What is the maximum value of this nested radical?
I was experimenting on Desmos (as usual), in particular infinite recursions and series. Here is one that was of interest:
What is the maximum value of $$F_infty=sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-cdots}}}}}}}}$$ where the sign alternates and the power in each numerator increases by one?
Some observations follow.
Let $$F_k=underbrace{sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{fraccdots{xpmsqrt{x^k}}}}}}}}}}}}_{k,text{times}}.$$ For large nests, say after $k=10$, the function monotonically increases from zero onwards. It is hopeless to simply rearrange $F_infty$ since the powers increase each time - we can no longer write $F_infty$ as a function of itself to be solved.
Here is a plot of $F_{15}$:
- What is striking is that the largest value of $x$ in the domain of $F_k$ decreases as $k$ increases. Based on the plot, I think that the domain of $F_infty$ is $[0,1]$. This is because for large $x$, the denominator of the square roots will be larger than its successor, which is absurd as we are working only in $Bbb R$.
- Furthermore, I also conjecture that $$max F_infty=phi-1=frac{sqrt5-1}2,$$ the positive solution of the equation $x^2+x-1=0$. This seems right as $max F_{15}=0.6179$ from the plot.
I'd appreciate proofs to my thoughts, especially the last one!
functions recursion maxima-minima nested-radicals golden-ratio
add a comment |
I was experimenting on Desmos (as usual), in particular infinite recursions and series. Here is one that was of interest:
What is the maximum value of $$F_infty=sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-cdots}}}}}}}}$$ where the sign alternates and the power in each numerator increases by one?
Some observations follow.
Let $$F_k=underbrace{sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{fraccdots{xpmsqrt{x^k}}}}}}}}}}}}_{k,text{times}}.$$ For large nests, say after $k=10$, the function monotonically increases from zero onwards. It is hopeless to simply rearrange $F_infty$ since the powers increase each time - we can no longer write $F_infty$ as a function of itself to be solved.
Here is a plot of $F_{15}$:
- What is striking is that the largest value of $x$ in the domain of $F_k$ decreases as $k$ increases. Based on the plot, I think that the domain of $F_infty$ is $[0,1]$. This is because for large $x$, the denominator of the square roots will be larger than its successor, which is absurd as we are working only in $Bbb R$.
- Furthermore, I also conjecture that $$max F_infty=phi-1=frac{sqrt5-1}2,$$ the positive solution of the equation $x^2+x-1=0$. This seems right as $max F_{15}=0.6179$ from the plot.
I'd appreciate proofs to my thoughts, especially the last one!
functions recursion maxima-minima nested-radicals golden-ratio
1
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago
add a comment |
I was experimenting on Desmos (as usual), in particular infinite recursions and series. Here is one that was of interest:
What is the maximum value of $$F_infty=sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-cdots}}}}}}}}$$ where the sign alternates and the power in each numerator increases by one?
Some observations follow.
Let $$F_k=underbrace{sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{fraccdots{xpmsqrt{x^k}}}}}}}}}}}}_{k,text{times}}.$$ For large nests, say after $k=10$, the function monotonically increases from zero onwards. It is hopeless to simply rearrange $F_infty$ since the powers increase each time - we can no longer write $F_infty$ as a function of itself to be solved.
Here is a plot of $F_{15}$:
- What is striking is that the largest value of $x$ in the domain of $F_k$ decreases as $k$ increases. Based on the plot, I think that the domain of $F_infty$ is $[0,1]$. This is because for large $x$, the denominator of the square roots will be larger than its successor, which is absurd as we are working only in $Bbb R$.
- Furthermore, I also conjecture that $$max F_infty=phi-1=frac{sqrt5-1}2,$$ the positive solution of the equation $x^2+x-1=0$. This seems right as $max F_{15}=0.6179$ from the plot.
I'd appreciate proofs to my thoughts, especially the last one!
functions recursion maxima-minima nested-radicals golden-ratio
I was experimenting on Desmos (as usual), in particular infinite recursions and series. Here is one that was of interest:
What is the maximum value of $$F_infty=sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-cdots}}}}}}}}$$ where the sign alternates and the power in each numerator increases by one?
Some observations follow.
