Studying the convergence of a recurrence relation











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm studying the convergence of the recurrence relation with a fixed $r > 0, r in Bbb{R}$ with $u_{n+1}$ given by $u_{n+1} = frac{u_{n}^2}r + 1$ and $u_0 = 0$.



It can be shown that $u_n > 1$ for all $n in Bbb{N}$ and then $(u_n)$ is increasing.



By studying that happens when we pass to the limit, we can use the quadratic formula to show that $l$ exists only when $rgeq4$ (this is when the determinant $1-frac{4}r$ is zero). Then, as $(u_n)$ is increasing and unbounded, we have $u_n longrightarrow infty$.



Now, here's where I've started to get a little bit confused. I can see inherently that $l$ would be equal to $frac{r}2-frac{r}2sqrt{1-frac{4}r}$, but my question is on how to show this for any $rgeq4$ and any $n in Bbb{N}$. Would there be a way to show this by induction? Is there some other way to simplify this value or simplify the proof that would make this upper bound easier to show?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:43










  • Quadratic formula ? Why ???
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:53










  • @YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:55










  • @DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:58















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm studying the convergence of the recurrence relation with a fixed $r > 0, r in Bbb{R}$ with $u_{n+1}$ given by $u_{n+1} = frac{u_{n}^2}r + 1$ and $u_0 = 0$.



It can be shown that $u_n > 1$ for all $n in Bbb{N}$ and then $(u_n)$ is increasing.



By studying that happens when we pass to the limit, we can use the quadratic formula to show that $l$ exists only when $rgeq4$ (this is when the determinant $1-frac{4}r$ is zero). Then, as $(u_n)$ is increasing and unbounded, we have $u_n longrightarrow infty$.



Now, here's where I've started to get a little bit confused. I can see inherently that $l$ would be equal to $frac{r}2-frac{r}2sqrt{1-frac{4}r}$, but my question is on how to show this for any $rgeq4$ and any $n in Bbb{N}$. Would there be a way to show this by induction? Is there some other way to simplify this value or simplify the proof that would make this upper bound easier to show?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:43










  • Quadratic formula ? Why ???
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:53










  • @YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:55










  • @DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:58













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I'm studying the convergence of the recurrence relation with a fixed $r > 0, r in Bbb{R}$ with $u_{n+1}$ given by $u_{n+1} = frac{u_{n}^2}r + 1$ and $u_0 = 0$.



It can be shown that $u_n > 1$ for all $n in Bbb{N}$ and then $(u_n)$ is increasing.



By studying that happens when we pass to the limit, we can use the quadratic formula to show that $l$ exists only when $rgeq4$ (this is when the determinant $1-frac{4}r$ is zero). Then, as $(u_n)$ is increasing and unbounded, we have $u_n longrightarrow infty$.



Now, here's where I've started to get a little bit confused. I can see inherently that $l$ would be equal to $frac{r}2-frac{r}2sqrt{1-frac{4}r}$, but my question is on how to show this for any $rgeq4$ and any $n in Bbb{N}$. Would there be a way to show this by induction? Is there some other way to simplify this value or simplify the proof that would make this upper bound easier to show?










share|cite|improve this question















I'm studying the convergence of the recurrence relation with a fixed $r > 0, r in Bbb{R}$ with $u_{n+1}$ given by $u_{n+1} = frac{u_{n}^2}r + 1$ and $u_0 = 0$.



It can be shown that $u_n > 1$ for all $n in Bbb{N}$ and then $(u_n)$ is increasing.



By studying that happens when we pass to the limit, we can use the quadratic formula to show that $l$ exists only when $rgeq4$ (this is when the determinant $1-frac{4}r$ is zero). Then, as $(u_n)$ is increasing and unbounded, we have $u_n longrightarrow infty$.



Now, here's where I've started to get a little bit confused. I can see inherently that $l$ would be equal to $frac{r}2-frac{r}2sqrt{1-frac{4}r}$, but my question is on how to show this for any $rgeq4$ and any $n in Bbb{N}$. Would there be a way to show this by induction? Is there some other way to simplify this value or simplify the proof that would make this upper bound easier to show?







real-analysis convergence recurrence-relations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 17 at 13:55

























asked Nov 17 at 12:38









beeselmane

1105




1105












  • Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:43










  • Quadratic formula ? Why ???
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:53










  • @YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:55










  • @DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:58


















  • Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:43










  • Quadratic formula ? Why ???
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 17 at 13:53










  • @YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:55










  • @DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
    – beeselmane
    Nov 17 at 13:58
















Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 17 at 13:43




Why $frac1r$ instead of $r$ ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 17 at 13:43












Quadratic formula ? Why ???
– Yves Daoust
Nov 17 at 13:53




Quadratic formula ? Why ???
– Yves Daoust
Nov 17 at 13:53












@YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
– beeselmane
Nov 17 at 13:55




@YvesDaoust Sorry, I wrote the relation incorrectly, I've edited it to reflect what I meant.
– beeselmane
Nov 17 at 13:55












@DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
– beeselmane
Nov 17 at 13:58




