Prove the convergence of the sequence $a_{1} = 4$, $a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{2}{a_{n}}$, $n = 1, 2,...











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:




  • Proving a sequence defined by a recurrence relation converges

    2 answers




Prove the convergence of the sequence $a_{1} = 4$, $a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{2}{a_{n}}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$



I'm pretty sure the way to do it is to show $a_{n} > 2$ for $n = 2, ldots$ and then maybe use the Monotone Convergence Theorem to show it converges to $2$, but I think this also might be wrong. Can someone please help me with this problem? I don't know how to prove a bound for it.










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Martin R, amWhy, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 27 at 13:33


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.



















    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite













    This question already has an answer here:




    • Proving a sequence defined by a recurrence relation converges

      2 answers




    Prove the convergence of the sequence $a_{1} = 4$, $a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{2}{a_{n}}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$



    I'm pretty sure the way to do it is to show $a_{n} > 2$ for $n = 2, ldots$ and then maybe use the Monotone Convergence Theorem to show it converges to $2$, but I think this also might be wrong. Can someone please help me with this problem? I don't know how to prove a bound for it.










    share|cite|improve this question















    marked as duplicate by Martin R, amWhy, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
    Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function() {
    $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    });
    },
    function() {
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
    }
    );
    });
    });
    Nov 27 at 13:33


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite












      This question already has an answer here:




      • Proving a sequence defined by a recurrence relation converges

        2 answers




      Prove the convergence of the sequence $a_{1} = 4$, $a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{2}{a_{n}}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$



      I'm pretty sure the way to do it is to show $a_{n} > 2$ for $n = 2, ldots$ and then maybe use the Monotone Convergence Theorem to show it converges to $2$, but I think this also might be wrong. Can someone please help me with this problem? I don't know how to prove a bound for it.










      share|cite|improve this question
















      This question already has an answer here:




      • Proving a sequence defined by a recurrence relation converges

        2 answers




      Prove the convergence of the sequence $a_{1} = 4$, $a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{2}{a_{n}}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$



      I'm pretty sure the way to do it is to show $a_{n} > 2$ for $n = 2, ldots$ and then maybe use the Monotone Convergence Theorem to show it converges to $2$, but I think this also might be wrong. Can someone please help me with this problem? I don't know how to prove a bound for it.





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Proving a sequence defined by a recurrence relation converges

        2 answers








      real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 27 at 1:43









      user587192

      1,488112




      1,488112










      asked Nov 27 at 0:01









      stackofhay42

      1696




      1696




      marked as duplicate by Martin R, amWhy, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
      Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Nov 27 at 13:33


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






      marked as duplicate by Martin R, amWhy, José Carlos Santos real-analysis
      Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Nov 27 at 13:33


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Your idea is a good approach. The fact that $a_{n} ge 2$ holds for all $n$ follows simply from the fact that $a_n > 0$ for all $n$, and the minimum of $t + 1/t$ on the interval $(0, infty)$ is $2$.





          As far as monotonicity, note that



          $$a_{n + 1} - a_n = frac{2}{a_n} - frac{a_n}{2} = t - frac 1 t$$



          where $t = 2 / a_n in (0, 1]$ from above. The maximum of $t - 1/t$ on this interval is zero, so $a_{n + 1} - a_n le 0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The recurrence relation depends on the function $f(x)=dfrac x2+dfrac2x$. Its derivative
            $$f'(x)=frac12-frac 2{x^2}=frac{x^2-4}{2x^2}$$
            shows it is increasing on $[2,+infty)$. As $f(2)=2$ and $limlimits_{xto+infty}f(x)=+infty$, it maps the interval $I=[2,+infty)$ into itself, so the sequence is bounded from below.



            Furthermore, you easily check $f(x)<x$ on $(2,+infty)$, so there results the sequence is decreasing. By the monotone convergence theorem, it converges to a (non-negative) fixed point of the function. The single such point is $ell=2$.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
              – Bernard
              Nov 27 at 0:34






            • 1




              Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
              – Did
              Nov 27 at 0:39


















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Making it more general, rewrite
            $$a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}$$ as
            $$a_{n + 1} =a_n- frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}=a_n-frac{a_n^2-2k}{2a_n}$$ and recognize the formula of Newton iterates for finding the zero of $f(x)=x^2-2k$.



            This is the the so-called Babylonian method.






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Here is an alternative elementary way.