Let $$F_k=underbrace{sqrt{frac{x}{x+sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{fraccdots{xpmsqrt{x^k}}}}}}}}}}}}_{k,text{times}}.$$ For large nests, say after $k=10$, the function monotonically increases from zero onwards. It is hopeless to simply rearrange $F_infty$ since the powers increase each time - we can no longer write $F_infty$ as a function of itself to be solved.
Here is a plot of $F_{15}$:
- What is striking is that the largest value of $x$ in the domain of $F_k$ decreases as $k$ increases. Based on the plot, I think that the domain of $F_infty$ is $[0,1]$. This is because for large $x$, the denominator of the square roots will be larger than its successor, which is absurd as we are working only in $Bbb R$.
- Furthermore, I also conjecture that $$max F_infty=phi-1=frac{sqrt5-1}2,$$ the positive solution of the equation $x^2+x-1=0$. This seems right as $max F_{15}=0.6179$ from the plot.
I'd appreciate proofs to my thoughts, especially the last one!
functions recursion maxima-minima nested-radicals golden-ratio
functions recursion maxima-minima nested-radicals golden-ratio
edited 2 days ago
TheSimpliFire
asked 2 days ago
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.7k62260
12.7k62260
1
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago
1
1
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
If we can prove it is monotonically increasing and has domain $[0,1]$, the limit is simple. Evaluating $F_infty$ at $x=1$ will give the maximum, which will be an infinite fraction:
$$F_infty (1) = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- sqrt{cdots} }} }} = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} }}implies F_infty (1)^2 left(1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} right) = 1$$ so $$(F_infty(1)^2-1)^2=frac{F_infty(1)^4}{1-F_infty(1)}implies F_infty(1)^5-2F_infty(1)^3+2F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1=0.$$ Factoring out some roots, we get $$(F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1)(F_infty(1)^3-F_infty(1)^2+1)=0$$ It can be verified from W|A, for example, that the only positive real solution is at $F_infty(1)=phi-1$ derived from the first quadratic factor.
Proof attempt for the domain:
While I'm not sure how this holds up for $F_{infty}(x)$, we can show that $forall x>1$ $exists y mid forall n geq y, F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$.
Now, if we ever get a negative denominator, the end result will be non-real. This is because addition, subtraction, and division between non-reals and non-zero reals will stay non-real, and the square root of a non-real will also be non-real.
Now, when $n>2$ is odd, $sqrt{x^n}<x$, and thus $F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$. Thus, we must concern ourselves with even $n$.
So, in $F_{2k}(x)$, consider:
$$ frac{cdots}{x - sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} }}$$
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies F_{2k}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, we will show that the "bottom" of $F_{2(k+1)}(x)$ is greater than the bottom of $F_{2k}(x)$, for $x>1$:
$$ sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} } < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2(k+1)}}} } $$
$$ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} < frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^{k+1}} $$
$$ x^{2k}+x^{3k} < x^{2k+2} + x^{3k+2} $$
The bottom inequality is true for $x>1$, thus by reversing the work, we prove the first line to be true. (we could also do this with partial derivatives, but that's messier in my opinion.
Using this result, it follows that:
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^(k+1)} } implies F_{2(k+1)}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, to prove the "bottom" will always exceed $x$, simply note that as $n$ approaches infinity, the numerator grows faster than the denominator, and thus diverges when $|x| > 1$.
So, for any $x$ there's an $y$ for which $F_n(x)$ is non-real for finite $n$ greater than $y$. However, I'm not certain this is rigorously extends to the infinite case.
Extra notes: I've rigged up a computer program to calculate when $F_n(x)$ becomes non-real. For the following values of $k$, here is the smallest even $n$ where $F_n(x)$ diverges, where $x = 1+frac{1}{2^k}$.
['0: 8.0', '1: 8.0', '2: 10.0', '3: 14.0', '4: 22.0', '5: 38.0', '6: 68.0', '7: 130.0', '8: 252.0', '9: 500.0', '10: 992.0', '11: 1978.0', '12: 3948.0', '13: 7890.0', '14: 15774.0']
As you can see, as $x$ gets twice as close to 1, it takes almost twice as many terms to go non-real. I've tested this with different fractions, and the same pattern still holds, where $n$ is seemingly proportional to $frac{1}{x-1}$.
