f n + 1 ( x ) = 7 − 7 + f n ( x ) and f 1 ( x ) = 7 − 7 + x
A sequence of functions is defined by the previous recursive definition. Which one of the options is true for the following equation? f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) = x
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.
Thank you for taking your time to solve the problem. I am trying to understand your solution. You have proved that no matter what the value of x is in [ − 7 , 4 2 ] the sequence f n ( x ) converges uniformly to 2. This would mean that for a large n all the solutions of the equation f n ( x ) = x will be close to 2. How can I discard the existence of other solutions close to 2?
Log in to reply
By induction, we have ∣ ∣ f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ ≤ 6 − 2 0 1 6 ∣ x − 2 ∣ < ∣ x − 2 ∣ for all x = 2 , and so f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) = x for all x = 2 .
Log in to reply
Now I see the contradiction. Thank you @Mark Hennings ! Very simple and elegant!
Log in to reply
@Arturo Presa – If you want to throw a theorem at the problem, we could do something like this. If − 6 ≤ x ≤ 2 9 then 7 + x ≥ 1 , and so f 1 ( x ) = 7 − 7 + x ≤ 6 < 2 9 . Also 7 + x ≤ 6 , and so f 1 ( x ) ≥ 1 > − 6 . Thus f 1 maps the closed interval [ − 6 , 2 9 ] into itself.
Since we can show that f 1 ( x ) − f 1 ( y ) = ( f 1 ( x ) + f 1 ( y ) ) ( 7 + x + 7 + y ) y − x for − 6 ≤ x , y ≤ 2 9 , we deduce that ∣ ∣ f 1 ( x ) − f 1 ( y ) ∣ ∣ ≤ ( 1 + 1 ) ( 1 + 1 ) ∣ y − x ∣ = 4 1 ∣ x − y ∣ − 6 ≤ x , y ≤ 2 9 Thus f 1 is a contraction mapping from [ − 6 , 2 9 ] to itself, and so has a unique fixed point in that interval (which we know to be 2 ) by the Contraction Mapping Theorem. Since f 1 is a contraction mapping, its 2 0 1 6 -fold composite f 2 0 1 6 is also a contraction mapping, and so also has a unique fixed point.
Because 7 + x = 0 when x = − 7 , and f 1 ( x ) = 0 when x = 4 2 , we are not going to be able to show that f 1 is a contraction mapping on the whole of [ − 7 , 4 2 ] . However, since 0 ≤ f 1 ( x ) ≤ 7 for all − 7 ≤ x ≤ 4 2 , there is no possibility of there being a fixed point outside the smaller interval [ − 6 , 2 9 ] , so all is well.
Log in to reply
@Mark Hennings – Yes, you are right. The Contraction Mapping Theorem is what I had in mind initially. Then I realized that if the equation x = f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) has two distinct real solutions, then its derivative must be 1 at some point and this impossible for a function that is almost flat. The necessity of considering a smaller interval is another important part of the proof, but it is not difficult to discard the possibility of root outside that smaller interval. Thank you again, for showing us a very interesting approach.
How do we know f(x) approaches 2. Can you explain?
Log in to reply
I think your question is for Mark Hennings. But I can try to answer. Mark proved that ∣ ∣ f n + 1 ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ ≤ 6 1 ∣ ∣ f n ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ . and suggested that you can prove by induction using the previous inequality that ∣ ∣ f n ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ ≤ 6 n − 1 1 ∣ ∣ f 1 ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ . This inequality would imply that lim n → ∞ f n ( x ) = 2 for any value of x in the given domain. Nevertheless, Mark does not use the convergence of f n ( x ) , directly, in his proof. If yo look at my proof, you can see that I don't use the convergence either, but using the information given by my solution you can also get the convergence of that sequence from the fact that ∣ f n ′ ( x ) ∣ ≤ k < 1 .
It is clear that the domain of f 1 ( x ) is the closed interval [ − 7 , 4 2 ] , and f 1 ′ ( x ) = − 4 7 + x 7 − 7 + x 1 . Since f 1 ′ ( x ) < 0 for any x ∈ [ − 7 , 4 2 ] then f 1 ( x ) is decreasing on [ 7 , 4 2 ] , and, additionally, its maximum and minimum value, respectively, are f ( − 7 ) = 7 ≈ 2 . 6 and f ( 4 2 ) = 0 . Thus the range of f ( x ) is contained in [ 0 , 3 ] , and, therefore, for any natural number n > 1 and any value of x in [ − 7 , 4 2 ] , we have that f n ( x ) = f ( f n − 1 ( x ) ) is a number in the interval [ 0 , 3 ] . This implies that for whatever natural number n > 1 the equation f n ( x ) = x does not have real solutions outside the interval [ 0 , 3 ] .