              Note that for $x,ygeqslant 0$, by the AM-GM inequality (or simply noticing that $(sqrt{x}-sqrt{y})^2geqslant 0$),
              $$
              x+ygeqslant 2sqrt{xy}.
              $$

              One can easily show by induction that $a_ngeqslant 0$ for all $n$. So for all $n>1$
              $$
              a_{n+1}geqslant 2sqrt{frac{a_n}{2}cdotfrac{2}{a_n}}=2,
              $$

              and thus $a_ngeqslant 2$ for all $ngeqslant 1$.



              For monotonicity, simply note that $a_ngeq 2$ implies that
              $$
              frac{2}{a_n}leqslant 1,quad -frac{a_n}{2}leqslant -1,
              $$

              and thus
              $$
              a_{n+1}-a_n=frac{2}{a_n}-frac{a_n}{2}leqslant 1+(-1)=0.
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer




























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Note, that $color{blue}{a= 2}$ is a $color{blue}{mbox{fixpoint}}$ of the iteration as
                $$2 = frac{a}{2} + frac{2}{a} = 1+1$$



                AM-GM shows that for all members of the sequence we have
                $$frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} stackrel{AM-GM}{geq} 2$$



                Now, consider
                $$0 leq color{blue}{a_{n+1}-2} = frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} - 2 = frac{a_n -2}{2} - frac{a_n - 2}{a_n} = left( frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{a_n} right)(a_n - 2) color{blue}{stackrel{a_n geq 2}{leq} frac{1}{2} (a_n - 2)}$$
                It follows
                $$0 leq a_{n+1}-2 leq left( frac{1}{2}right)^n(a_1 - 2)stackrel{n to infty}{longrightarrow} 0 Rightarrow color{blue}{(a_n) mbox{ is convergent and } lim_{n to infty}a_n = 2}$$






                share|cite|improve this answer




























                  5 Answers
                  5






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  5 Answers
                  5






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  Your idea is a good approach. The fact that $a_{n} ge 2$ holds for all $n$ follows simply from the fact that $a_n > 0$ for all $n$, and the minimum of $t + 1/t$ on the interval $(0, infty)$ is $2$.





                  As far as monotonicity, note that



                  $$a_{n + 1} - a_n = frac{2}{a_n} - frac{a_n}{2} = t - frac 1 t$$



                  where $t = 2 / a_n in (0, 1]$ from above. The maximum of $t - 1/t$ on this interval is zero, so $a_{n + 1} - a_n le 0$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Your idea is a good approach. The fact that $a_{n} ge 2$ holds for all $n$ follows simply from the fact that $a_n > 0$ for all $n$, and the minimum of $t + 1/t$ on the interval $(0, infty)$ is $2$.





                    As far as monotonicity, note that



                    $$a_{n + 1} - a_n = frac{2}{a_n} - frac{a_n}{2} = t - frac 1 t$$



                    where $t = 2 / a_n in (0, 1]$ from above. The maximum of $t - 1/t$ on this interval is zero, so $a_{n + 1} - a_n le 0$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote









                      Your idea is a good approach. The fact that $a_{n} ge 2$ holds for all $n$ follows simply from the fact that $a_n > 0$ for all $n$, and the minimum of $t + 1/t$ on the interval $(0, infty)$ is $2$.





                      As far as monotonicity, note that



                      $$a_{n + 1} - a_n = frac{2}{a_n} - frac{a_n}{2} = t - frac 1 t$$



                      where $t = 2 / a_n in (0, 1]$ from above. The maximum of $t - 1/t$ on this interval is zero, so $a_{n + 1} - a_n le 0$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      Your idea is a good approach. The fact that $a_{n} ge 2$ holds for all $n$ follows simply from the fact that $a_n > 0$ for all $n$, and the minimum of $t + 1/t$ on the interval $(0, infty)$ is $2$.





                      As far as monotonicity, note that



                      $$a_{n + 1} - a_n = frac{2}{a_n} - frac{a_n}{2} = t - frac 1 t$$



                      where $t = 2 / a_n in (0, 1]$ from above. The maximum of $t - 1/t$ on this interval is zero, so $a_{n + 1} - a_n le 0$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 27 at 0:07









                      T. Bongers

                      22.8k54561




                      22.8k54561






















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          The recurrence relation depends on the function $f(x)=dfrac x2+dfrac2x$. Its derivative
                          $$f'(x)=frac12-frac 2{x^2}=frac{x^2-4}{2x^2}$$
                          shows it is increasing on $[2,+infty)$. As $f(2)=2$ and $limlimits_{xto+infty}f(x)=+infty$, it maps the interval $I=[2,+infty)$ into itself, so the sequence is bounded from below.



