5

Let $\{a_n\}$ be a sequence defined recursively by $a_1=1,a_{n+1}=a_n^2+6$, find an explicit formula for $a_n$.

I tried some of the usual mathods but none of them led to a solution. It seems that there just isn't such a formula (with only elementary functions). So is there? If there isn't, how do you prove that there isn't such a formula?

Yuxiao Xie
  • 8,536

3 Answers3

5

There isn't any such formula [EDIT: for arbitrary choice of $a_0$]. In fact, that's the starting point of a field called discrete dynamics where you try to understand qualitatively the behaviour of sequences defined by induction. We study them qualitatively because there is no explicit formula in general. The sequences of the form $z_{n+1}=z_n^2+c$ where $c$ is a constant are especially studied as they are the simplest ones for which there is no explicit formula (except when $c=0$, obviously, or when $c=-2$ because then you have a Chebyshev polynomial and you can use a clever trick). Google Mandelbrot set to learn more.

In your case ($c=6$), what happens is that for every $z_0$ outside of a Cantor set (which is closed set with empty interior) the sequence goes to infinity quite fast, as noted in the other answers (with a speed of order $G(z_0)^{2^n}$ for some constant $G(z_0)>1$ depending on $z_0$.)

For $z_0$ in that Cantor set (google Julia set), the sequence remains bounded.

Albert
  • 9,170
  • 1
    "There isn't any such formula": unless you allow the floor function. –  Sep 08 '16 at 10:04
  • oops, did not see that op asked for the specific value $a_0=1$ – Albert Sep 08 '16 at 10:06
  • "There isn't any such formula" or is it "there isn't such formula with elementary functions only"? And how do you prove that there isn't any such formula? – Yuxiao Xie Sep 08 '16 at 10:45
  • @YuxiaoXie there isn't any useful formula that would give $z_n$ as a function of $z_0$ and $n$. by useful I mean something that you could compute in a more efficient way than using the induction. notice that Yve Daoust's clever trick (which is very nice) only works if you know that the sequence escapes to infinity. there is no easy way to know that for an arbitrary $z_0 \in \mathbb C$. I couldn't give you a proof of all this though – Albert Sep 08 '16 at 12:06
5

This is much too long to fit into the comment section beneath Yves Daoust's answer:


Define $\{c_n\}$ by $c_n^{2^{n-1}}=a_n$. Then we have $c=\lim_{n\to\infty}c_n$ and $$ c_{n+1}^{2^n}=a_{n+1}=a_n^2+6=a_n^2\left(1+\tfrac 6{a_n^2}\right) $$ and so $$ \begin{align} 2^n\log(c_{n+1})&=2\log(a_n)+\log(1+6/a_n^2)\\ &=2^n\log(c_n)+\log(1+6/a_n^2) \end{align} $$ therefore $$ \log(c_{n+1})=\log(c_n)+\frac1{2^n}\cdot\log(1+6/a_n^2)\leq\log(c_n)+\frac{6}{2^n\cdot a_n^2} $$ and inductively we see that $$ \begin{align} \log(c)&\leq\log(c_n)+\sum_{k=n}^\infty\frac{6}{2^k\cdot a_k^2}\\ &\leq\log(c_n)+\frac6{a_n^2}\sum_{k=n}^\infty\frac{1}{2^k}\\ &=\log(c_n)+\frac{6}{2^{n-1}\cdot a_n^2} \end{align} $$ and we know that $a_n=\left\lfloor c^{2^{n-1}}\right\rfloor$ will work if and only if $$ a_n\leq c^{2^{n-1}}< a_n+1 $$ We already know that $c>c_n$ so the first inequality holds. The second is equivalent to $2^{n-1}\log(c)<\log(a_n+1)$. Since $a_n+1=a_n(1+1/a_n)$ and $c_n^{2^{n-1}}=a_n$ the latter can be rewritten as $$ \log(a_n+1)=2^{n-1}\log(c_n)+\log(1+1/a_n) $$ and after dividing by $2^{n-1}$ the inequality becomes $$ \log(c)<\log(c_n)+\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\cdot\log(1+1/a_n) $$ Furthermore we have the first order Taylor approximation $\log(1+x)\approx x$ which is quite accurate for small values of $x$ and already for $x\leq1/a_2=1/7$ we get $\log(1+x)>\frac67x$ and thus for $a_n\geq 7$ $$ \begin{align} \log(c)&\leq\log(c_n)+\frac{6}{2^{n-1}\cdot a_n^2}\\ &\leq\log(c_n)+\frac{6}{2^{n-1}\cdot 7a_n}\\ &<\log(c_n)+\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\cdot\log(1+1/a_n) \end{align} $$ as desired.