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
add a comment |
Self partial answer: (next improvement is to prove that $H'<1$)
Here I will attempt to prove the monotonicity of $F_infty$. First, let us introduce some definitions. $$F:=F_{infty},quad G:=sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x- sqrt{ frac{x^5}{x+cdots}}}}}}}},quad H:=sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{frac{x^5}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^6}{x+cdots}}}}}}}}$$ Since $F=sqrt{dfrac x{x+G}}$, for (increasing) monotonicity to occur, $$F'=frac1{2F}cdotfrac{1(x+G)-x(1+G')}{(x+G)^2}>0impliedby G-xG'>0$$ as $(x+G)^2$ and $F$ are clearly non-negative.
Now this is implied by $$G'=frac1{2G}cdotleft(1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}right)<frac Gx$$ and since $G=sqrt{dfrac{x^2}{x-H}}$ (note that $H<x$), we get begin{align}2G^2>x+xfrac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}&impliedbyfrac{2x}{x-H}>1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}\&impliedby 2x^2-2Hx>x^2-2Hx+H^2+H'x^2-H^2\&impliedby x^2>H'x^2impliedby H'<1end{align} Unfortunately the fact that $H<x$ only cannot imply this; however, the following plot verifies the nice inequality. The dotted red line is the line $y=x$; the purple curve is $H$ (up to $x^{11}$) and the green curve is $H'$. Of course, the latter two are only close approximations to the real distribution of $H$.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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%2f3062908%2fwhat-is-the-maximum-value-of-this-nested-radical%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
If we can prove it is monotonically increasing and has domain $[0,1]$, the limit is simple. Evaluating $F_infty$ at $x=1$ will give the maximum, which will be an infinite fraction:
$$F_infty (1) = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- sqrt{cdots} }} }} = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} }}implies F_infty (1)^2 left(1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} right) = 1$$ so $$(F_infty(1)^2-1)^2=frac{F_infty(1)^4}{1-F_infty(1)}implies F_infty(1)^5-2F_infty(1)^3+2F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1=0.$$ Factoring out some roots, we get $$(F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1)(F_infty(1)^3-F_infty(1)^2+1)=0$$ It can be verified from W|A, for example, that the only positive real solution is at $F_infty(1)=phi-1$ derived from the first quadratic factor.
Proof attempt for the domain:
While I'm not sure how this holds up for $F_{infty}(x)$, we can show that $forall x>1$ $exists y mid forall n geq y, F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$.
Now, if we ever get a negative denominator, the end result will be non-real. This is because addition, subtraction, and division between non-reals and non-zero reals will stay non-real, and the square root of a non-real will also be non-real.
Now, when $n>2$ is odd, $sqrt{x^n}<x$, and thus $F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$. Thus, we must concern ourselves with even $n$.
So, in $F_{2k}(x)$, consider:
$$ frac{cdots}{x - sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} }}$$
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies F_{2k}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, we will show that the "bottom" of $F_{2(k+1)}(x)$ is greater than the bottom of $F_{2k}(x)$, for $x>1$:
$$ sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} } < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2(k+1)}}} } $$
$$ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} < frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^{k+1}} $$
$$ x^{2k}+x^{3k} < x^{2k+2} + x^{3k+2} $$
The bottom inequality is true for $x>1$, thus by reversing the work, we prove the first line to be true. (we could also do this with partial derivatives, but that's messier in my opinion.
Using this result, it follows that:
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^(k+1)} } implies F_{2(k+1)}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, to prove the "bottom" will always exceed $x$, simply note that as $n$ approaches infinity, the numerator grows faster than the denominator, and thus diverges when $|x| > 1$.
So, for any $x$ there's an $y$ for which $F_n(x)$ is non-real for finite $n$ greater than $y$. However, I'm not certain this is rigorously extends to the infinite case.
Extra notes: I've rigged up a computer program to calculate when $F_n(x)$ becomes non-real. For the following values of $k$, here is the smallest even $n$ where $F_n(x)$ diverges, where $x = 1+frac{1}{2^k}$.
