Add a reciprocal, repeat

Algebra Level 5

Let a n a_n be a sequence of positive real numbers defined by a 1 = 1 a_ 1 = 1 and

a n + 1 = a n + 1 a n for n 1. a_{n+1} = a_n + \frac{1}{a_n} \text{ for } n\geq 1.

Evaluate a 100000 \lfloor a_{100000} \rfloor .


The answer is 447.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

9 solutions

Mark Hennings
Dec 1, 2013

Since a n + 1 = a n + a n 1 a_{n+1} \,=\, a_n + a_n^{-1} for n 1 n \ge 1 , we see that a n + 1 2 a n 2 = 2 + a n 2 a_{n+1}^2 - a_n^2 \,=\, 2 + a_n^{-2} for all n 1 n \ge 1 , so that a n 2 1 = a n 2 a 1 2 = j = 1 n 1 ( 2 + a j 2 ) a_n^2 - 1 \; = \; a_n^2 - a_1^2 \; = \; \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\big(2 + a_j^{-2}\big) for all n 2 n \ge 2 , and hence a n 2 = 2 n 1 + j = 1 n 1 a j 2 2 n a_n^2 \; = \; 2n-1 + \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}a_j^{-2} \;\ge \; 2n for all n 2 n \ge 2 . Thus we deduce that 2 n a n 2 2 n 1 + 1 2 + j = 1 n 1 ( 2 j ) 1 = 2 n 1 2 + 1 2 j = 1 n 1 j 1 2n \; \le \; a_n^2 \; \le \; 2n-1 + \tfrac12 + \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(2j)^{-1} \; =\; 2n-\tfrac12 + \tfrac12\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}j^{-1} for all n 2 n \ge 2 . Using the standard inequality that j = 1 n j 1 ln n + 1 n 1 , \sum_{j=1}^n j^{-1} \; \le \; \ln n + 1 \qquad n \ge 1\;, we deduce that 2 n a n 2 2 n 1 2 + 1 2 ( ln ( n 1 ) + 1 ) = 2 n + 1 2 ln ( n 1 ) 2n \;\le\; a_n^2 \;\le\; 2n-\tfrac12 + \tfrac12(\ln (n-1) + 1) \; = \; 2n + \tfrac12\ln (n-1) for all n 2 n \ge 2 . This implies that 200000 a 100000 2 200000 + 1 2 ln 99999 = 200005.76 200000 \; \le \; a_{100000}^2 \; \le \; 200000 + \tfrac12\ln 99999 \; = \; 200005.76 and hence 447.21 a 100000 447.22 447.21 \; \le \; a_{100000} \; \le \; 447.22 so that a 100000 = 447 \big\lfloor a_{100000} \big\rfloor \,=\, 447 .

It is clear from the recurrence relation that the sequence diverges. While a n a_n may diverge to infinity slowly, a n 2 a_n^2 will diverge to infinity more rapidly, and therefore we might hope to obtain a bound on the size of j a j 2 \sum_j a_j^{-2} . This turned out to be the case.

Excuse me, you forgot the square for the first a 100000 a_{100000} . It should be a 100000 2 a_{100000}^2 .

Zi Song Yeoh - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for spotting the typo.

Mark Hennings - 7 years, 6 months ago

Nice. Using a i 2 a_i ^2 provides a much easier bound. This can also be approached using a n + 1 a n = 1 a n a_{n+1} - a_n = \frac{1}{a_n} , but the bounding will need to be done more tightly / recursively.

Calvin Lin Staff - 7 years, 6 months ago

Can you justify replacing the a j 2 a_j ^{-2} with the 2 j 1 2j^{-1} in the upper bound inequality?

Mark Liu - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

In the line above, I have shown that a n 2 2 n a_n^2 \ge 2n .

Mark Hennings - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Great!

Mark Liu - 7 years, 6 months ago

Wow, it's amazing that you could get it to 2 decimal places, without using a computer.

Perry Ellis - 7 years, 6 months ago

really wonderful and smart solution !!! thanx for uploading !! :)

Subrata Karmakar - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

tui bujhli kichu eta.tui tahole ek matro indian je bujhte pereche.

