Let the sequence $\left( f_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ be given by $$ f_1 \colon= 1, \qquad f_2 \colon= 1, \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad f_n \colon= f_{n-1} + f_{n-2} \ \mbox{ for all } n \in \mathbb{N} \mbox{ such that } n > 2. $$ That is, $\left( f_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ is the famous Fibonacci sequence.
Now let the sequence $\left( x_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ be given by $$ x_n \colon= \frac{f_{n+1} }{f_n} \ \mbox{ for all } n \in \mathbb{N}. $$ Thus we have $$ x_1 = \frac{f_2}{f_1} = 1, $$ and $$ x_n = \frac{ f_n + f_{n-1} }{f_n} = 1 + \frac{f_{n-1}}{f_n} \ \mbox{ for all } n \in \mathbb{N} \mbox{ such that } n \geq 2. $$
Does the sequence $\left( x_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ converge in $\mathbb{R}$? If so, then what is $\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n$?
My Attempt:
First, we note that $$ f_1 = f_2 = 1, \ f_3 = f_2+ f_1 = 2, \ f_4 = f_3 + f_2 = 3, \ f_5 = f_4 + f_3 = 5, \ f_6 = f_5 + f_4 = 8, \\ f_7 = f_6 + f_5 = 13, \ f_8 = f_7 + f_6 = 21, \ f_9 = f_8 + f_7 = 34, \ f_{10} = f_9 + f_8 = 55. \\ f_{11} = f_{10} + f_9 = 89, \ f_{12} = f_{11} + f_{10} = 144, \ f_{13} = f_{12} + f_{11} = 233, \\ f_{14} = f_{13} + f_{12} = 377. $$ So $$ x_1 = \frac{f_2}{f_1} = 1, \ x_2 = \frac{f_3}{f_2} = 2, \ x_3 = \frac{f_4}{f_3} = \frac{3}{2}, \ x_4 = \frac{f_5}{f_4} = \frac{5}{3}, \ x_5 = \frac{f_6}{f_5} = \frac{8}{5}, \\ x_6 = \frac{f_7}{f_6} = \frac{13}{8}, \ x_7 = \frac{f_8}{f_7} = \frac{21}{13}, \ x_8 = \frac{f_9}{f_8} = \frac{34}{21}, \ x_9 = \frac{f_{10}}{f_9} = \frac{55}{34}, \ x_{10} = \frac{f_{11}}{f_{10}} = \frac{89}{55}, \\ x_{11} = \frac{f_{12}}{f_{11}} = \frac{144}{89}, \ x_{12} = \frac{f_{13}}{f_{12}} = \frac{233}{144}, \ x_{13} = \frac{f_{14}}{f_{13}} = \frac{377}{233}. $$
From these calculations we notice that $$ x_1 < x_3 < x_5 < x_7 < x_9 < x_{11} < x_{13} < 2, $$ and $$ x_2 > x_4 > x_6 > x_8 > x_{10} > x_{12} > 0. $$
How to proceed from here? How to show that $$ x_{2n-1} < x_{2n+1} \ \mbox{ and } \ x_{2n} > x_{2n+2} \ \mbox{ for all } n \in \mathbb{N}?$$
And, how to show that the subsequence $\left( x_{2n-1} \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ of $\left(x_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded above?
Can we treat it as obvious that the subsequence $\left( x_{2n} \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ of $\left( x_n \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ is bounded from below by $0$?
Once we have shown that the subsequence $\left( x_{2n-1} \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ is increasing and bounded from above, then let us put $$ x^\prime \colon= \lim_{n \to \infty} x_{2n-1}. $$
And, once we have shown that the subsequence $\left( x_{2n} \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N} }$ is decreasing and bounded from below, then let us put $$ x^* \colon= \lim_{n \to \infty} x_{2n}. $$
How to proceed from here? Can we show that $x^{\prime} = x^*$? And, once we have shown this, then how to find $\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n$?