['0: 8.0', '1: 8.0', '2: 10.0', '3: 14.0', '4: 22.0', '5: 38.0', '6: 68.0', '7: 130.0', '8: 252.0', '9: 500.0', '10: 992.0', '11: 1978.0', '12: 3948.0', '13: 7890.0', '14: 15774.0']
As you can see, as $x$ gets twice as close to 1, it takes almost twice as many terms to go non-real. I've tested this with different fractions, and the same pattern still holds, where $n$ is seemingly proportional to $frac{1}{x-1}$.
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
add a comment |
If we can prove it is monotonically increasing and has domain $[0,1]$, the limit is simple. Evaluating $F_infty$ at $x=1$ will give the maximum, which will be an infinite fraction:
$$F_infty (1) = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- sqrt{cdots} }} }} = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} }}implies F_infty (1)^2 left(1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} right) = 1$$ so $$(F_infty(1)^2-1)^2=frac{F_infty(1)^4}{1-F_infty(1)}implies F_infty(1)^5-2F_infty(1)^3+2F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1=0.$$ Factoring out some roots, we get $$(F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1)(F_infty(1)^3-F_infty(1)^2+1)=0$$ It can be verified from W|A, for example, that the only positive real solution is at $F_infty(1)=phi-1$ derived from the first quadratic factor.
Proof attempt for the domain:
While I'm not sure how this holds up for $F_{infty}(x)$, we can show that $forall x>1$ $exists y mid forall n geq y, F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$.
Now, if we ever get a negative denominator, the end result will be non-real. This is because addition, subtraction, and division between non-reals and non-zero reals will stay non-real, and the square root of a non-real will also be non-real.
Now, when $n>2$ is odd, $sqrt{x^n}<x$, and thus $F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$. Thus, we must concern ourselves with even $n$.
So, in $F_{2k}(x)$, consider:
$$ frac{cdots}{x - sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} }}$$
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies F_{2k}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, we will show that the "bottom" of $F_{2(k+1)}(x)$ is greater than the bottom of $F_{2k}(x)$, for $x>1$:
$$ sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} } < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2(k+1)}}} } $$
$$ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} < frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^{k+1}} $$
$$ x^{2k}+x^{3k} < x^{2k+2} + x^{3k+2} $$
The bottom inequality is true for $x>1$, thus by reversing the work, we prove the first line to be true. (we could also do this with partial derivatives, but that's messier in my opinion.
Using this result, it follows that:
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^(k+1)} } implies F_{2(k+1)}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, to prove the "bottom" will always exceed $x$, simply note that as $n$ approaches infinity, the numerator grows faster than the denominator, and thus diverges when $|x| > 1$.
So, for any $x$ there's an $y$ for which $F_n(x)$ is non-real for finite $n$ greater than $y$. However, I'm not certain this is rigorously extends to the infinite case.
Extra notes: I've rigged up a computer program to calculate when $F_n(x)$ becomes non-real. For the following values of $k$, here is the smallest even $n$ where $F_n(x)$ diverges, where $x = 1+frac{1}{2^k}$.
['0: 8.0', '1: 8.0', '2: 10.0', '3: 14.0', '4: 22.0', '5: 38.0', '6: 68.0', '7: 130.0', '8: 252.0', '9: 500.0', '10: 992.0', '11: 1978.0', '12: 3948.0', '13: 7890.0', '14: 15774.0']
As you can see, as $x$ gets twice as close to 1, it takes almost twice as many terms to go non-real. I've tested this with different fractions, and the same pattern still holds, where $n$ is seemingly proportional to $frac{1}{x-1}$.
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
add a comment |
If we can prove it is monotonically increasing and has domain $[0,1]$, the limit is simple. Evaluating $F_infty$ at $x=1$ will give the maximum, which will be an infinite fraction:
$$F_infty (1) = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- sqrt{cdots} }} }} = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} }}implies F_infty (1)^2 left(1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} right) = 1$$ so $$(F_infty(1)^2-1)^2=frac{F_infty(1)^4}{1-F_infty(1)}implies F_infty(1)^5-2F_infty(1)^3+2F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1=0.$$ Factoring out some roots, we get $$(F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1)(F_infty(1)^3-F_infty(1)^2+1)=0$$ It can be verified from W|A, for example, that the only positive real solution is at $F_infty(1)=phi-1$ derived from the first quadratic factor.
