Proving Conjectures About the Binet Formula for Q(\sqrt{k})

  • Thread starter dodo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Conjecture
In summary, the conversation discusses the Binet formula and its application to recurrence sequences. Two conjectures are presented, with the first stating that the formula only produces integers when k is congruent to 1 modulo 4, and the second stating that when this condition is met, the formula is the closed-form solution for a specific recurrence sequence. The conversation also mentions a generalised Binet formula for recurrence relations and provides a reference for further reading on the topic.
  • #1
dodo
697
2
Let [tex]Q(\sqrt{k})[/tex], for some positive integer k, be the extension of the field of rationals with basis [tex](1, \sqrt{k})[/tex]. For example, in [tex]Q(\sqrt{5})[/tex] the element [tex]({1 \over 2}, {1 \over 2})[/tex] is the golden ratio = [tex]{1 \over 2} + {1 \over 2}\sqrt{5}[/tex].

Given an extension [tex]Q(\sqrt{k})[/tex], let [tex]B(n)[/tex] denote the 'Binet formula',
[tex]B(n) = {{p^n - (1-p)^n} \over \sqrt k}[/tex], n = 0, 1, 2, ...​
where [tex]p = ({1 \over 2}, {1 \over 2})[/tex].

Conj. 1: [tex]B(n)[/tex] produces only integers, iif [tex]k \equiv 1 \ ("mod" \ 4)[/tex].

Conj. 2: When [tex]k \equiv 1 \ ("mod" \ 4)[/tex], [tex]B(n)[/tex] is the closed-form formula for the recurrence sequence
[tex]x_n = x_{n-1} + A \; x_{n-2}[/tex], n = 2, 3, 4, ...​
[tex]x_0 = 0, \ \ x_1 = 1[/tex]​
with [tex]A = {{k - 1} \over 4}[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Isn't the second conjecture a straightforward exercise? And you don't even have to bother solving the ordinary linear difference equation: you already know the (putative) solution! (Why do you have the congruence condition on k for conjecture 2?)

And isn't conjecture 1 a trivial consequence of conjecture 2?


I suppose one thing might help to see conjecture 2: if it's right, then [itex]p^n[/itex] and [itex](1-p)^n[/itex] would be a basis for the solution space to the unconstrained version of your difference equation.
 
  • #3
I'm not sure I follow. (And in any case it's not trivial to me.) :D

As I see it, the first conjecture is a necessary previous step, for the second to be applicable. Possibly because I was interested in recurrence sequences returning only integers and with A = 1, 2, 3, ..., and frankly did not pay attention to the fact that B(n) could in fact be also the closed form for rational values of A and rational-producing sequences.

I'll try to digest what you're saying.
 
  • #4
There is a generalised Binet formula for the recurrence relation G(n) = aG(n-1) + bG(n-2), which explains much more than the problem raised.
The system does not allow me to post URLs to other sites as I have made less than 15 posts(why ?), but googling "generalised fibonacci" helps, and I also give a "traditional" reference:
Vella, A. and Vella, D. (2006) Calculating exact cycle lengths in the generalised Fibonacci sequence modulo p. Math. Gaz. 90 (available on the internet).
 

Related to Proving Conjectures About the Binet Formula for Q(\sqrt{k})

1. What is "The dumb conjecture of the day"?

"The dumb conjecture of the day" is a phrase used to describe a theory or hypothesis that has little to no scientific evidence or logical reasoning to support it. It is often used humorously to point out ridiculous or absurd ideas.

2. How is "The dumb conjecture of the day" different from a scientific theory?

Unlike a scientific theory, "The dumb conjecture of the day" has no basis in scientific evidence or experimentation. It is often based on personal opinions or beliefs rather than facts and data.

3. Why do people come up with "The dumb conjecture of the day"?

People may come up with "The dumb conjecture of the day" as a way to express their creativity or sense of humor. It may also be a way for them to challenge conventional thinking and spark discussion.

4. Is there any value in considering "The dumb conjecture of the day"?

While "The dumb conjecture of the day" may not have any scientific merit, it can still serve as a source of entertainment and thought-provoking ideas. It can also serve as a reminder to critically evaluate information and not believe everything we hear.

5. How can we distinguish between "The dumb conjecture of the day" and legitimate scientific theories?

Legitimate scientific theories are supported by empirical evidence and have undergone rigorous testing and peer-review. They are also subject to revision or rejection based on new evidence. "The dumb conjecture of the day" lacks this scientific process and should not be taken seriously as a legitimate theory.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
691
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
616
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top