Compute the result of the following:
\[1 + \cfrac{2 + \cfrac{4 + \cfrac{8 + \ldots}{12 + \ldots}}{6 + \cfrac{12 + \ldots}{18 + \ldots}}}{3 + \cfrac{6 + \cfrac{12 + \ldots}{18 + \ldots}}{9 + \cfrac{18 + \ldots}{27 + \ldots}}}\]
Informally, you have something like for all ; expand to infinity and compute its result.
(Note that I don't know the result; if I knew, I would have made this a problem. Source: friend's tweet)
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Intuitively it would seem like f(x) is an increasing function. Rearranging the recursive function gives f(3x)(f(x)−x)=f(2x) so ∣f(x)−x∣<1. That would imply that f(x) increases approximately linearly, but then again plugging in f(x)=x+c gives no solution.
Log in to reply
The solution to c in f(3x)(f(x)−x)=f(2x) where f(x)=nxn+c as n→∞ and x=1 appears to be unbounded, so this path seems to be a dead end. Of course, all the math I'm doing is pretty hand-wavy to begin with.
An amazing idea !!
Some code to compute with different starting values and iteration depth: here
It's interesting to see that things converge quickly and that it is indeed approximately linear.
Log in to reply
In fact, for large x, we have f(x)→x+32 (as expected?).
Log in to reply
Indeed. If we assume that f(x)∼x+c as x→∞, then f(2x)/f(3x)∼(2x+c)/(3x+c)→2/3 in the limit. Consistency then implies that c=2/3.
The answer is definitely 35. Here's as far as I've gotten in proving it:
If you follow the fraction backward far enough you'll begin to realize that the terms inside the biggest parentheses tend towards 1 as the fraction expands to infinity. This gives 1+32=35, but this isn't exactly a proof, more a heuristic argument.
Log in to reply
Well...
I think they are quite contradictory.
I'm also pretty confident the answer is much closer to the one found by iteration (slightly less than 3) than 35. Intuitively (not yet proven!), any of the fractions has value lying in (0,1). You can thus bound the result by replacing fractions to deep in the iteration with one of the two extreme values appropriately:
≤≤1+3+9+06+12+6+14+0=119200≈1.68067221+3+9+…6+…2+6+…4+…1+3+9+16+02+6+04+1=108193≈1.7870370
This is definetly a mind bender
that's what I thought initially. However, if you track the fractions, you are not correctly removing the factors of 2 and 3.
Log in to reply
This problem really intrigues me, it seems so simple to state yet so hard to prove!