphical manner:




              • Draw the graph of $y = frac{1}{4-x}$ to scale while marking the essentials.

              • Asymptote at $x=4$; Value at $x = 3$ is $1$.

              • Comparing it to the previous value of the sequence would require the plot of $y=x$ on the same axes.

              • Mark the intersection as $x=2-sqrt3$ whereas $x=2+sqrt3$ is near $x=4$.


              If through, notice that starting the sequence from $x=3$ means that the next value is $1$ from the hyperbola which is well below the straight line. Now to get the next value put $x=1$ and get the next value from the hyperbola, which is again less than $1$ as the straight line depicts.



              If you follow the pattern, you would tend to reach the intersection $x=2-sqrt3$ as the gap between both the curves decreases to zero which gives the limit of the sequence as $x=2-sqrt3$ (the limit only, not one of the terms of the sequence, since these are all rational numbers).



              Also, one can thus say that if $x_1 in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$ then the sequence would be decreasing and would converge at $x=2-sqrt3$ and that all the terms $x in (2-sqrt3,2+sqrt3)$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Dec 2 '18 at 11:06

























              answered Dec 2 '18 at 7:21









              Sameer BahetiSameer Baheti

              5168




              5168








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:37










              • $begingroup$
                The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:38










              • $begingroup$
                You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:42










              • $begingroup$
                It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:44














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:37










              • $begingroup$
                The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:38










              • $begingroup$
                You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
                $endgroup$
                – Did
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:42










              • $begingroup$
                It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
                $endgroup$
                – Sameer Baheti
                Dec 2 '18 at 10:44








              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:37




              $begingroup$
              Why the downvotes? Because this post explains a simple, illuminating, rigorous, graphical approach which avoids basically any formula and is definitely worth knowing?
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:37












              $begingroup$
              The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
              $endgroup$
              – Sameer Baheti
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:38




              $begingroup$
              The approved answer about which I had condemned in my answer was edited. People thought that it was correct already so they downvoted. I think it is worth knowing also because I feel the other answers are fishy!
              $endgroup$
              – Sameer Baheti
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:38












              $begingroup$
              You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:42




              $begingroup$
              You mean, your answer was downvoted because you (correctly) pointed out a serious flaw in another post? This would be outrageous.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:42












              $begingroup$
              It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
              $endgroup$
              – Sameer Baheti
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:44




              $begingroup$
              It got edited before people saw the flaw I pointed. That would be the only reason.
              $endgroup$
              – Sameer Baheti
              Dec 2 '18 at 10:44











              1












              $begingroup$

              Suppose $p(y)=y^2-4y+1=0$ and let $x_n=y+z_n$ then $$y+z_{n+1}=frac 1{4-y-z_n}$$ so that $$-yz_n+(4-y)z_{n+1}=y^2-4y+1=0$$ and $$z_{n+1}=frac y{4-y}z_n$$



              So if $0lt ylt 2$ the error term $z_n$ has the same sign and is decreasing in magnitude in constant proportion so tends to zero. It is easy to test that there is a root of the quadratic in the required range by noting $p(0)=1, p(2)=-3$





              Note: the equations hold for the other possible value of $y$ too, but the inequality does not then apply to prove that the error term tends to zero. Also this was done without computing $y$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                Suppose $p(y)=y^2-4y+1=0$ and let $x_n=y+z_n$ then $$y+z_{n+1}=frac 1{4-y-z_n}$$ so that $$-yz_n+(4-y)z_{n+1}=y^2-4y+1=0$$ and $$z_{n+1}=frac y{4-y}z_n$$



                So if $0lt ylt 2$ the error term $z_n$ has the same sign and is decreasing in magnitude in constant proportion so tends to zero. It is easy to test that there is a root of the quadratic in the required range by noting $p(0)=1, p(2)=-3$





                Note: the equations hold for the other possible value of $y$ too, but the inequality does not then apply to prove that the error term tends to zero. Also this was done without computing $y$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Suppose $p(y)=y^2-4y+1=0$ and let $x_n=y+z_n$ then $$y+z_{n+1}=frac 1{4-y-z_n}$$ so that $$-yz_n+(4-y)z_{n+1}=y^2-4y+1=0$$ and $$z_{n+1}=frac y{4-y}z_n$$



                  So if $0lt ylt 2$ the error term $z_n$ has the same sign and is decreasing in magnitude in constant proportion so tends to zero. It is easy to test that there is a root of the quadratic in the required range by noting $p(0)=1, p(2)=-3$