Dibbendu Roy - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

HAA HAA :D VAI BUJHINI BISHES KICHHU :P Dekhte valo laglo bole prosonsha korlam r ki !!!

Subrata Karmakar - 7 years, 6 months ago
Rajiv Movva
Dec 1, 2013

Disclaimer: This solution is NOT rigorous. Note: When I refer to terms, I am referring to the floor of them, since our desired number is the floor of a certain term.

So whenever I see a problem like this, my favorite approach is always to start with small cases and list out several of the first terms. So here's a list of the FLOOR of the first 30 terms, starting with a 1 : 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 5 , 5 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 7 , 7 , 7 , 7 a_1: 1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,7,7

Now, you may wonder where I get this from, but trust me, it is easier to see when you've written the term number next to each term in the list: The terms increase by 1 at the midpoints of consecutive triangular numbers. Specifically, if we have two consecutive triangular numbers a , b a, b , an increase will occur at the a + b 2 th \left\lceil\dfrac{a+b}{2}\right\rceil^{\text{th}} term (where n \lceil n \rceil denotes the smallest m n m\ge n ). At this point I can't exactly prove this, but we can check our list of terms: a 2 = 2 , 2 = 3 + 1 2 a_2 = 2, 2 = \left\lceil\dfrac{3+1}{2}\right\rceil a 5 = 3 , 5 = 3 + 6 2 a_5 = 3, 5 = \left\lceil\dfrac{3+6}{2}\right\rceil a 8 = 4 , 8 = 6 + 10 2 a_8 = 4, 8 = \left\lceil\dfrac{6+10}{2}\right\rceil a 13 = 5 , 13 = 10 + 15 2 a_{13} = 5, 13 = \left\lceil\dfrac{10+15}{2}\right\rceil a 18 = 6 , 18 = 15 + 21 2 a_{18} = 6, 18 = \left\lceil\dfrac{15+21}{2}\right\rceil All of them satisfy our conjecture. Also, note that each of the terms above are the FIRST terms that equal their respective amount (i.e. a 18 a_{18} is the FIRST term that is equal to 6 6 .

Now, all we have to do is find a triangular number, which is in the form n ( n + 1 ) 2 \dfrac{n(n+1)}{2} , near 100000 100000 . n ( n + 1 ) 2 = 100000 n 2 + n 200000 = 0 n 446.7 \dfrac{n(n+1)}{2} = 100000 \implies n^2+n-200000 = 0 \implies n \approx 446.7 Since 447.5 > 446.7 > 446.5 447.5 > 446.7 > 446.5 , we are past the midpoint of the two triangular numbers nearest 100000 100000 , so our answer is 447 \boxed{447} by the aforementioned conjecture.

That's an interesting observation. It makes sense that the jumps would be at the midpoints of consecutive triangular numbers since a n 2 n a_n \approx \sqrt{2n} and 1 2 [ n ( n + 1 ) 2 + ( n + 1 ) ( n + 2 ) 2 ] = ( n + 1 ) 2 2 . \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}\right]=\frac{(n+1)^2}{2}.

Aaron Doman - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

This is very cool :)

Mike Kong - 7 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, when defining the ceiling function, I meant to say "the smallest m n , m Z m\ge n, m \in \mathbb{Z} ." Or in other words n \lceil n \rceil denotes the smallest integer greater than n n .