                          Furthermore, you easily check $f(x)<x$ on $(2,+infty)$, so there results the sequence is decreasing. By the monotone convergence theorem, it converges to a (non-negative) fixed point of the function. The single such point is $ell=2$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 1




                            @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                            – Bernard
                            Nov 27 at 0:34






                          • 1




                            Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                            – Did
                            Nov 27 at 0:39















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          The recurrence relation depends on the function $f(x)=dfrac x2+dfrac2x$. Its derivative
                          $$f'(x)=frac12-frac 2{x^2}=frac{x^2-4}{2x^2}$$
                          shows it is increasing on $[2,+infty)$. As $f(2)=2$ and $limlimits_{xto+infty}f(x)=+infty$, it maps the interval $I=[2,+infty)$ into itself, so the sequence is bounded from below.



                          Furthermore, you easily check $f(x)<x$ on $(2,+infty)$, so there results the sequence is decreasing. By the monotone convergence theorem, it converges to a (non-negative) fixed point of the function. The single such point is $ell=2$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 1




                            @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                            – Bernard
                            Nov 27 at 0:34






                          • 1




                            Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                            – Did
                            Nov 27 at 0:39













                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          The recurrence relation depends on the function $f(x)=dfrac x2+dfrac2x$. Its derivative
                          $$f'(x)=frac12-frac 2{x^2}=frac{x^2-4}{2x^2}$$
                          shows it is increasing on $[2,+infty)$. As $f(2)=2$ and $limlimits_{xto+infty}f(x)=+infty$, it maps the interval $I=[2,+infty)$ into itself, so the sequence is bounded from below.



                          Furthermore, you easily check $f(x)<x$ on $(2,+infty)$, so there results the sequence is decreasing. By the monotone convergence theorem, it converges to a (non-negative) fixed point of the function. The single such point is $ell=2$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          The recurrence relation depends on the function $f(x)=dfrac x2+dfrac2x$. Its derivative
                          $$f'(x)=frac12-frac 2{x^2}=frac{x^2-4}{2x^2}$$
                          shows it is increasing on $[2,+infty)$. As $f(2)=2$ and $limlimits_{xto+infty}f(x)=+infty$, it maps the interval $I=[2,+infty)$ into itself, so the sequence is bounded from below.



                          Furthermore, you easily check $f(x)<x$ on $(2,+infty)$, so there results the sequence is decreasing. By the monotone convergence theorem, it converges to a (non-negative) fixed point of the function. The single such point is $ell=2$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Nov 27 at 0:31

























                          answered Nov 27 at 0:21









                          Bernard

                          117k637109




                          117k637109








                          • 1




                            @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                            – Bernard
                            Nov 27 at 0:34






                          • 1




                            Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                            – Did
                            Nov 27 at 0:39














                          • 1




                            @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                            – Bernard
                            Nov 27 at 0:34






                          • 1




                            Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                            – Did
                            Nov 27 at 0:39








                          1




                          1




                          @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                          – Bernard
                          Nov 27 at 0:34




                          @Did: Thanks for the edit. However I really meant display style fraction for the definition of $f(x)$. I don't like such small fractions in this context.
                          – Bernard
                          Nov 27 at 0:34




                          1




                          1




                          Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                          – Did
                          Nov 27 at 0:39




                          Bad habit, then. But since this is your post...
                          – Did
                          Nov 27 at 0:39










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          Making it more general, rewrite
                          $$a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}$$ as
                          $$a_{n + 1} =a_n- frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}=a_n-frac{a_n^2-2k}{2a_n}$$ and recognize the formula of Newton iterates for finding the zero of $f(x)=x^2-2k$.



                          This is the the so-called Babylonian method.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote













                            Making it more general, rewrite
                            $$a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}$$ as
                            $$a_{n + 1} =a_n- frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}=a_n-frac{a_n^2-2k}{2a_n}$$ and recognize the formula of Newton iterates for finding the zero of $f(x)=x^2-2k$.



                            This is the the so-called Babylonian method.






                            share|cite|improve this answer























                              up vote
                              1
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              1
                              down vote









                              Making it more general, rewrite
                              $$a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}$$ as
                              $$a_{n + 1} =a_n- frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}=a_n-frac{a_n^2-2k}{2a_n}$$ and recognize the formula of Newton iterates for finding the zero of $f(x)=x^2-2k$.



