19

I would like a hint for the following, more specifically, what strategy or approach should I take to prove the following?

Problem: Let $P \geq 2$ be an integer. Define the recurrence $$p_n = p_{n-1} + \left\lfloor \frac{p_{n-4}}{2} \right\rfloor$$ with initial conditions: $$p_0 = P + \left\lfloor \frac{P}{2} \right\rfloor$$ $$p_1 = P + 2\left\lfloor \frac{P}{2} \right\rfloor$$ $$p_2 = P + 3\left\lfloor \frac{P}{2} \right\rfloor$$ $$p_3 = P + 4\left\lfloor \frac{P}{2} \right\rfloor$$

Prove that the following limit converges: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{p_n}{z^n}$$ where $z$ is the positive real solution to the equation $x^4 - x^3 - \frac{1}{2} = 0$.

Note: I've already proven the following: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{p_n}{p_{n-1}} = z$$ Any ideas? Not sure if this result helps. Also $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}p_n/z^n$ is also bounded above and below. I've attempted to show $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{p_n}{z^n}$ is Cauchy, but had no luck with that. I don't know what the limit converges to either.

Edit: I believe the limit should converge as $p_n$ achieves an end behaviour of the form $cz^n$ for $c \in \mathbb{R}$ (this comes from the fact that the limit of the ratios of $p_n$ converge to $z$), however I do not know how to make this rigorous.

Edit 2: Proving the limit exists is equivalent to showing $$p_0 \cdot \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( \frac{p_n/p_{n-1}}{z} \right)$$ converges.

UPDATED:

If someone could prove that $|p_n-z \cdot p_{n-1}|$ is bounded above (or converges, or diverges), then the proof is complete.

3 Answers3

2

Let us start with the solution of the homogeneous recurrence $$\phi_n = \phi_{n-1} + \frac{\phi_{n-4}}{2}$$ its characteristic equation is $$x^4 - x^3 - \frac{1}{2} = 0$$ this equations has $4$ solutions, two of them are complex and the other two are a negative and a positive real number. Their approximate values, as given by Mathematica, are: $$z_1=1.25372, \ \ z_2=-0.669107, \ \ z_3=0.207691 + 0.743573 i, \ \ z_4=0.207691 - 0.743573 i,$$ (in your answer you label $z$ the one labeled $z_1$ above). Notice that the positive real solution $z=z_1=1.25372$ is the one with the greatest magnitude among the $4$ solutions (actually, it is the only one whose magnitude exceeds $1$).

Now, the general solution to the homogeneous recurrence is: $$\phi_n=c_1z^n_1+c_2z^n_2+c_3z^n_3+c_4z^n_4$$ where $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4$ are constants to be determined from the initial conditions posed in your question. Since $z=z_1=1.25372$ has the greatest magnitude among the roots of the characteristic equation, the above general solution asymptotically (for $n$ large enough) tends to $c_1z^n$ i.e. $$\phi_n\sim c_1z^n$$ Consequently, $$\frac{\phi_n}{z^n}\sim c_1 \ \ \textrm{ i.e. } \ \ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\phi_n}{z^n}=c_1$$ where $c_1$ will be determined by the solution of the $4\times 4$ linear system of equations $$ \phi_i=c_1z^i_1+c_2z^i_2+c_3z^i_3+c_4z^i_4 $$ for $i=0,1,2,3$, $p_i$ given by the initial conditions posted in the question and $z_1=z,z_2,z_3,z_4$ the roots of the characteristic equation given above.

Let me now try to justify why the convergence of $\frac{\phi_n}{z^n}$ implies also the convergence of $\frac{p_n}{z^n}$. The recurrence $$p_n = p_{n-1} + \left\lfloor \frac{p_{n-4}}{2} \right\rfloor = p_{n-1} + \frac{p_{n-4}}{2} - \epsilon_n$$ differs from the homogeneous, by a bounded function $0\leq\epsilon_n< 1$ of $n$. Since we are dealing with linear recurrences, increasing sequences $p_n$, $\phi_n$ and we are interested in the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions, in the limit of large $n$, the two are essentially the same. The solutions $p_n$ and $\phi_n$ differ by a $O(1)$ special solution (of the posted, non-homogeneous recurrence): $$ p_n=\phi_n+O(1) \Rightarrow p_n\sim\phi_n\Rightarrow\frac{p_n}{z^n}\sim \frac{\phi_n}{z^n}\Rightarrow\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{p_n}{z^n}=c_1 $$ We can also see that the bigger the value of $P\geq 2$ (given in the initial conditions), the quicker $\frac{p_n}{z^n}$ converges.