Rajiv Movva - 7 years, 6 months ago
Aaron Doman
Dec 1, 2013

We can create a function y y whose Euler's method approximation is a n a_n . Shifting the indices down 1 1 , we have a 0 = 1 a_0=1 and we wish to find a 99999 \lfloor {a_{99999}}\rfloor . Using a step size of 1 99999 \frac{1}{99999} , a 99999 a_{99999} will approximate y ( 1 ) y(1) . We have y ( n + 1 99999 ) y ( n 99999 ) + 1 99999 y ( n 99999 ) . y\left(\frac{n+1}{99999}\right) \approx y\left(\frac{n}{99999}\right)+\frac{1}{99999}y'\left(\frac{n}{99999}\right). Letting y = 99999 y y'=\frac{99999}{y} will give us y ( n + 1 99999 ) y ( n 99999 ) + 1 99999 99999 y ( n 99999 ) . y\left(\frac{n+1}{99999}\right) \approx y\left(\frac{n}{99999}\right)+\frac{1}{99999}\cdot\frac{99999}{y\left(\frac{n}{99999}\right)}. This will make a n a_n a good approximation to y ( n 99999 ) y\left(\frac{n}{99999}\right) . Solving this differential equation gives y = 199998 x + C y=\sqrt{199998x+C} and using y ( 0 ) = 1 y(0)=1 yields y = 199998 x + 1 y=\sqrt{199998x+1} . Finally, plugging in 1 1 for x x , a 99999 199999 a_{99999}\approx \sqrt{199999} and 199999 = 447 \lfloor\sqrt{199999}\rfloor=\boxed{447} .

and I thought Euler's method was useless when I learned it in calculus :P

Michael Tong - 7 years, 6 months ago

Nice solution! But how can we be sure that your delta is small enough so that errors do not accumulate? Maybe the errors are such that the actual floor is 446 or 448 or something? For instance there are some functions for which linearization gives increasingly bad approximations the further you go out.

Mark Liu - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

That's true; I did not claim my solution was rigorous. Unfortunately, I do not know any error bounds for Euler's method.

Aaron Doman - 7 years, 6 months ago
Anh Tuong Nguyen
Dec 3, 2013

Note that a 2 = 2 a_2=2 and a n + 1 2 = a n 2 + 1 a n 2 + 2 a_{n+1}^2=a_n^2+\frac{1}{a_n^2}+2 .

Now we have a 100000 2 = [ i = 2 99999 a i + 1 2 a i 2 ] + a 2 2 a_{100000}^2=[\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} a_{i+1}^2-a_i^2]+a_2^2

= [ i = 2 99999 1 a i 2 + 2 ] + 1 = i = 2 99999 1 a i 2 + 200000 =[\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i^2}+2]+1=\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i^2} + 200000

To create a telescoping series, we note that i = 2 99999 1 a i × a i + 1 < i = 2 99999 1 a i 2 < i = 2 99999 1 a i × a i 1 \displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i\times a_{i+1}}< \displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i^2}<\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i\times a_{i-1}}

0 < 1 a 2 1 a 100000 < i = 2 99999 1 a i × a i 1 < 1 a 1 1 a 99999 < 1 \rightarrow 0<\frac{1}{a_2}-\frac{1}{a_{100000}} < \displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i\times a_{i-1}} < \frac{1}{a_1}-\frac{1}{a_{99999}}<1

Hence 200000 < a 100000 2 < 200001 200000<a_{100000}^2<200001 or a 100000 = 447 \lfloor a_{100000} \rfloor = 447 .

Motivation: first I noticed that the question asks for an estimate of a 100000 a_{100000} , not an exact value, so I wanted to make a number appear in the equation. Squaring the RHS of the equation creates 2, which is what I wanted. Then I guess that the method of differences must appear somewhere as it is the easiest way to create the term a 100000 a_{100000} . I then realized that I can do this telescoping trick with the sequence ( 1 a i 2 ) (\frac{1}{a_i^2}) in order to get a pretty accurate estimate. That's how I figured out the solution.

A bit of thinking is needed here. You state that 1 a i 2 < 1 a i a i 1 \frac{1}{a_i^2} \; < \; \frac{1}{a_ia_{i-1}} which is fine. However, you then proceed to compare 1 a i a i 1 \sum \tfrac{1}{a_ia_{i-1}} with ( a i 1 1 a i 1 ) \sum\big(a_{i-1}^{-1} - a_i^{-1}\big) in order to telescope your series, and this is not obvious, since 1 a i 1 1 a i = a i a i 1 a i a i 1 = 1 a i a i 1 2 \frac{1}{a_{i-1}} - \frac{1}{a_i} \; =\; \frac{a_i - a_{i-1}}{a_ia_{i-1}} \; = \; \frac{1}{a_i a_{i-1}^2} Indeed, the second sum is smaller than the first.