                              This is the the so-called Babylonian method.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              Making it more general, rewrite
                              $$a_{n + 1} = frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}$$ as
                              $$a_{n + 1} =a_n- frac{a_{n}}{2} + frac{k}{a_{n}}=a_n-frac{a_n^2-2k}{2a_n}$$ and recognize the formula of Newton iterates for finding the zero of $f(x)=x^2-2k$.



                              This is the the so-called Babylonian method.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Nov 27 at 5:54









                              Claude Leibovici

                              118k1156131




                              118k1156131






















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  Here is an alternative elementary way.



                                  Note that for $x,ygeqslant 0$, by the AM-GM inequality (or simply noticing that $(sqrt{x}-sqrt{y})^2geqslant 0$),
                                  $$
                                  x+ygeqslant 2sqrt{xy}.
                                  $$

                                  One can easily show by induction that $a_ngeqslant 0$ for all $n$. So for all $n>1$
                                  $$
                                  a_{n+1}geqslant 2sqrt{frac{a_n}{2}cdotfrac{2}{a_n}}=2,
                                  $$

                                  and thus $a_ngeqslant 2$ for all $ngeqslant 1$.



                                  For monotonicity, simply note that $a_ngeq 2$ implies that
                                  $$
                                  frac{2}{a_n}leqslant 1,quad -frac{a_n}{2}leqslant -1,
                                  $$

                                  and thus
                                  $$
                                  a_{n+1}-a_n=frac{2}{a_n}-frac{a_n}{2}leqslant 1+(-1)=0.
                                  $$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    Here is an alternative elementary way.



                                    Note that for $x,ygeqslant 0$, by the AM-GM inequality (or simply noticing that $(sqrt{x}-sqrt{y})^2geqslant 0$),
                                    $$
                                    x+ygeqslant 2sqrt{xy}.
                                    $$

                                    One can easily show by induction that $a_ngeqslant 0$ for all $n$. So for all $n>1$
                                    $$
                                    a_{n+1}geqslant 2sqrt{frac{a_n}{2}cdotfrac{2}{a_n}}=2,
                                    $$

                                    and thus $a_ngeqslant 2$ for all $ngeqslant 1$.



                                    For monotonicity, simply note that $a_ngeq 2$ implies that
                                    $$
                                    frac{2}{a_n}leqslant 1,quad -frac{a_n}{2}leqslant -1,
                                    $$

                                    and thus
                                    $$
                                    a_{n+1}-a_n=frac{2}{a_n}-frac{a_n}{2}leqslant 1+(-1)=0.
                                    $$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer























                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      Here is an alternative elementary way.



                                      Note that for $x,ygeqslant 0$, by the AM-GM inequality (or simply noticing that $(sqrt{x}-sqrt{y})^2geqslant 0$),
                                      $$
                                      x+ygeqslant 2sqrt{xy}.
                                      $$

                                      One can easily show by induction that $a_ngeqslant 0$ for all $n$. So for all $n>1$
                                      $$
                                      a_{n+1}geqslant 2sqrt{frac{a_n}{2}cdotfrac{2}{a_n}}=2,
                                      $$

                                      and thus $a_ngeqslant 2$ for all $ngeqslant 1$.



                                      For monotonicity, simply note that $a_ngeq 2$ implies that
                                      $$
                                      frac{2}{a_n}leqslant 1,quad -frac{a_n}{2}leqslant -1,
                                      $$

                                      and thus
                                      $$
                                      a_{n+1}-a_n=frac{2}{a_n}-frac{a_n}{2}leqslant 1+(-1)=0.
                                      $$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      Here is an alternative elementary way.



                                      Note that for $x,ygeqslant 0$, by the AM-GM inequality (or simply noticing that $(sqrt{x}-sqrt{y})^2geqslant 0$),
                                      $$
                                      x+ygeqslant 2sqrt{xy}.
                                      $$

                                      One can easily show by induction that $a_ngeqslant 0$ for all $n$. So for all $n>1$
                                      $$
                                      a_{n+1}geqslant 2sqrt{frac{a_n}{2}cdotfrac{2}{a_n}}=2,
                                      $$

                                      and thus $a_ngeqslant 2$ for all $ngeqslant 1$.



