Solving Hard Calculus Proofs with Steve

In summary: Since x_{n+1} \leq x_{n+2} \leq 2, this would imply that x_n < 5 for all n. This is enough to show that the sequence converges. Thanks for your help!
  • #1
_Steve_
19
0
I've got two calculus proofs that I can't seem to get! I was wondering if you guys could help me out a bit...

1.
Homework Statement

Suppose [tex]x_{n}[/tex] is the sequence defined recursively by

[tex]x_{1}=0[/tex] and [tex]x_{n+1}=\sqrt{5 + 2x_{n}}[/tex] for [tex]n=0, 1, 2, 3, ...[/tex]

Prove that [tex]x_{n}[/tex] converges and find its limit


The attempt at a solution

So far, by taking the limit of both sides "[tex] l [/tex]", I've found the limit

[tex]l=\sqrt{5 + 2l}[/tex]
[tex]l=\frac{-2 +\sqrt{24}}{2}[/tex]

but I still have to prove that the sequence converges. I've tried induction hypothesis using

[tex] x_{n} \leq x_{n+1} \leq \frac{-2 +\sqrt{24}}{2}[/tex]

and then I attempt to modify [tex]x_{n}[/tex] and [tex]x_{n+1}[/tex] such that the equation becomes (in the end):

[tex] x_{n+1} \leq x_{n+2} \leq \frac{-2 +\sqrt{24}}{2}[/tex]

but I can never get it to work out!


2.
Homework Statement

The second proof I'm having trouble with is basically one of the same type...

Let [tex]x_{n}[/tex] be the sequence of real numbers defined recursively by

[tex]x_{0} = 0 [/tex] and [tex] x_{n+1} = \ln (2 + x_{n}) [/tex] for [tex] n=0, 1, 2, 3,... [/tex]

Show that [tex] x_{n} \leq x_{n+1} \leq 2 [/tex]

The attempt at a solution

Again, I try to modify it such that i get
[tex] \ln (2 + x_{n}) \leq \ln (2 + x_{n+1}) \leq 2 [/tex]

but I keep ending up with
[tex] \ln (2 + x_{n}) \leq \ln (2 + x_{n+1}) \leq \ln (2 + 2) [/tex]



Is there a trick to calculus proofs?

Thanks!
Steve
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In my memory,to prove such thing with induction,you need an induction hypothesis that xn is not only bounded above,but also bounded below

Add a proper lower bound,and try mathematical induction again
 
  • #3
You have a sign error in your calculation of L.
Starting with
[tex]L=\sqrt{5 + 2L}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow L^2=5 + 2L[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow L^2 - 2L - 5 = 0[/tex]

By the Quadratic Formula, this gives
[tex]L = \frac{2 \pm \sqrt{4 - (-20)}}{2} = 1 + \sqrt{6} \approx 3.4495[/tex]
The other solution, 1 - sqrt(6), is negative, and can be discarded. The recursive relation won't give negative values.

Since [tex]L = lim_{n \to \infty} x_{n + 1}[/tex]
this shows that the sequence converges, and gives its limit.
 
  • #4
I figured them out! Thanks Mark!

Is a lower bound really necessary? I assumed not, because it will obviously be larger than [tex]x_{1}=0[/tex] since the sequence is increasing
 
  • #5
It is clear that it is bounded below. You can also consider monotone convergence theorem (although, with Mark's remarks, the proof is correct as it is).
 
  • #6
Mark44 said:
You have a sign error in your calculation of L.
Starting with
[tex]L=\sqrt{5 + 2L}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow L^2=5 + 2L[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow L^2 - 2L - 5 = 0[/tex]

By the Quadratic Formula, this gives
[tex]L = \frac{2 \pm \sqrt{4 - (-20)}}{2} = 1 + \sqrt{6} \approx 3.4495[/tex]
The other solution, 1 - sqrt(6), is negative, and can be discarded. The recursive relation won't give negative values.

Since [tex]L = lim_{n \to \infty} x_{n + 1}[/tex]
this shows that the sequence converges, and gives its limit.

I don't think so. What it shows is that if the sequence converges, then that value of L is its limit. But you must still argue that it converges. For consider x1 = 1 and xn+1 = 2xn. That argument applied to this would give L = 2L which would imply the limit exists and is 0.
 
  • #7
LCKurtz is correct. You've shown what has to happen if it converges; you still must show that it does converge. You can do this by showing
1) That the sequence is increasing
2) That the sequence is bounded above (doesn't matter what number you choose, just show that it is bounded above)

For 1: you already know [tex]x_0 = 0 < x_1 = \sqrt{5 + 2 x_0} = \sqrt{5} [/tex]

Now use induction: assume [tex] x_k < x_{k+1} [/tex] and show [tex] x_{k+1} < x_{k+2} [/tex]. (Hint: look at simplifying [tex] x_{k+2}^2 - x_{k+1}^2 [/tex]

For 2: try to show something like [tex] x_n < 5 [/tex] for all n.
 

FAQ: Solving Hard Calculus Proofs with Steve

How can Steve's approach help me solve difficult calculus proofs?

Steve's approach involves breaking down a complex proof into smaller, more manageable steps. He also encourages the use of visual aids and real-life examples to better understand the concepts. This method can make it easier to understand and solve hard calculus proofs.

Is Steve's approach suitable for all types of calculus proofs?

Yes, Steve's approach can be applied to any type of calculus proof as it focuses on breaking down the problem and understanding the underlying concepts. However, some proofs may require additional techniques or advanced knowledge.

How can I improve my problem-solving skills with Steve's approach?

Steve's approach involves practicing and breaking down multiple proofs using his method. This can help improve problem-solving skills by developing a better understanding of the concepts and techniques used in calculus proofs.

Can Steve's approach be used for exams or time-sensitive situations?

Yes, Steve's approach can be applied in exams or time-sensitive situations. With practice, breaking down proofs using his method can become a quicker and more efficient process, allowing for better time management.

Can I use Steve's approach to teach others how to solve calculus proofs?

Yes, Steve's approach can be used to teach others how to solve calculus proofs. His method is easy to understand and can be adapted to suit different learning styles. It can also be helpful in identifying common mistakes and misconceptions in solving proofs.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
857
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top