Mark Hennings - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you for your comment, I will fix my solution after class today.

Anh Tuong Nguyen - 7 years, 6 months ago

The last part is wrong as Mark pointed out, so I've thought about a quick fix:

Note that ( i = 2 99999 1 a i a i 1 ) 2 < 99998 i = 2 99999 1 a i 2 a i 1 2 (\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_ia_{i-1}})^2<99998\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_i^2a_{i-1}^2} (by Cauchy-Schwarz)

< 99998 i = 2 99999 1 a i a i 1 2 = 99998 i = 2 99999 1 a i 1 1 a i <99998\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_ia^2_{i-1}}=99998\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^{99999} \frac{1}{a_{i-1}}-\frac{1}{a_i}

= 99998 ( 1 1 a 99999 ) < 99998 =99998(1-\frac{1}{a_{99999}})<99998

Hence 200000 < a 100000 2 < 200000 + 99998 < 200317 200000<a^2_{100000}<200000+\sqrt{99998}<200317 , which is a pretty rough estimate, but still gives the floor value as 447.

Anh Tuong Nguyen - 7 years, 6 months ago
Adit Mohan
Dec 6, 2013

an+1 ^2 =an^2+1/an^2 +2 an= a1+1/a1+1/a2+….1/an-1 an^2=a1^2+1/a2^2+…..1/an-1^2 +2*n

a100001^2 =a1 ^2+1/a1^2…..1/a100000^2 +200000=(a1 +1/a1 +1/a2+……1/a100000)^2 =>a1 ^2+1/a1^2…..1/a100000^2 +200000= a1^ 2+1/a1^2…..1/a100000^2 +2(a1/a2+a1/a3……….1/a99999a100000) =>100000 = a1(a1+1/a1+1/a2+….1/a100000 –a1) + 1/a1(a1+1/a1+1/a2+….1/a100000 –a1-1/a1)..........a100000(a1+1/a1+1/a2+….1/a100000 - a1-1/a1-1/a2-….1/a100000) a1(a100000-a1) +1/a1(a100000-a1) + 1/a2(a100000 –a2)........1/a100000(a100000-a100000) =>100000=a100000(a100001) -100000 =>200000 = a100000(a100000+1/a100000) =>200000 = a100000^2 +1 =>[√199999] =447

Ziyuan Lin
Dec 3, 2013

Not a strict one. If we can estimate the upper bound as a ( n ) f ( n ) a(n)\le f(n) , we can accordingly estimate the lower bound as 1 + k = 1 n 1 1 f ( k ) 1+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{f(k)} . So a tight bound (or the order of divergence) satisfies

f ( n ) 1 + k = 1 n 1 1 f ( k ) k = 1 n 1 1 f ( k ) 0 x d t f ( t ) f(n) \sim 1+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{f(k)} \approx \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{f(k)} \approx \int_0^x\frac{dt}{f(t)}

If you remember ( x ) = 1 2 x (\sqrt{x})'=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}} , f ( n ) = 2 n f(n)=\sqrt{2n} will be a reasonable guess. So just try 446 or 447, given that 200000 446.891 \sqrt{200000}\approx 446.891

You may want to try 447 first because the l.h.s. is "larger".

Ziyuan Lin - 7 years, 6 months ago
Shubham Kumar
Dec 2, 2013

We can use this easy C++ code ---

include <constream.h>

void main()

{ clrscr();

long int sum,n=1;

float p=1, q =1,a=0;

while(n<=100000)

{ a=p+q;

p=a;

q= 1/a;

n++;

}

sum=a;

cout<<"\n\n\tSum: "<<sum;

getch();

return;

}

Output: Sum: 447 (Ans)

For the math sections, stay away from using methods like this. According to FAQ, the math problems are designed to be solved with paper and pencil. While using code is not cheating, it says

if you find yourself wanting to brute force an answer with a computer, there is probably a more elegant way to go about it you are not seeing

which is indeed the case for this problem. I could probably solve this problem using the sequence function on my TI-84, but I didn't because there's no fun in that IMO, and I don't gain anything intellectually.