@DavidC.Ullrich Sorry, thank you, I didn't reflect the initial condition properly. I'm focusing specifically on the case $u_0 = 0$.
– beeselmane
Nov 17 at 13:58










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










First, I'd check the limit. If we assume that there is a limit $u_{l}$, then:



begin{align*}
u_{l} &= frac{u_l^2}{r} + 1 \
0 &= u_l^2 - ru_l + r
end{align*}



So the quadratic formula says this:



$$
u_l = frac{r pm sqrt{r^2-4r}}{2} = frac{r}{2} pm frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}
$$



As you've noted, starting from $u_0 = 0$, we'd expect convergence to the lower limit, $frac{r}{2} - frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}$. Let's call that lower limit $b$, and define the series $t_n$ as $t_n = b - u_n$, and see where the recurrence relation given takes us:



begin{align*}
b - t_{n+1} &= frac{(b-t_n)^2}{r} + 1 \
br - rt_{n+1} &= (b-t_n)^2 + r \
br - rt_{n+1} &= b^2 - 2 b t_n + t_n^2 + r \
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + b^2 - br + r
end{align*}



But by construction, we know that $b^2 - br + r = 0$, so:



begin{align*}
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + 0 \
t_{n+1} &= t_nfrac{(2b - 1)}{r}
end{align*}



And from there, it's straightforward that $t_n to 0$, and therefore $u_n to b$.



In general in these types of problems, I find that once you have a putative limit reframing the problem in terms of a new series defined as (limit - old series) usually makes the problem easier.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
    – Daniel Martin
    Nov 17 at 14:29


















up vote
0
down vote













If the sequence converges, we have



$$u_{infty}=frac{u_{infty}}r+1$$ or



$$u_{infty}=frac r{r-1}.$$



Obviously, convergence is impossible for $r<1$ as the terms remain positive. Then for $r>1$,



$$u_{n+1}-u_infty=frac{u_n}{r}+1-u_infty=frac{u_n-u_infty}r.$$



By induction,



$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Nov 17 at 13:56











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',
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%2f3002321%2fstudying-the-convergence-of-a-recurrence-relation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










First, I'd check the limit. If we assume that there is a limit $u_{l}$, then:



begin{align*}
u_{l} &= frac{u_l^2}{r} + 1 \
0 &= u_l^2 - ru_l + r
end{align*}



So the quadratic formula says this:



$$
u_l = frac{r pm sqrt{r^2-4r}}{2} = frac{r}{2} pm frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}
$$



As you've noted, starting from $u_0 = 0$, we'd expect convergence to the lower limit, $frac{r}{2} - frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}$. Let's call that lower limit $b$, and define the series $t_n$ as $t_n = b - u_n$, and see where the recurrence relation given takes us:



begin{align*}
b - t_{n+1} &= frac{(b-t_n)^2}{r} + 1 \
br - rt_{n+1} &= (b-t_n)^2 + r \
br - rt_{n+1} &= b^2 - 2 b t_n + t_n^2 + r \
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + b^2 - br + r
end{align*}



But by construction, we know that $b^2 - br + r = 0$, so:



begin{align*}
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + 0 \
t_{n+1} &= t_nfrac{(2b - 1)}{r}
end{align*}



And from there, it's straightforward that $t_n to 0$, and therefore $u_n to b$.



In general in these types of problems, I find that once you have a putative limit reframing the problem in terms of a new series defined as (limit - old series) usually makes the problem easier.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
    – Daniel Martin
    Nov 17 at 14:29















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










First, I'd check the limit. If we assume that there is a limit $u_{l}$, then:



begin{align*}
u_{l} &= frac{u_l^2}{r} + 1 \
0 &= u_l^2 - ru_l + r
end{align*}



So the quadratic formula says this:



$$
u_l = frac{r pm sqrt{r^2-4r}}{2} = frac{r}{2} pm frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}
$$



As you've noted, starting from $u_0 = 0$, we'd expect convergence to the lower limit, $frac{r}{2} - frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}$. Let's call that lower limit $b$, and define the series $t_n$ as $t_n = b - u_n$, and see where the recurrence relation given takes us:



begin{align*}
b - t_{n+1} &= frac{(b-t_n)^2}{r} + 1 \
br - rt_{n+1} &= (b-t_n)^2 + r \
br - rt_{n+1} &= b^2 - 2 b t_n + t_n^2 + r \
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + b^2 - br + r
end{align*}



But by construction, we know that $b^2 - br + r = 0$, so:



begin{align*}
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + 0 \
t_{n+1} &= t_nfrac{(2b - 1)}{r}
end{align*}



And from there, it's straightforward that $t_n to 0$, and therefore $u_n to b$.