Proof attempt for the domain:
While I'm not sure how this holds up for $F_{infty}(x)$, we can show that $forall x>1$ $exists y mid forall n geq y, F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$.
Now, if we ever get a negative denominator, the end result will be non-real. This is because addition, subtraction, and division between non-reals and non-zero reals will stay non-real, and the square root of a non-real will also be non-real.
Now, when $n>2$ is odd, $sqrt{x^n}<x$, and thus $F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$. Thus, we must concern ourselves with even $n$.
So, in $F_{2k}(x)$, consider:
$$ frac{cdots}{x - sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} }}$$
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies F_{2k}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, we will show that the "bottom" of $F_{2(k+1)}(x)$ is greater than the bottom of $F_{2k}(x)$, for $x>1$:
$$ sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} } < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2(k+1)}}} } $$
$$ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} < frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^{k+1}} $$
$$ x^{2k}+x^{3k} < x^{2k+2} + x^{3k+2} $$
The bottom inequality is true for $x>1$, thus by reversing the work, we prove the first line to be true. (we could also do this with partial derivatives, but that's messier in my opinion.
Using this result, it follows that:
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^(k+1)} } implies F_{2(k+1)}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, to prove the "bottom" will always exceed $x$, simply note that as $n$ approaches infinity, the numerator grows faster than the denominator, and thus diverges when $|x| > 1$.
So, for any $x$ there's an $y$ for which $F_n(x)$ is non-real for finite $n$ greater than $y$. However, I'm not certain this is rigorously extends to the infinite case.
Extra notes: I've rigged up a computer program to calculate when $F_n(x)$ becomes non-real. For the following values of $k$, here is the smallest even $n$ where $F_n(x)$ diverges, where $x = 1+frac{1}{2^k}$.
['0: 8.0', '1: 8.0', '2: 10.0', '3: 14.0', '4: 22.0', '5: 38.0', '6: 68.0', '7: 130.0', '8: 252.0', '9: 500.0', '10: 992.0', '11: 1978.0', '12: 3948.0', '13: 7890.0', '14: 15774.0']
As you can see, as $x$ gets twice as close to 1, it takes almost twice as many terms to go non-real. I've tested this with different fractions, and the same pattern still holds, where $n$ is seemingly proportional to $frac{1}{x-1}$.
If we can prove it is monotonically increasing and has domain $[0,1]$, the limit is simple. Evaluating $F_infty$ at $x=1$ will give the maximum, which will be an infinite fraction:
$$F_infty (1) = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- sqrt{cdots} }} }} = sqrt{ frac{1}{1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} }}implies F_infty (1)^2 left(1+sqrt{ frac{1}{1- F_infty (1) }} right) = 1$$ so $$(F_infty(1)^2-1)^2=frac{F_infty(1)^4}{1-F_infty(1)}implies F_infty(1)^5-2F_infty(1)^3+2F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1=0.$$ Factoring out some roots, we get $$(F_infty(1)^2+F_infty(1)-1)(F_infty(1)^3-F_infty(1)^2+1)=0$$ It can be verified from W|A, for example, that the only positive real solution is at $F_infty(1)=phi-1$ derived from the first quadratic factor.
Proof attempt for the domain:
While I'm not sure how this holds up for $F_{infty}(x)$, we can show that $forall x>1$ $exists y mid forall n geq y, F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$.
Now, if we ever get a negative denominator, the end result will be non-real. This is because addition, subtraction, and division between non-reals and non-zero reals will stay non-real, and the square root of a non-real will also be non-real.
Now, when $n>2$ is odd, $sqrt{x^n}<x$, and thus $F_n(x) notin mathbb{R}$. Thus, we must concern ourselves with even $n$.
So, in $F_{2k}(x)$, consider:
$$ frac{cdots}{x - sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} }}$$
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies F_{2k}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, we will show that the "bottom" of $F_{2(k+1)}(x)$ is greater than the bottom of $F_{2k}(x)$, for $x>1$:
$$ sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2k}}} } < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+sqrt{x^{2(k+1)}}} } $$
$$ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} < frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^{k+1}} $$
$$ x^{2k}+x^{3k} < x^{2k+2} + x^{3k+2} $$
The bottom inequality is true for $x>1$, thus by reversing the work, we prove the first line to be true. (we could also do this with partial derivatives, but that's messier in my opinion.