Michael Tong - 7 years, 6 months ago

This kind of answers should not be given...

Jitesh Mittal - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

It is just the use of technology that we can use.

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

There are many competition sites for "technology". Like CodeForces , TopCoder , or SPOJ , all of which are my favorites. I'll suggest to do the right thing at the right place.

Ziyuan Lin - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Ziyuan Lin Thanks, for suggestions I'll surely look up these sites.

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Shubham Kumar Or Project Euler if you don't want to handle the input format.

Ziyuan Lin - 7 years, 6 months ago

This is cheating. :|

Pranshu Bhatnagar - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Can you please explain why is this cheating?

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

There is a reason why you should not use a motorcycle in a bicycle race :)

Seriously, let's remember that the goal is the journey itself, and, as Michael Tong pointed out, one gains nothing intellectually by this kind of brute-forcing.

Alexander Borisov - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Alexander Borisov I agree that journey is more important compared to the destination. But still, use of code also needs some application of logic. No one loses. If you really want the intuitive solution, we can discuss that too. Different flavours, Yo !! Good job, Shubham..

Tushar Sharma - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Tushar Sharma Certainly. The discussion that I'd rather have, is that since the calculations are not exact, how do you know that within the limits of error, you have arrived at the correct answer using this code?

See for example the Patriot Missile Failure , in which "Because of the way the Patriot computer performs its calculations and the fact that its registers are only 24 bits long, the conversion of time from an integer to a real number cannot be any more precise than 24 bits. This conversion results in a loss of precision causing a less accurate time calculation. The effect of this inaccuracy on the range gate's calculation is directly proportional to the target's velocity and the length of the the system has been running. Consequently, performing the conversion after the Patriot has been running continuously for extended periods causes the range gate to shift away from the center of the target, making it less likely that the target, in this case a Scud, will be successfully intercepted."

Calvin Lin Staff - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Calvin Lin Absolutely. Any computer technique working with reals, and any approximation method, is only as accurate as its error bounds. Suppose that the approximation method, or computer technique, had yielded 447.00000001 447.00000001 as the answer. Would we be justified in saying that the integer part was 447 447 , or could errors in calculation or the approximation model give an answer of 446 446 ? We got lucky in this problem that the actual value of a 100000 a_{100000} was about 447.2 447.2 , so that a reasonably good approximation gave the right integer part.

This is not a criticism of computer methods. Actually, if a computer solution was coupled with an analysis that the answer was sure to be accurate enough, I would cheer. The problem is with computer solutions or with iterative techniques which have not been analysed for precision.

Mark Hennings - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Mark Hennings Indeed, an accurate error analysis, including the estimates for the round-off errors, is a standard part of virtually all applied math papers.

In pure math, the computers can also be very useful, especially when handling vast case-by-case analysis. In fact, I would much rather trust a computer to do that rather than a human. A great example of such use is this paper by Kreuzer and Skarke. You don't need to know anything about the actual question (classification of some particular 4-dimensional polyhedra) to appreciate the discussion of the results on page 10.

Alexander Borisov - 7 years, 6 months ago

@Mark Hennings As you can see in the computer code that computer first calculates the value of the sum as a 'float' value which is 'a' = 447.220154, then it is changed into 'integer' by changing its declaration type by equating it with 'integer' value which is 'sum' giving greatest integer value as 447.

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Shubham Kumar But there is your problem, and possibly your solution. To calculate a 100000 a_{100000} , you need to perform 200000 200000 calculations (you need to take each a n a_n , invert it and add it to itself to get the next a n + 1 a_{n+1} ).

