1 + 1 − 1 + 1 − ⋯ 1 1 1
If the above expression equals x , then determine ⌊ 1 0 0 0 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.
Brilliant ! :)
Are we not worried about convergence?
Log in to reply
Yes, we're always worried about convergence, but I wasn't sure how to go about proving convergence in the case of "entwined" sequences. I did plug about 10 iterations of the radical into WolframAlpha and the point of attraction did seem to be ϕ , at which point my interest in a formal proof waned; that is, until you brought the matter up again. I'll give it another go after doing a bit of research first.
Log in to reply
The way to show convergence is conceptually pretty straightforward, but the details are a bit tedious in this case, as you say. Our iteration function is f ( x ) = 1 + 1 − 1 / x 1 for x > 1 ; this function is decreasing and concave up, with f ′ ( 1 . 4 ) > − 0 . 5 . If we let a 1 = 2 and a n + 1 = f ( a n ) , then ∣ a n + 1 − ϕ ∣ < 2 1 ∣ a n − ϕ ∣ , by the mean value theorem, so that a n does indeed converge to ϕ .
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Interesting continued fraction series for Phi, the golden mean !!. I had a feeling that since this involves an infinite series of nested radicals, the solution will tend to a value close to 1 (which is not too far off in this case) and hence we need not be bothered about convergence. Also, the series consists of alternating sign expressions which further reinforces the above
@Otto Bretscher – Great! Thanks for outlining the proof. :)
@Otto Bretscher – How did you get this: ∣ a n + 1 − ϕ ∣ < 2 1 ∣ a n − ϕ ∣ ?
Log in to reply
@Vighnesh Raut – By the mean value theorem we have a n − ϕ f ( a n ) − f ( ϕ ) = a n − ϕ a n + 1 − ϕ = f ′ ( c ) for some c in between; we know that ∣ f ′ ( c ) ∣ < 0 . 5 in the relevant domain.
I came across similar type of problems but every time used different substitutions at beginning......from next time, i will keep this solution in mind..
Excellent solution different than other similar looking problems.
Thanks for the simple solution.
same method
in last line you have declared, x>0 why, x>0 ? can -618 be a value ?
same method
x^2 * y = y+1 and y^2 * x = x-1 jus add
I think I could make this problem even more scary looking. What if, instead of just 1's, it is 1, 2, 3, 4, ... in the fractions and roots.
Log in to reply
That would indeed be scary; just in time for Halloween. We might have to invoke the spirit of Ramanujan to solve that radical. :)
Log in to reply
Yes, but it would be quite dangerous. How would one even attempt to solve it?
Log in to reply
@Sharky Kesa – Sorcery!? You're right, it would be dangerous; one could get trapped in it for days. Probably best to just whistle as you walk by it, pretending it's not there. :) But seriously though, while fun to think about, I doubt that it has a closed-form solution. Assuming that we are replacing the 1 's on the "diagonal" with 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , . . . . . it looks to approach about 1 . 3 5 1 , which doesn't look that special.
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – No, I mean something even more horrific:
1 + 3 − 5 + 7 − 9 + 1 1 − . . . . 1 0 8 6 4 2
@Brian Charlesworth – Also, could it be the plastic constant?
x 3 = x + 1
Whoa!!!!!!!!!
What about the other solution x=-1.324, I don't see any constraint for x>0
Log in to reply
By protocol, square roots are always taken to be non-negative. Therefore, we cannot have a negative answer.
How did you see that a factorization was possible at all!!
I also did the same.
Inserting x was twist !great!
After step 4 I used Wolfram. Your factorization is very elegant!
cant x be a negative value? if not, what is the reason for that ?
Log in to reply
Did the same :D
I do not see any constraint for x>1 in the problem statement. So what about the other solution x=-1.3247?
Log in to reply
since x is equal to a square root, it has to be > 0.
Very tidy. I missed this simpler factorisation and solved by inspection and guesswork - knowing the solution lay within a range [1600,1625] which suggested the familiar answer.
You factorised the equation into ( x 2 − x − 1 ) ( x 3 − x + 1 ) = 0 but then solved for x 3 − x − 1 = 0 . Why did you do this? None of the solutions to x 3 − x + 1 = 0 are real.
Wow! Very nice!
Here is a dirty little solution:
y = 1 + 1 − y 1 1 Which when rearranging gets us y = ( y − 1 ) 3 ( y + 1 ) 2 Let u = y − 1 then u + 1 = u 3 ( u + 2 ) 2 ⟹ 0 = u 5 + 4 u 4 + 4 u 3 − u − 1 Now Setting up a Newton-Raphson approximation: x n + 1 = x n − 5 x n 4 + 1 6 x n 3 + 1 2 x n 2 − 1 x n 5 + 4 x n 4 + 4 x n 3 − x n − 1 Iterate until about n = 4 where it should stop changing digits after 3 d.p. Then add one and you should get an answer of 1 6 1 8 .
This is under the assumption that a calculator is allowed, which I take as implied due to the nature of the answer.
what is Newton-Raphson approximation
I use for this equation WolframAlpha -;).
Mathematica does it in one line:
Floor[1000 x] /. Solve[Sqrt[1+1/Sqrt[1-1/x]]==x,{x}]
-a fool with a tool...
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let y be similar to the given expression x but with the addition and subtraction signs switched. Then we have that
x = 1 + y 1 and y = 1 − x 1
⟹ x 2 − y 2 = y 1 + x 1 ⟹ ( x − y ) ( x + y ) = x y x + y ⟹ x − y = x y 1 ,
since clearly x + y = 0 , (as both x , y > 0 ). We then have that
( x − y ) x y = 1 ⟹ x 2 y − x y 2 = 1
⟹ ( 1 + y 1 ) y − x ( 1 − x 1 ) = 1 ⟹ y + 1 − ( x − 1 ) = 1 ⟹ x − y = 1
⟹ x y = 1 ⟹ x ( x − 1 ) = 1 ⟹ x 2 − x − 1 = 0
⟹ x = 2 1 + 5 = 1 . 6 1 8 0 3 3 9 8 9 . . . . . , since x > 0 .
Thus ⌊ 1 0 0 0 x ⌋ = 1 6 1 8 .