Using this result, it follows that:
$$ x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k-1}}{x+x^k} } implies x < sqrt{ frac{x^{2k+1}}{x+x^(k+1)} } implies F_{2(k+1)}(x) notin mathbb{R} $$
Now, to prove the "bottom" will always exceed $x$, simply note that as $n$ approaches infinity, the numerator grows faster than the denominator, and thus diverges when $|x| > 1$.
So, for any $x$ there's an $y$ for which $F_n(x)$ is non-real for finite $n$ greater than $y$. However, I'm not certain this is rigorously extends to the infinite case.
Extra notes: I've rigged up a computer program to calculate when $F_n(x)$ becomes non-real. For the following values of $k$, here is the smallest even $n$ where $F_n(x)$ diverges, where $x = 1+frac{1}{2^k}$.
['0: 8.0', '1: 8.0', '2: 10.0', '3: 14.0', '4: 22.0', '5: 38.0', '6: 68.0', '7: 130.0', '8: 252.0', '9: 500.0', '10: 992.0', '11: 1978.0', '12: 3948.0', '13: 7890.0', '14: 15774.0']
As you can see, as $x$ gets twice as close to 1, it takes almost twice as many terms to go non-real. I've tested this with different fractions, and the same pattern still holds, where $n$ is seemingly proportional to $frac{1}{x-1}$.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Zachary HunterZachary Hunter
54310
54310
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
add a comment |
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
1
1
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
The domain limit seems fairly trivial. For the monotonic property, it might be helpful to notice that any $x<y$ both within the domain [0,1], $x=y^n$ for some $n>1$. However, at the moment, I cannot figure out exactly how to exploit the exponent yet.
– Zachary Hunter
2 days ago
1
1
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
I have added the steps towards solving the problem :)
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
If you can prove the domain as well please do add it to your post!
– TheSimpliFire
2 days ago
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
Alrighty, added a legitimate proof, as long as my understanding of infinities is correct.
– Zachary Hunter
yesterday
add a comment |
Self partial answer: (next improvement is to prove that $H'<1$)
Here I will attempt to prove the monotonicity of $F_infty$. First, let us introduce some definitions. $$F:=F_{infty},quad G:=sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x- sqrt{ frac{x^5}{x+cdots}}}}}}}},quad H:=sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{frac{x^5}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^6}{x+cdots}}}}}}}}$$ Since $F=sqrt{dfrac x{x+G}}$, for (increasing) monotonicity to occur, $$F'=frac1{2F}cdotfrac{1(x+G)-x(1+G')}{(x+G)^2}>0impliedby G-xG'>0$$ as $(x+G)^2$ and $F$ are clearly non-negative.
Now this is implied by $$G'=frac1{2G}cdotleft(1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}right)<frac Gx$$ and since $G=sqrt{dfrac{x^2}{x-H}}$ (note that $H<x$), we get begin{align}2G^2>x+xfrac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}&impliedbyfrac{2x}{x-H}>1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}\&impliedby 2x^2-2Hx>x^2-2Hx+H^2+H'x^2-H^2\&impliedby x^2>H'x^2impliedby H'<1end{align} Unfortunately the fact that $H<x$ only cannot imply this; however, the following plot verifies the nice inequality. The dotted red line is the line $y=x$; the purple curve is $H$ (up to $x^{11}$) and the green curve is $H'$. Of course, the latter two are only close approximations to the real distribution of $H$.
add a comment |
Self partial answer: (next improvement is to prove that $H'<1$)
Here I will attempt to prove the monotonicity of $F_infty$. First, let us introduce some definitions. $$F:=F_{infty},quad G:=sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x- sqrt{ frac{x^5}{x+cdots}}}}}}}},quad H:=sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{frac{x^5}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^6}{x+cdots}}}}}}}}$$ Since $F=sqrt{dfrac x{x+G}}$, for (increasing) monotonicity to occur, $$F'=frac1{2F}cdotfrac{1(x+G)-x(1+G')}{(x+G)^2}>0impliedby G-xG'>0$$ as $(x+G)^2$ and $F$ are clearly non-negative.