BTW this analysis is easily generalized to $a_{n+1}=a_n^2+b$ for positive numbers other than $b=6$, namely using the same definition of $c_n,c$ then for $a_n\geq b+1$ we have $a_n=\left\lfloor c^{2^{n-1}}\right\rfloor$.

One huge drawback of this method in it's current form, is that it requires one to already compute $a_n$ in order to approximate $c$ well enough to be able to compute $a_n$ with it. That could potentially be fixed by using some analysis like the one I gave above to speed up the convergence $c_n\to c$.

String
  • 18,395
4

Hint:

$a_n$ grows quickly, so that after a few iterations the term $6$ becomes neglectible and you have

$$a_{n+1}\approx a_n^2$$ of which the solution is

$$a_n=c^{2^n}.$$

The value of $c$ can be determined as the limit of $\sqrt[2^n]{a_n}$ of which here are the first values

$$1,\\ \sqrt7=2.645751\cdots\\ \sqrt[4]{55}=2.723270\cdots\\ \sqrt[8]{3031}=2.723944\cdots\\ \sqrt[16]{9186967}=2.723945\dots\\ $$

  • 2
    I'm not sure in what sense this is a "hint"...you have nicely described the approximate behavior of the sequence, but it is unclear what further work you are intending to "hint" at. And you have said nothing at all about whether it is possible to get an explicit formula, which is what the question actually is asking. – Eric Wofsey Sep 08 '16 at 09:14
  • @EricWofsey: what is a better word than "hint", then ? –  Sep 08 '16 at 09:19
  • 4
    $\displaystyle a_n=\left\lfloor c^{2^{n-1}}\right\rfloor$ is indeed exact for $n>1$ at least with an "accurate enough" value of $c$ (obtained to the required precision with the suggested process). – Raymond Manzoni Sep 08 '16 at 09:44
  • Wow, this is brilliant, though not the thing I intended. It is really inspiring to have the formula as the integer part of a power of a (perhaps) irrational number. Thanks! – Yuxiao Xie Sep 08 '16 at 09:57
  • @YuxiaoXie: this also occurs with the Fibonacci numbers in terms of the Golden ratio, in a variant of Binet's formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Computation_by_rounding –  Sep 08 '16 at 10:00
  • I didn't know that then. Thanks for your informative answer! – Yuxiao Xie Sep 08 '16 at 10:02
  • 4
    @RaymondManzoni: I actually didn't notice that the error was always smaller then one. It seems that my hint was "hintful", after all. The next step would be a proof. –  Sep 08 '16 at 10:07
  • @RaymondManzoni Well, how do you prove that the error must be smaller than one? – Yuxiao Xie Sep 08 '16 at 10:18
  • @YuxiaoXie: the main step is to prove that the error is positive and decreasing. –  Sep 08 '16 at 10:24
  • @YuxiaoXie: I should have written "appears indeed exact". Perhaps that String's answer will help more, – Raymond Manzoni Sep 08 '16 at 11:34
  • @RaymondManzoni: you are right, I shifted the indexes by $1$. I'll let it like it is to leave the downvoters an alibi. –  Sep 08 '16 at 12:48