If you have chosen to work with a real variable type that calculates real numbers to 9 9 significant figures, then you must anticipate the possibility that each calculation creates an error in the 9 9 th significant figure. It might not, but it may well. You also have to allow for the possibility that these errors accumulate, rather than cancel each other out. At least, in this case, we do not have to worry about small errors becoming large. This can happen when dividing by a number close to zero, for example; we are always dividing by numbers greater than 1 1 . Given the answer to the question, most of the time we will be dealing with values of a n a_n greater than 100 100 , and so we can decide that each calculation might create an error of 0.000001 0.000001 .

A total of 200000 200000 calculation errors of size 0.000001 0.000001 brings about a possible error of up to about 0.2 0.2 in your final answer. At this point you might feel able to say that the answer is really 447 447 , since your float value of 447.220154 447.220154 could refer to an actual answer somewhere between 447.02 447.02 and 447.42 447.42 . Any number in this range has 447 447 as integer part.

If you could be certain that your data type had 9 9 significant figure accuracy, you would be confident of being OK. However, I think that the float data type only guarantees 7 7 significant figures, in which case the above analysis would give the possibility of an error in calculation too great to permit you to trust your answer. You would be safer with a double data type, which is 64 bit.

Mark Hennings - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Mark Hennings Thanks for the precise knowledge....

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

@Tushar Sharma Thanks Tushar Bhai, for your support. How can we discuss the intuitive solutions?

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

nice one man even i had thought about it the same

Shaurya Sinha - 7 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for your support.

SHUBHAM KUMAR - 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, here's a python algorithm...

~

Answer = 1

for x in range (1, 100000):

~~~~~~~~ Answer += 1.00 / Answer

print int(Answer)

~

Output: 447

Simple and shorter... ;)

Jubayer Nirjhor - 7 years, 6 months ago
Surajit Rajagopal
Apr 16, 2014

To solve using pen and paper: based on numerical evidence, I observed that (a_n) is approximately (2n+0.25)^(1/2). Thus, if this claim is true, we just need to plug in n=10^5 to solve the problem. However this is merely a conjecture. I would be grateful if anyone could prove or disprove my claim?

Sr Somayaji
Dec 14, 2013

So here's the thing! Now as someone who really likes his short-cuts, I decided to use the programming method to solve the question. Programming really shortens the time taken to solve the problem. The following is the very short lines of code that I used to solve the problem. The code is in Java and I use the NetBeans IDE!

    double[] brilliant_series = new double[100000];

    brilliant_series[0] = 1;

    for(int i = 1 ; i < brilliant_series.length ; i++)
    {
        brilliant_series[i] = brilliant_series[i-1] + (1/brilliant_series[i-1]);
    }
    System.out.println(brilliant_series[99999]);

And the output-- 447.21972185666755 As we're asked for the greatest integer lesser than or equal to the above, the answer is 447!

Cheers!

but how do you solve it using paper and pen??

Shivin Srivastava - 7 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

To solve using pen and paper: based on numerical evidence, I observed that (a_n) is approximately (2n+0.25)^(1/2). Thus, if this claim is true, we just need to plug in n=10^5 to solve the problem. However this is merely a conjecture. I would be grateful if anyone could prove or disprove my claim?

Surajit Rajagopal - 7 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

According to my method the value of a{n} can be found by solving the following: 2n+1=(a{n})^2 - ln(a{n}). You are correct in stating that a{n} belongs to O(n^1/2)

Shivin Srivastava - 7 years, 1 month ago

how to solve this qtn??

Rounak Jajoo - 7 years, 5 months ago

I too couldn't find another method for solving this

Suraj Kaul - 7 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

A(n+1) = A(n) + 1/ A(n)......A(n+1) - A(n)= 1/ A(n)
(1)SUM(99999){ A(n+1) - A(n) } = (1)SUM(99999){ 1/ A(n) }, Left hand is telescopic series.
A(100000) - A(1) = (1)SUM(99999){ 1/ A(n) }
We desire A(100000) = (1)SUM(99999){ 1/ A(n) } + 1........A(1) = 1...........................
I get 6 < (1)SUM(1000){ 1/ A(n) } < 8 Thus A(100000) = 7.,,,,,,, Can help me see my mistake ??????



Niranjan Khanderia - 7 years, 2 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...