In general in these types of problems, I find that once you have a putative limit reframing the problem in terms of a new series defined as (limit - old series) usually makes the problem easier.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
    – Daniel Martin
    Nov 17 at 14:29













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






First, I'd check the limit. If we assume that there is a limit $u_{l}$, then:



begin{align*}
u_{l} &= frac{u_l^2}{r} + 1 \
0 &= u_l^2 - ru_l + r
end{align*}



So the quadratic formula says this:



$$
u_l = frac{r pm sqrt{r^2-4r}}{2} = frac{r}{2} pm frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}
$$



As you've noted, starting from $u_0 = 0$, we'd expect convergence to the lower limit, $frac{r}{2} - frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}$. Let's call that lower limit $b$, and define the series $t_n$ as $t_n = b - u_n$, and see where the recurrence relation given takes us:



begin{align*}
b - t_{n+1} &= frac{(b-t_n)^2}{r} + 1 \
br - rt_{n+1} &= (b-t_n)^2 + r \
br - rt_{n+1} &= b^2 - 2 b t_n + t_n^2 + r \
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + b^2 - br + r
end{align*}



But by construction, we know that $b^2 - br + r = 0$, so:



begin{align*}
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + 0 \
t_{n+1} &= t_nfrac{(2b - 1)}{r}
end{align*}



And from there, it's straightforward that $t_n to 0$, and therefore $u_n to b$.



In general in these types of problems, I find that once you have a putative limit reframing the problem in terms of a new series defined as (limit - old series) usually makes the problem easier.






share|cite|improve this answer












First, I'd check the limit. If we assume that there is a limit $u_{l}$, then:



begin{align*}
u_{l} &= frac{u_l^2}{r} + 1 \
0 &= u_l^2 - ru_l + r
end{align*}



So the quadratic formula says this:



$$
u_l = frac{r pm sqrt{r^2-4r}}{2} = frac{r}{2} pm frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}
$$



As you've noted, starting from $u_0 = 0$, we'd expect convergence to the lower limit, $frac{r}{2} - frac{r}{2}sqrt{1 - frac{4}{r}}$. Let's call that lower limit $b$, and define the series $t_n$ as $t_n = b - u_n$, and see where the recurrence relation given takes us:



begin{align*}
b - t_{n+1} &= frac{(b-t_n)^2}{r} + 1 \
br - rt_{n+1} &= (b-t_n)^2 + r \
br - rt_{n+1} &= b^2 - 2 b t_n + t_n^2 + r \
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + b^2 - br + r
end{align*}



But by construction, we know that $b^2 - br + r = 0$, so:



begin{align*}
- rt_{n+1} &= t_n(1 - 2b) + 0 \
t_{n+1} &= t_nfrac{(2b - 1)}{r}
end{align*}



And from there, it's straightforward that $t_n to 0$, and therefore $u_n to b$.



In general in these types of problems, I find that once you have a putative limit reframing the problem in terms of a new series defined as (limit - old series) usually makes the problem easier.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 17 at 14:25









Daniel Martin

74848




74848












  • Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
    – Daniel Martin
    Nov 17 at 14:29


















  • Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
    – Daniel Martin
    Nov 17 at 14:29
















Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
– Daniel Martin
Nov 17 at 14:29




Just so no one's confused: there's no value we could start at except the top quadratic solution that would lead us to a limit of the top quadratic solution. (Since that's an unstable point) But starting from 0, when $r > 4$, definitely leads to the bottom quadratic solution.
– Daniel Martin
Nov 17 at 14:29










up vote
0
down vote













If the sequence converges, we have



$$u_{infty}=frac{u_{infty}}r+1$$ or



$$u_{infty}=frac r{r-1}.$$



Obviously, convergence is impossible for $r<1$ as the terms remain positive. Then for $r>1$,



$$u_{n+1}-u_infty=frac{u_n}{r}+1-u_infty=frac{u_n-u_infty}r.$$



By induction,



$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Nov 17 at 13:56















up vote
0
down vote













If the sequence converges, we have



$$u_{infty}=frac{u_{infty}}r+1$$ or



$$u_{infty}=frac r{r-1}.$$



Obviously, convergence is impossible for $r<1$ as the terms remain positive. Then for $r>1$,



$$u_{n+1}-u_infty=frac{u_n}{r}+1-u_infty=frac{u_n-u_infty}r.$$



By induction,



$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Nov 17 at 13:56













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









If the sequence converges, we have



$$u_{infty}=frac{u_{infty}}r+1$$ or



$$u_{infty}=frac r{r-1}.$$



Obviously, convergence is impossible for $r<1$ as the terms remain positive. Then for $r>1$,



$$u_{n+1}-u_infty=frac{u_n}{r}+1-u_infty=frac{u_n-u_infty}r.$$



By induction,



$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer












If the sequence converges, we have



$$u_{infty}=frac{u_{infty}}r+1$$ or



$$u_{infty}=frac r{r-1}.$$



Obviously, convergence is impossible for $r<1$ as the terms remain positive. Then for $r>1$,



$$u_{n+1}-u_infty=frac{u_n}{r}+1-u_infty=frac{u_n-u_infty}r.$$



By induction,



$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 17 at 13:51









Yves Daoust

122k668217




122k668217












  • A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Nov 17 at 13:56


















  • A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Nov 17 at 13:56
















A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
– David C. Ullrich
Nov 17 at 13:56




A more colorful proof of convergence for $r>1$ would mention that $tmapsto t/r+1$ is a strict contraction...
– David C. Ullrich
Nov 17 at 13:56


















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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


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%2f3002321%2fstudying-the-convergence-of-a-recurrence-relation%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

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater