0

I'm quite familiar with the procedure of, say, given a recurrence relation $f_n = a\times f_{n-1} + b\times f_{n-2}$, finding the general closed formula for the function $f_n$. The technique I'm familiar with is to algebraically rephrase the inital equation as $f_n - a\times f_{n-1} - b\times f_{n-2} = 0$, formulaically identify the characteristic equation to be $x^2 - ax - b = 0$, and solve for the characteristic roots, say, $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. After this, we finally acquire the general closed formula $a_n = a\times (\theta_1)^n + b \times (\theta_2)^n$; given the inital conditions we can then solve for $a$,$b$. However, I do not completely understand the reasoning of this method provided in my textbook. The author, after expressing the first-most equation as $f_n = a\times f_{n-1} + b\times f_{n-2}$, asks of us to assume that $a_n = r^n$. I understand the remaining procedure after this assumption; But I can hardly see how it is appropriate to assume such a claim. How is it justified that we may simply assume that $a_n = r^n$? Thank you in advance.

Camelot823
  • 1,407

0 Answers0