We claim that for any natural number n the equation f 2 n ( x ) = x , ( 1 ) has a unique real solution in the interval [ 0 , 3 ] , and, therefore, according to what we explained above, a unique real solution everywhere.
To prove our claim we have to show first that for any integer n , the following inequality holds ∣ f n ′ ( x ) ∣ < 1 for any x ∈ [ 0 , 3 ] . ( 2 )
Let us prove it by induction. Let us start proving that the inequality is true in the case that n = 1 . It easy to see that f 1 ′ ′ ( x ) = ( 1 6 ( x + 7 ) 3 / 2 ( 7 − x + 7 ) 3 / 2 1 4 − 3 x + 7 is always positive for any x in the interval [ 0 , 3 ] , and then f 1 ′ ( x ) is increasing on that interval and always negative, as we saw before. Therefore ∣ f 1 ′ ( x ) ∣ ≤ − f 1 ′ ( 0 ) = 4 7 7 − 7 1 < 1 . So this proves the case where n = 1 . Now let k be any natural number and x ∈ [ 0 , 3 ] . Let us assume that the inequality (2) is true for n = k , then since f k + 1 ′ ( x ) = f k ′ ( f 1 ( x ) ) f 1 ′ ( x ) and f 1 ( x ) is in the interval [ 0 , 3 ] when x is in that interval , we obtain that the inequality (2) is also true for n = k + 1 . This complete the proof of (2).
Since f 1 ( 2 ) = 2 , then f 2 n ( 2 ) = 2 for any natural number n . This proves that the equation (1) has at least a real solution in [ 0 , 3 ] . Now we are going to prove the uniqueness. Let us prove it by contradiction. Assume that x 1 and x 2 are both solutions of (1) in [ 0 , 3 ] . Then x 2 − x 1 f 2 n ( x 2 ) − f 2 n ( x 1 ) = x 2 − x 1 x 2 − x 1 = 1 . According to the Mean Value Theorem, this would imply that there must be a number c in between x 1 and x 2 such that f 2 n ′ ( c ) = 1 , but this would contradict the inequality (2).
So the answer to the question in the problem is that f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) = x has a unique real solution.
You are really hardworking man
Since f 1 ′ ( x ) < 0 , we can conclude that f 1 is strictly decreasing.
Then f 2 0 1 6 is strictly increasing, by composition.
f 2 0 1 6 ( 2 ) = 2 should complete proof.
This could be solved graphically, I guess. Looking at the recursive function it can be deduced that, f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) = 7 − 7 + 7 − 7 + . . . 7 + x where 7 is repeated 4030 times. It's important to note that the pattern is repeated a finite number of times.
Now if we try to work backwards. The graph of 7 + x intersects x at exactly one point. The graph of 7 − 7 + x becomes steeper but still intersects x at exactly one point. As we continue with pattern the graph becomes ever so steeper but there's no reason why it would change its behavior suddenly.
I acknowledge the pretense of this solution is superficial. Nevertheless.
How about a direct simple solution?
We know that f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) → 2 or just extremely near to 2 by repeated substitutions of an evaluation.
f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) = 2+ XOR 2-.
No matter how the case cannot be exactly 2 instead of 2+ or 2-, we can always have one leveling which enables us to get either f 2 0 1 6 ( 2 + ) = 2+ XOR f 2 0 1 6 ( 2 − ) = 2- to be true.
Since f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) is a one value constant, x can always choose to equate the constant.
Therefore, the answer is "Only one real solution."!
Thank you, sir, for taking your time to solve this problem. I am trying to understand your solution too. What I understand is that you have proved that if there is any solution for the given equation then it has to be close to 2. But how to eliminate the possibility that there is another solution which is very close to 2 but different from 2.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We can show that f n + 1 ( x ) − 2 = ( 7 − 7 + f n ( x ) + 2 ) ( 3 + 7 + f n ( x ) ) 2 − f n ( x ) so that, provided that the formula makes sense (and we can calculate the square roots) ∣ ∣ f n + 1 ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ ≤ 6 1 ∣ ∣ f n ( x ) − 2 ∣ ∣ While f 2 0 1 6 ( 2 ) = f 0 ( 2 ) = 2 , f 2 0 1 6 ( x ) is closer to 2 than is x for any valid x = 2 , and so 2 is the only solution.
N.B. We can calculate f 1 ( x ) for any − 7 ≤ x ≤ 4 2 . From the above observations, f 1 ( x ) will lie in the same interval. By induction, we can calculate f n ( x ) for all n ≥ 1 provided that − 7 ≤ x ≤ 4 2 .