P.S. Regarding the estimation that the general solutions $p_n$ and $ϕ_n$ of the respective recurrences, differ by a $O(1)$ special solution of the non-homogeneous, my argument is the following: when dealing with non-homogeneous linear recurrences with constant coefficients i.e. $$ p_n+c_1p_{n−1}+...+c_dp_{n−d}=h(n) $$ and $h(n)=const$, then it is customary to seek for a special solution to be a constant. Since here, the non-homogeneous factor is the bounded function $0\leq\epsilon_n< 1$, I guess that it is reasonable to conjecture that the corresponding special solution is $O(1)$.

KonKan
  • 7,572
  • I'm not all too convinced by your last paragraph. The particular solution to the inhomogeneous equation will not be $O(1)$. It will also be $\Theta(z^n)$. Its magnitude is enough to change the limit, as you've noted in the last sentence. So it's certainly plausible that the limit exists, but I don't believe you've proved that. – EuYu Mar 13 '16 at 01:00
  • I never said anything about establishing the value of the limit. My point is that $p_n/z^n$ and $\phi_n/z^n$ do not have the same asymptotic behavior, in the sense that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} p_n/\phi_n \neq 1$. So I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say the two have the same asymptotic behavior. – EuYu Mar 13 '16 at 01:29
  • What I mean by saying that the two have the same asymptotic behavior, is that $p_n=\phi_n+O(1)$. This drives to the conclusion that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{p_n}{z^n}=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\phi_n}{z^n}=c_1$$ However, if your claim that $p_n=\phi_n+O(z^n)$, is correct, the argument is still valid as to the convergence: $\frac{p_n}{z^n}$ is convergent. Only now, the limit will generally be different than $c_1$ (and it will be determind as you mentioned by the magnitude of the $O(z^n)$ function). – KonKan Mar 13 '16 at 04:45
  • @KonKan: Knowing that $p_n = \phi_n + O(z^n)$ doesn't guarantee that $p_n/z^n$ is convergent, just that it's bounded. For instance, what if it were $p_n = \phi_n + z^n \sin z$? – mjqxxxx Mar 14 '16 at 14:59
  • Hi @ mjqxxxx. Even if $p_n = \phi_n + z^n \sin z$, then $\frac{p_n}{z^n}$ would still be convergent. $z$ is a constant. Notice also, that since we are dealing with positive, increasing sequences $p_n$, $\phi_n$, "oscillating" terms like $\sin n$ are unlikely to appear in the special solution. – KonKan Mar 14 '16 at 16:12
  • However, this argument has nothing to do with the solution I have posted. It was only a comment refering to another user's claim. My argument in the proof, is that we are dealing with a $O(1)$ special solution and not a $O(z^n)$ one. – KonKan Mar 14 '16 at 16:22
1

Consider the vector $X_n = (p_n, p_{n-1}, p_{n-2}, p_{n-3})$. We have $$ \begin{eqnarray} X_{n+1} &=& (p_{n+1},p_n, p_{n-1},p_{n-2}) \\ &=& \left(p_n+\left\lfloor \frac{1}{2}p_{n-3}\right\rfloor, p_n, p_{n-1}, p_{n-2}\right) \\ &=& (p_n+ \frac{1}{2}p_{n-3}, p_n, p_{n-1}, p_{n-2}) - (\varepsilon_n, 0, 0, 0)\\ &=&\hat{M}\cdot X_{n} + \varepsilon_n E, \end{eqnarray} $$ where $|\varepsilon_n| < 1$, $E=(-1,0,0,0)$, and $$ \hat{M}=\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{matrix}\right). $$ Let $\lambda_{i=1,2,3,4}$ and $u_i$ be the eigenvalues and normalized eigenvectors of $\hat{M}$. Only $\lambda_1 = z \approx 1.25372$ has magnitude greater than $1$; the other eigenvalues have magnitudes strictly less than $1$. We can write $E=\sum_i e_i u_i$ for some fixed coefficients $e_i$. Now, writing $X_n=z^n \sum_i c_{i,n} u_i$, we have $$ z^{n+1}\sum_i c_{i,n+1}u_i = X_{n+1}=\hat{M}\cdot X_n + \varepsilon_n E = z^n \sum_i c_{i,n} \lambda_i u_i + \varepsilon_n \sum_i e_i u_i; $$ or simply $$ c_{i,n+1} = \left(\frac{\lambda_i}{z}\right) c_{i,n} + \frac{\varepsilon_n e_i}{z^{n+1}}. $$ Because $|\varepsilon_n|$ is bounded, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}c_{i,n}$ exists for each $i$ (and is zero for $i\neq 1$). Therefore $X_n / z^n=\sum_i c_{i,n}u_i$ has a limit, as does its first component, $p_n/z^n$.