Now this is implied by $$G'=frac1{2G}cdotleft(1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}right)<frac Gx$$ and since $G=sqrt{dfrac{x^2}{x-H}}$ (note that $H<x$), we get begin{align}2G^2>x+xfrac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}&impliedbyfrac{2x}{x-H}>1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}\&impliedby 2x^2-2Hx>x^2-2Hx+H^2+H'x^2-H^2\&impliedby x^2>H'x^2impliedby H'<1end{align} Unfortunately the fact that $H<x$ only cannot imply this; however, the following plot verifies the nice inequality. The dotted red line is the line $y=x$; the purple curve is $H$ (up to $x^{11}$) and the green curve is $H'$. Of course, the latter two are only close approximations to the real distribution of $H$.
add a comment |
Self partial answer: (next improvement is to prove that $H'<1$)
Here I will attempt to prove the monotonicity of $F_infty$. First, let us introduce some definitions. $$F:=F_{infty},quad G:=sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x- sqrt{ frac{x^5}{x+cdots}}}}}}}},quad H:=sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{frac{x^5}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^6}{x+cdots}}}}}}}}$$ Since $F=sqrt{dfrac x{x+G}}$, for (increasing) monotonicity to occur, $$F'=frac1{2F}cdotfrac{1(x+G)-x(1+G')}{(x+G)^2}>0impliedby G-xG'>0$$ as $(x+G)^2$ and $F$ are clearly non-negative.
Now this is implied by $$G'=frac1{2G}cdotleft(1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}right)<frac Gx$$ and since $G=sqrt{dfrac{x^2}{x-H}}$ (note that $H<x$), we get begin{align}2G^2>x+xfrac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}&impliedbyfrac{2x}{x-H}>1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}\&impliedby 2x^2-2Hx>x^2-2Hx+H^2+H'x^2-H^2\&impliedby x^2>H'x^2impliedby H'<1end{align} Unfortunately the fact that $H<x$ only cannot imply this; however, the following plot verifies the nice inequality. The dotted red line is the line $y=x$; the purple curve is $H$ (up to $x^{11}$) and the green curve is $H'$. Of course, the latter two are only close approximations to the real distribution of $H$.
Self partial answer: (next improvement is to prove that $H'<1$)
Here I will attempt to prove the monotonicity of $F_infty$. First, let us introduce some definitions. $$F:=F_{infty},quad G:=sqrt{frac{x^2}{x-sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x- sqrt{ frac{x^5}{x+cdots}}}}}}}},quad H:=sqrt{frac{x^3}{x+sqrt{frac{x^4}{x-sqrt{frac{x^5}{x+ sqrt{ frac{x^6}{x+cdots}}}}}}}}$$ Since $F=sqrt{dfrac x{x+G}}$, for (increasing) monotonicity to occur, $$F'=frac1{2F}cdotfrac{1(x+G)-x(1+G')}{(x+G)^2}>0impliedby G-xG'>0$$ as $(x+G)^2$ and $F$ are clearly non-negative.
Now this is implied by $$G'=frac1{2G}cdotleft(1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}right)<frac Gx$$ and since $G=sqrt{dfrac{x^2}{x-H}}$ (note that $H<x$), we get begin{align}2G^2>x+xfrac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}&impliedbyfrac{2x}{x-H}>1+frac{H'x^2-H}{(x-H)^2}\&impliedby 2x^2-2Hx>x^2-2Hx+H^2+H'x^2-H^2\&impliedby x^2>H'x^2impliedby H'<1end{align} Unfortunately the fact that $H<x$ only cannot imply this; however, the following plot verifies the nice inequality. The dotted red line is the line $y=x$; the purple curve is $H$ (up to $x^{11}$) and the green curve is $H'$. Of course, the latter two are only close approximations to the real distribution of $H$.
answered yesterday
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.7k62260
12.7k62260
add a comment |
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%2f3062908%2fwhat-is-the-maximum-value-of-this-nested-radical%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
1
How exactly does the expression for $F_k$ look? I can't actually work out easily how it terminates at the k^th step.
– T_M
2 days ago