                  Note: the equations hold for the other possible value of $y$ too, but the inequality does not then apply to prove that the error term tends to zero. Also this was done without computing $y$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Suppose $p(y)=y^2-4y+1=0$ and let $x_n=y+z_n$ then $$y+z_{n+1}=frac 1{4-y-z_n}$$ so that $$-yz_n+(4-y)z_{n+1}=y^2-4y+1=0$$ and $$z_{n+1}=frac y{4-y}z_n$$



                  So if $0lt ylt 2$ the error term $z_n$ has the same sign and is decreasing in magnitude in constant proportion so tends to zero. It is easy to test that there is a root of the quadratic in the required range by noting $p(0)=1, p(2)=-3$





                  Note: the equations hold for the other possible value of $y$ too, but the inequality does not then apply to prove that the error term tends to zero. Also this was done without computing $y$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 2 '18 at 6:56

























                  answered Dec 2 '18 at 6:49









                  Mark BennetMark Bennet

                  80.8k981179




                  80.8k981179























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      To show that $x_n$ is decreasing, use induction to prove that $x_n> x_{n+1}$. To show that $x_n$ is bounded below by zero show a stronger assertion that $0<x_n<2+sqrt{3}$ by using induction.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Oscar Lanzi
                        Dec 2 '18 at 10:49










                      • $begingroup$
                        Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                        $endgroup$
                        – user9077
                        Dec 2 '18 at 15:11
















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      To show that $x_n$ is decreasing, use induction to prove that $x_n> x_{n+1}$. To show that $x_n$ is bounded below by zero show a stronger assertion that $0<x_n<2+sqrt{3}$ by using induction.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Oscar Lanzi
                        Dec 2 '18 at 10:49










                      • $begingroup$
                        Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                        $endgroup$
                        – user9077
                        Dec 2 '18 at 15:11














                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      To show that $x_n$ is decreasing, use induction to prove that $x_n> x_{n+1}$. To show that $x_n$ is bounded below by zero show a stronger assertion that $0<x_n<2+sqrt{3}$ by using induction.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      To show that $x_n$ is decreasing, use induction to prove that $x_n> x_{n+1}$. To show that $x_n$ is bounded below by zero show a stronger assertion that $0<x_n<2+sqrt{3}$ by using induction.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 2 '18 at 7:37

























                      answered Dec 2 '18 at 6:25









                      user9077user9077

                      1,279612




                      1,279612












                      • $begingroup$
                        You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Oscar Lanzi
                        Dec 2 '18 at 10:49










                      • $begingroup$
                        Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                        $endgroup$
                        – user9077
                        Dec 2 '18 at 15:11


















                      • $begingroup$
                        You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Oscar Lanzi
                        Dec 2 '18 at 10:49










                      • $begingroup$
                        Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                        $endgroup$
                        – user9077
                        Dec 2 '18 at 15:11
















                      $begingroup$
                      You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Oscar Lanzi
                      Dec 2 '18 at 10:49




                      $begingroup$
                      You do not need to invoke $2+sqrt{3}$. Use $x_1=3$ as the upper bound and accept $le$ for the comparison with this bound.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Oscar Lanzi
                      Dec 2 '18 at 10:49












                      $begingroup$
                      Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                      $endgroup$
                      – user9077
                      Dec 2 '18 at 15:11




                      $begingroup$
                      Yes, i realized it later. Thanks :).
                      $endgroup$
                      – user9077
                      Dec 2 '18 at 15:11











                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Hint: after finding the limit $l$ from $l={1over 4-l}$ to make sure that the sequence tends to $l$, define $e_n=a_n-l$ and by substituting it in $a_{n+1}={1over 4-a_n}$ conclude that $e_n to 0$






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Hint: after finding the limit $l$ from $l={1over 4-l}$ to make sure that the sequence tends to $l$, define $e_n=a_n-l$ and by substituting it in $a_{n+1}={1over 4-a_n}$ conclude that $e_n to 0$






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          Hint: after finding the limit $l$ from $l={1over 4-l}$ to make sure that the sequence tends to $l$, define $e_n=a_n-l$ and by substituting it in $a_{n+1}={1over 4-a_n}$ conclude that $e_n to 0$






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Hint: after finding the limit $l$ from $l={1over 4-l}$ to make sure that the sequence tends to $l$, define $e_n=a_n-l$ and by substituting it in $a_{n+1}={1over 4-a_n}$ conclude that $e_n to 0$







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 3 '18 at 16:25









                          Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

                          15.2k3939




                          15.2k3939






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022296%2fproving-the-convergence-of-the-sequence-defined-by-x-1-3-and-x-n1-frac1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Ellipse (mathématiques)

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              Mont Emei