9

$$x = \sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n}} \cdots}$$

I see that:

$$x = \sqrt{nx}$$

$$x^2 -nx = 0$$

Them:

$$x(x - n) = 0 \implies x \in \{0, n\}$$

How should I reject the $x = 0$ solution? (any level proof is fine, analysis, calculus etc...)

beep-boop
  • 11,595
Ama
  • 491
  • @AvZ, how is this possibly a duplicate? I am shocked... – Ama Feb 07 '15 at 15:53
  • I am not (shocked), changing some constant which doesn't effect the way a question is solved still counts as a duplicate. E.g the method using which you prove $\sqrt 2$ is irrational is essentially the same as in proving $\sqrt 3$ is irrational. – AvZ Feb 07 '15 at 15:57
  • @Ama Duplicated doesn't mean you asked the same thing twice but rather that the question, or something very close to, already was asked in the past. – Timbuc Feb 07 '15 at 16:04

4 Answers4

8

Define

$$x_m:=\overbrace{\sqrt{n\sqrt {n\ldots\sqrt n}}}^{m\;\text{times}}\;\;,\;\;\;\;m,n\in\Bbb N$$

then

$$x_m\le x_{m+1}\iff x_m\le\sqrt{nx_m}\iff x_m^2\le nx_m\iff x_m(x_m-n)\le0\iff x_m\le n$$

The last inequality can be proved by induction:

$$x_1=\sqrt n\le n\;\;\;\color{green}\checkmark$$

$$x_m=\sqrt{nx_{m-1}}\stackrel{\text{Ind. Hyp.}}\le\sqrt{nn}=n$$

We get thus that the sequence $\;\{x_m\}_{m\in\Bbb N}\;$ is monotonic increasing , and thus it converges (in the wide sense) to its supremum $\;\alpha\;$ (and we can already forget of zero), which is finite by the above, and then using arithmetic of limits:

$$\alpha\xleftarrow[m\to\infty]{} x_m=\sqrt{nx_{m-1}}\xrightarrow[m\to\infty]{}\sqrt{n\alpha}\implies \alpha^2=n\alpha\implies\alpha=n$$

Timbuc
  • 34,191
  • 3
    I did not know that you can make a checkmark like that. $\checkmark$. Wow! – Faraz Masroor Feb 06 '15 at 22:41
  • 1
    $\color{green}\checkmark$ – Answer Feb 07 '15 at 00:34
  • 1
    This answer arbitrarily chooses a plug for the undefined infinite expression in the question. Therefore it does not really address the question at all. The answer by Meelo does address this point. – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 07 '15 at 13:34
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen I don't really understand the expression "choose a plug for", and I think it definitely does address the question at all as it is explicitly shown, and even said, that $;0;$ is not an option since the defined sequence is monotone increasing and positive. – Timbuc Feb 07 '15 at 13:40
  • 2
    Your "plug" is to arbitrarily choose to replace in internal (infinite) square root expression by the value $1$. There is no reason for that choice, replacing it by $0$ would be, from a general point of view of view, an equally valid choice. Except that it breaks you argument. And it makes you sequence neither positive nor increasing. – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 07 '15 at 13:47
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen Sorry but I can't understand what you say: where did I replace what by $;1;$ ?? I just define a sequence trying to make sense of an infinite expression which otherwise would be senseless. My point, possible mistakes commited by me aside, is to prove my sequence has a finite limit and thus provide to the given expression a definite meaning that'll make sense. Reading Meelo's answer, he's done something very similar, if not identical in its meaning, to what I did. And my sequence is trivially positive, of course. – Timbuc Feb 07 '15 at 13:53
  • 2
    Yes, you replaced the given question by a different question, yours, and answered your question. That is what I mean by "does not really address the question at all". This is not normally what we do in this site, at least not without clearly announcing it ("I will answer the following more general/slightly different question"). OP was asking about the validity of a $x=0$ and in the actual question there is nothing wrong with that solution at all. But there was something wrong with the question. See my answer. – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 07 '15 at 14:14
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen I completely disagree with you: I didn't replace the OP's question with no question of mine. I approached the OP's question with a way of my own which by all means, as far as I can see and you haven't proved otherwise, addresses and answers it. The OP asking whether $;x=0,n;$ or $;x;=$ a bird doesn't make sense if first we don't make sense of an infinite expression as the question shows, and this is what my answer, first of all, addresses, defining a sequence and showing that we can think of the OP's $;x;$ as this sequence's limit. I sincerly don't understand... – Timbuc Feb 07 '15 at 15:48
  • [cont.] your stand on this, and I also can't see anything helpful in your answer for the OP's actual question. – Timbuc Feb 07 '15 at 15:49
  • @Timbuc MarcvanLeeuwen is correct. You tacitly turned the problem around (inside to outside, basically). Check the ensuing answer. It provides clarity to this, evidently confusing to some, issue. – Mark Viola Mar 13 '15 at 14:19
  • @Dr.MV I beg to difer with you, and I won't continue with this. Thank you. – Timbuc Mar 13 '15 at 15:45
  • @Timbuc Apology if this offended you. I was only trying to help you understand. – Mark Viola Mar 13 '15 at 15:51
4