mjqxxxx
  • 43,344
  • If I correctly understand what you are doing, you are substituting the general solution of the homogeneous recurrence (i.e. without the floor function), into the inhomogeneous (the one posted). However, in this way, you do not get the general solution of the inhomogeneous (a special solution of the inhomogeneous should also be added to the general solution of the homogeneous). So -unless I am missing something- what you are proving is the convergence of $\frac{p_n}{z^n}$ where $p_n$ is the solution to the homogeneous equation and not to the one posted. – KonKan Mar 13 '16 at 21:10
  • Hi, @KonKan... no, I'm just rewriting the full recurrence in the basis suggested by the homogeneous equation. The final equation is exact. We just don't know what $\varepsilon_n$ is in advance; but we know it's always $0$ or $1/2$, which is enough to show that $c_{1,n}$ converges (e.g., because the series $\sum_n \varepsilon_n / z^{n+1}$ is Cauchy). – mjqxxxx Mar 14 '16 at 05:01
0

I don't know if you can show that $\frac{p_n}{z^n} = 1 $. If the sequence $\frac{p_n}{p_{n-1}} $ approaches $z$ from the same side, each term in the product exceeds $z$, so the product will always exceed $z^n$.

What you can show is that $\lim \frac{p_n^{1/n}}{z} = 1 $. I will now give the standard, not original proof.

Once you have shown that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{p_n}{p_{n-1}} = z $, the hard part is done. The rest is a standard good-part/bad-part splitting on $p_n$.

From that limit, for any $c > 0$, there is a $N = N(c)$ such that $z-c < \frac{p_n}{p_{n-1}} < z+c $ for $n > N(c) $.

Then (this is how these proofs usually go)

$\begin{array}\\ \frac{p_n}{p_0} &=\prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{p_k}{p_{k-1}}\\ &=\prod_{k=1}^{N(c)} \frac{p_k}{p_{k-1}}\prod_{k=N(c)1}^{n} \frac{p_k}{p_{k-1}}\\ &=P(c)\prod_{k=N(c)+1}^{n} \frac{p_k}{p_{k-1}}\\ &< P(c)(z+c)^{n-N(c)} \qquad\text{(this is for an upper bound - the lower bound proof is similar)}\\ \text{so}\\ \frac{p_n}{z^n} &< \frac{P(c)(z+c)^{n-N(c)}}{z^n}\\ &= \frac{P(c)(1+c/z)^{n-N(c)}}{z^{N(c)}}\\ &= (1+c/z)^n\frac{P(c)}{z^{N(c)}(1+c/z)^{N(c)}}\\ &= (1+c/z)^n\frac{P(c)}{(z+c)^{N(c)}}\\ \text{so that}\\ \frac{p_n^{1/n}}{z} &< (1+c/z)\left(\frac{P(c)}{(z+c)^{N(c)}}\right)^{1/n}\\ &= (1+c/z)R(c)^{1/n} \qquad\text{where }R(c) = \frac{P(c)}{(z+c)^{N(c)}}\\ \end{array} $

Therefore, by taking $c$ small and letting $n$ get large, we have $\lim \sup \frac{p_n^{1/n}}{z} \le 1 $.

A almost identical, cut-and-pasteable proof will show that $\lim \inf \frac{p_n^{1/n}}{z} \ge 1 $, so that $\lim \frac{p_n^{1/n}}{z} = 1 $.

marty cohen
  • 110,450
  • The limit that you establish is weaker than the required result. In particular, it is not true that $p_n/z^n$ tends to $1$. The limit will very much depend on initial conditions. – EuYu Mar 06 '16 at 06:08
  • That's what I said at the start. – marty cohen Mar 06 '16 at 06:46