Use iteration to make an educated guess at an explicit formula

In summary, the sequence {en} is defined recursively as e0 = 3; ek = 4ek-1 + 7, for all k ≥ 1. The attempt at a solution found that e1 = 4 x e0 + 7, e2 = 4 x e1+7, and e3 = 4 x e2+7. The sum of n terms of a geometric series that begins like this: ##4^2, 4^3, 4^4,...4^{n+1}## is (4(n-1)-1) / 3.
  • #1
Topgun_68
34
0
Homework Statement

The sequence {en} is defined recursively as e0 = 3; ek = 4ek-1 + 7, for all k ≥ 1. Use iteration to make an educated guess at an explicit formula for the sequence.

The attempt at a solution

I spent all day on this one and I'm still lost.

e1 = 4 x e0 + 7
= 4 x 3 + 7 {since e0 = 3}
= 19

e2 = 4 x e1 + 7
= 4 x 19 + 7 {since e1 = 19}
= 83

e3 = 4 x e2 + 7
= 4 x 83 + 7 {since e2 = 83
= 339

I came up with this, and it looks like a geometric sequence, but I can't figure out how to create the formula using the using Theorem 5.2.3 {Sum of a Geometric Sequence}

3 + 42 + 43 + 44 ... 4n+1

Thanks for any guidance!]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Topgun_68 said:
Homework Statement

The sequence {en} is defined recursively as e0 = 3; ek = 4ek-1 + 7, for all k ≥ 1. Use iteration to make an educated guess at an explicit formula for the sequence.

The attempt at a solution

I spent all day on this one and I'm still lost.

e1 = 4 x e0 + 7
= 4 x 3 + 7 {since e0 = 3}
= 19

e2 = 4 x e1 + 7
= 4 x 19 + 7 {since e1 = 19}
= 83

e3 = 4 x e2 + 7
= 4 x 83 + 7 {since e2 = 83
= 339

I came up with this, and it looks like a geometric sequence, but I can't figure out how to create the formula using the using Theorem 5.2.3 {Sum of a Geometric Sequence}

3 + 42 + 43 + 44 ... 4n+1

Thanks for any guidance!]

Yup, you're on the right track. Remember that the geometric series only begins from ##4^2##, and you have to add that 3 on to any sum you get (the "3" is not part of the geometric series).

What's the sum of n terms of a geometric series that begins like this: ##4^2, 4^3, 4^4,...4^{n+1}##? (that's actually n terms)
 
  • #3
Would it be (4(n-1)-1) / 3

Can't get superscript & frac to work at the same time :confused:
Curious3141 said:
Yup, you're on the right track. Remember that the geometric series only begins from ##4^2##, and you have to add that 3 on to any sum you get (the "3" is not part of the geometric series).

What's the sum of n terms of a geometric series that begins like this: ##4^2, 4^3, 4^4,...4^{n+1}##? (that's actually n terms)
 
  • #4
Topgun_68 said:
Would it be (4(n-1)-1) / 3

Can't get superscript & frac to work at the same time :confused:

You're missing a factor of 16 there, and your exponent is off by one). The geometric series starts with ##4^2 = 16##, so its sum to n terms is ##\displaystyle \frac{4^2(4^n-1)}{3}##. All you have to do now is to add 3 to that expression and simplify it to get a neater expression and just verify that the expression works for a few terms. I think you can stop there for the purposes of this question, but to be rigorous, you should prove that expression by induction.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Thanks for the help. I simplified it to this:

##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{n+2}-7)}{3}##

I never realized their was so many ways that I could represent the same equation. The next part of my question is to prove it using mathematical induction so I want to make sure I have the simplest formula to do so. Let me know if their is a simpliar formula to prove it but I am working on this now. Thanks again for everyones help!


Curious3141 said:
You're missing a factor of 16 there, and your exponent is off by one). The geometric series starts with ##4^2 = 16##, so its sum to n terms is ##\displaystyle \frac{4^2(4^n-1)}{3}##. All you have to do now is to add 3 to that expression and simplify it to get a neater expression and just verify that the expression works for a few terms. I think you can stop there for the purposes of this question, but to be rigorous, you should prove that expression by induction.
 
  • #6
Topgun_68 said:
Thanks for the help. I simplified it to this:

##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{n+2}-7)}{3}##

I never realized their was so many ways that I could represent the same equation. The next part of my question is to prove it using mathematical induction so I want to make sure I have the simplest formula to do so. Let me know if their is a simpliar formula to prove it but I am working on this now. Thanks again for everyones help!