                                      For monotonicity, simply note that $a_ngeq 2$ implies that
                                      $$
                                      frac{2}{a_n}leqslant 1,quad -frac{a_n}{2}leqslant -1,
                                      $$

                                      and thus
                                      $$
                                      a_{n+1}-a_n=frac{2}{a_n}-frac{a_n}{2}leqslant 1+(-1)=0.
                                      $$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 27 at 0:45









                                      user587192

                                      1,488112




                                      1,488112






















                                          up vote
                                          0
                                          down vote













                                          Note, that $color{blue}{a= 2}$ is a $color{blue}{mbox{fixpoint}}$ of the iteration as
                                          $$2 = frac{a}{2} + frac{2}{a} = 1+1$$



                                          AM-GM shows that for all members of the sequence we have
                                          $$frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} stackrel{AM-GM}{geq} 2$$



                                          Now, consider
                                          $$0 leq color{blue}{a_{n+1}-2} = frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} - 2 = frac{a_n -2}{2} - frac{a_n - 2}{a_n} = left( frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{a_n} right)(a_n - 2) color{blue}{stackrel{a_n geq 2}{leq} frac{1}{2} (a_n - 2)}$$
                                          It follows
                                          $$0 leq a_{n+1}-2 leq left( frac{1}{2}right)^n(a_1 - 2)stackrel{n to infty}{longrightarrow} 0 Rightarrow color{blue}{(a_n) mbox{ is convergent and } lim_{n to infty}a_n = 2}$$






                                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                                            up vote
                                            0
                                            down vote













                                            Note, that $color{blue}{a= 2}$ is a $color{blue}{mbox{fixpoint}}$ of the iteration as
                                            $$2 = frac{a}{2} + frac{2}{a} = 1+1$$



                                            AM-GM shows that for all members of the sequence we have
                                            $$frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} stackrel{AM-GM}{geq} 2$$



                                            Now, consider
                                            $$0 leq color{blue}{a_{n+1}-2} = frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} - 2 = frac{a_n -2}{2} - frac{a_n - 2}{a_n} = left( frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{a_n} right)(a_n - 2) color{blue}{stackrel{a_n geq 2}{leq} frac{1}{2} (a_n - 2)}$$
                                            It follows
                                            $$0 leq a_{n+1}-2 leq left( frac{1}{2}right)^n(a_1 - 2)stackrel{n to infty}{longrightarrow} 0 Rightarrow color{blue}{(a_n) mbox{ is convergent and } lim_{n to infty}a_n = 2}$$






                                            share|cite|improve this answer























                                              up vote
                                              0
                                              down vote










                                              up vote
                                              0
                                              down vote









                                              Note, that $color{blue}{a= 2}$ is a $color{blue}{mbox{fixpoint}}$ of the iteration as
                                              $$2 = frac{a}{2} + frac{2}{a} = 1+1$$



                                              AM-GM shows that for all members of the sequence we have
                                              $$frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} stackrel{AM-GM}{geq} 2$$



                                              Now, consider
                                              $$0 leq color{blue}{a_{n+1}-2} = frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} - 2 = frac{a_n -2}{2} - frac{a_n - 2}{a_n} = left( frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{a_n} right)(a_n - 2) color{blue}{stackrel{a_n geq 2}{leq} frac{1}{2} (a_n - 2)}$$
                                              It follows
                                              $$0 leq a_{n+1}-2 leq left( frac{1}{2}right)^n(a_1 - 2)stackrel{n to infty}{longrightarrow} 0 Rightarrow color{blue}{(a_n) mbox{ is convergent and } lim_{n to infty}a_n = 2}$$






                                              share|cite|improve this answer












                                              Note, that $color{blue}{a= 2}$ is a $color{blue}{mbox{fixpoint}}$ of the iteration as
                                              $$2 = frac{a}{2} + frac{2}{a} = 1+1$$



                                              AM-GM shows that for all members of the sequence we have
                                              $$frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} stackrel{AM-GM}{geq} 2$$



                                              Now, consider
                                              $$0 leq color{blue}{a_{n+1}-2} = frac{a_n}{2} + frac{2}{a_n} - 2 = frac{a_n -2}{2} - frac{a_n - 2}{a_n} = left( frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{a_n} right)(a_n - 2) color{blue}{stackrel{a_n geq 2}{leq} frac{1}{2} (a_n - 2)}$$
                                              It follows
                                              $$0 leq a_{n+1}-2 leq left( frac{1}{2}right)^n(a_1 - 2)stackrel{n to infty}{longrightarrow} 0 Rightarrow color{blue}{(a_n) mbox{ is convergent and } lim_{n to infty}a_n = 2}$$







                                              share|cite|improve this answer












                                              share|cite|improve this answer



                                              share|cite|improve this answer










                                              answered Nov 27 at 11:20









                                              trancelocation

                                              8,8601521




                                              8,8601521















                                                  Popular posts from this blog

                                                  Wiesbaden

                                                  Marschland

                                                  Dieringhausen