One thing I like to think about is that this is essentially iterating the function $$f(x)=\sqrt{nx}$$ and trying to ask what the value of $f^{\infty}$ is. This isn't a particularly well-defined notion, however, we can make it one by defining $$f^{\infty}(x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f^n(x).$$ Now, it's obvious that $f^{\infty}(x)$ must be a fixed point of $f$ if it exists - and you've proven that $0$ and $n$ are the only fixed points. Moreover, notice that, for $0<x<n$ we have $0<x<f(x)<n$, meaning that $f^n(x)$ is an increasing sequence, bounded above, and thus has a limit. Since it is always positive, that limit is positive, and the only positive fixed point is $n$. Similarly, we have that if $n<x$, then $n<f(x)<x$, thus $f^n(x)$ would be a decreasing sequence, bounded below by $n$ and hence, by a similar argument, converges to $n$. So, we can say for any $x>0$ that $f^{\infty}(x)=n$. This is a compelling reason to say that the expression: $$\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\ddots}}}$$ is actually $n$. So, unless we have a zero, hidden under those infinitely many radicals and canceling everything (note $f^{\infty}(0)=0$), the limit of the relevant sequence is $n$.

However, notice an important point here that the limit of iterating does depend on initial conditions (even if we might prefer to start iterating with $x>0$), so when we ask for a value like $f(f(f(\ldots)))$, we have to be somewhat careful. That is, we sort of have to imagine that we actually are looking at an expression like: $$\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\ddots x}}}$$ where the $x$ comes within infinitely many radicals and actually influences things. Here, it's rather trivial, but it can lead to strange questions otherwise.

Milo Brandt
  • 60,888
1

You should not reject the solution $x=0$. On the other hand you should reject the question. Infinite expressions are meaningless in general, and can only sometimes be accepted if they can unambiguously translated into a limit expression (which is then subject to usual considerations of convergence).

Infinite expressions with ellipses "inside", like the one in the question, cannot be transformed unambiguously into limits, since all they suggest is an operation to iterate, but not the starting value. The expression in the question just suggests iteration of the function $x\mapsto \sqrt{nx}$, but says nothing about a starting point of this iteration; if there were such a starting point it would be at the end of the infinite nesting, but as we all know there is no such thing as the end of an infinite sequence (etymologically, "infinite" means without end, or bound). So the expression is asking to iterate that function indefinitely without starting anywhere. It turns out that if one starts at $0$ one remains there; if one starts in a positive number one converges to$~n$ (provided that $n\geq0$, which was however not given in the question), and if one starts in a negative number one runs into trouble right away. The only objective reason to prefer the second option is the cozy feeling that convergence on a large open set of starting values procures us. If one would take $n<0$, a similar argument would lead to preferring the first option, just to avoid trouble.

Note that the situation would be different if the ellipses were on the outside, as in $$\ldots \sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\times5}}}},$$ as now it would more or less clear that you are asking about $\lim_{k\to\infty}f^k(5)$ where $f:x\mapsto\sqrt{nx}$.

  • 1
    I would disagree, why should I reject the question? It is not saying to not start anywhere? $x = \sqrt{nx} = \sqrt{n\sqrt{nx}\cdots}$ – Ama Feb 07 '15 at 15:57
  • @Ama: What do you mean by that? You don't know $x$, you don't know $\sqrt{nx}$, nor $\sqrt{n\sqrt{nx}}$, so you just got a bunch of undefined stuff. Unless you choose an initial value, which the given expression tells you nothing about (I would choose $x=0$, but that is just personal preference). And probably $x\ne\sqrt{nx}\ne\sqrt{n\sqrt{nx}}$. But more fundamentally, what you suggest to be doing is starting at the wrong end to evaluate the expression, namely at the outside; evaluation starts at the inside. If the expression were $\sqrt{1\sqrt{2\sqrt{3\cdots}}}$ instead, what would you do? – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 08 '15 at 06:24
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen I love it! Finally, someone has the courage to put a stop to the "hand-waving" nonsense that exists on topics such as this. You provided both a context for the reason that the "way" in which the question was asked was ill-posed AND a way to explain that $0$ is indeed a possible fixed point (when the IC is $0$). I don't understand why your response wasn't well-received by all. But, it is well-received here!!! – Mark Viola Mar 13 '15 at 14:06
-5

Assuming that $x=0$ is also a solution with $n \neq 0$. Then you would have the relation $0 = \sqrt{n \sqrt{n \sqrt {n ...}}}$. Now one can take the square on both sides and it follows that either $n$ is zero or the iterated square root is zero. When $n=0$ you are done; else you continue proving the rejection of 0 by squaring again on both sides and compare solutions. Since this procedure is repeadet infinitely many, one concludes that $n=0$ which is a contradiction.

kryomaxim
  • 2,882
  • 2
    I don't understand. If $0 = \sqrt{n \sqrt{n \sqrt {n ...}}}$, then squaring both sides gives $0 = n \sqrt{n \sqrt {n ...}} = n\cdot 0 = 0$. Where's the contradiction? – TonyK Feb 06 '15 at 17:55
  • 1
    note that : squaring may cause unwanted root(s) ;for example $$x=-1$$ by squaring ,we have $$x^2=1$$ and by solving again : $$x^2=1 \rightarrow x=\pm1$$ – Khosrotash Feb 06 '15 at 19:04
  • 5
    I think this is simply invalid reasoning - I don't really see any way to make it rigorous, either. – Jack M Feb 06 '15 at 20:07
  • I agree with @JackM. To be more specific, the last sentence of the answer, "Since this procedure is [repeated] infinitely many [times], one concludes that $n=0$ which is a contradiction," is a non sequitur. – Andreas Blass Feb 07 '15 at 02:25