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?
real-analysis convergence recurrence-relations
add a comment |
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?
real-analysis convergence recurrence-relations
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
add a comment |
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?
real-analysis convergence recurrence-relations
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
real-analysis convergence recurrence-relations
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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,
$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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,
$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$
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
add a comment |
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,
$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$
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
add a comment |
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,
$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$
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,
$$u_n-u_infty=(u_0-u_infty)r^{-n}.$$
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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