That's pretty much the simplest formula, and it's very easy to do the inductive step using that formula.
 
  • #7
Sorry to bring this post back up, but I'm not finding it so easy to do the inductive step. Can you or someone else let me know what I'm doing wrong.

A: (Basic Step)

Prove for n = 0:

e0= ##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{0+2}-7)}{3}## = 3 (Initital condition)

B: Assume n = k

ek= ##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{3}## for some integer k

C: Prove for n = k+1

e(k+1) = 4e(k+1)-1 + 7

e(k+1) = 4ek + 7

e(k+1) = ##\displaystyle 4 \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{(3)}## +7 (replaced k by the Inductive Hypothesis)

##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{k+3}-28)}{(3)}##

I can't seem to get it back to the explicit equation to complete the proof.

Curious3141 said:
That's pretty much the simplest formula, and it's very easy to do the inductive step using that formula.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Topgun_68 said:
Sorry to bring this post back up, but I'm not finding it so easy to do the inductive step. Can you or someone else let me know what I'm doing wrong.

A: (Basic Step)

Prove for n = 0:

e0= ##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{0+2}-7)}{3}## = 3 (Initital condition)

B: Assume n = k

ek= ##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{3}## for some integer k

C: Prove for n = k+1

e(k+1) = 4e(k+1)-1 + 7

e(k+1) = 4ek + 7

e(k+1) = ##\displaystyle 4 \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{(3)}## +7 (replaced k by the Inductive Hypothesis)

##\displaystyle \frac{(4^{k+3}-28)}{(3)}##

I can't seem to get it back to the explicit equation to complete the proof.

e(k+1) = ##\displaystyle 4 \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{3}## +7 (replaced k by the Inductive Hypothesis)

Right up to here. (I removed the brackets around the denominator 3, because you don't have to keep putting them there).

The next line should be ##\displaystyle \frac{4^{k+3}-28}{3} + 7## (you're missing the "plus 7" in yours).

Now express ##7 = \frac{21}{3}##, and sum it into that expression with the same denominator (3). Simplify.
 
  • #9
Dam, I forgot to drop the +7 down on my notes. Either way I didn't even think to express +7 as

[itex]\frac{21}{3}[/itex] . I keep learning something new every time I post to these forums.

Thanks Everyone!


Curious3141 said:
e(k+1) = ##\displaystyle 4 \frac{(4^{k+2}-7)}{3}## +7 (replaced k by the Inductive Hypothesis)

Right up to here. (I removed the brackets around the denominator 3, because you don't have to keep putting them there).

The next line should be ##\displaystyle \frac{4^{k+3}-28}{3} + 7## (you're missing the "plus 7" in yours).

Now express ##7 = \frac{21}{3}##, and sum it into that expression with the same denominator (3). Simplify.
 
  • #10
Topgun_68 said:
Thanks Everyone!

"Everyone" says "You're welcome". :biggrin:
 
  • #11
Ha, I thought someone else posted in here too, but that was a different thread. Thanks to just you! Everyone else who will learn from this thread thanks you too! :approve:

Curious3141 said:
"Everyone" says "You're welcome". :biggrin:
 

Related to Use iteration to make an educated guess at an explicit formula

1. What is iteration and how is it used to make an educated guess at an explicit formula?

Iteration is the process of repeatedly performing a set of steps in order to reach a desired result. In mathematics, it can be used to make an educated guess at an explicit formula by starting with an initial guess and then refining it through a series of repeated calculations until the desired accuracy is achieved.

2. What are the benefits of using iteration to find an explicit formula?

Using iteration allows for a more efficient and accurate way to find an explicit formula compared to trial and error. It also allows for the ability to adjust the initial guess and continue refining until the desired accuracy is reached.

3. Can iteration be used to find an explicit formula for any mathematical problem?

Yes, iteration can be used for a wide range of mathematical problems, including finding explicit formulas. However, it may not always be the most efficient method and other approaches may be more appropriate depending on the problem.

4. How do you know when an explicit formula found through iteration is accurate enough?

The accuracy of an explicit formula found through iteration can be determined by comparing it to data points or known values. If the formula produces results that closely match the data or known values, it can be considered accurate enough.

5. Are there any limitations or challenges when using iteration to find an explicit formula?

Some limitations and challenges when using iteration to find an explicit formula may include the need for a good initial guess, the possibility of getting stuck in a loop, and the amount of time and computational power required for complex problems.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
423
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
762
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top