Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A high-school student named Erna Fekete made a conjecture to me via email three years ago, which I could not answer. I've since lost touch with her. I repeat her interesting conjecture here, in case anyone can provide updated information on it.

Here is how she phrased it. Let $b(0) = 1$ and $b(n)= \tan( b(n-1) )$. In other words, $b(n)$ is the repeated application of $\tan(\;)$ to 1: $$\tan(1) = 1.56, \; \tan(\tan(1)) = 74.7, \; \tan^3(1) = -0.9, \; \ldots $$

Let $a(n) = \lfloor b(n) \rfloor$. Her conjecture is:

Every integer eventually appears in the $a(n)$ sequence.

This sequence is not unknown; it is A000319 in Sloane's integer sequences. Essentially hers is a question about the orbit of 1 under repeated $\tan(\;)$-applications. Her and my investigations at the time led us to believe it was an open problem.

share|improve this question
10  
How about a more daring conjecture, that the b(n) themselves are dense in R? At least it does away with the nasty floor function. Is it obviously false? –  Alon Amit Oct 14 '10 at 18:09
1  
Is it obvious that the sequence is everywhere defined? (I think it must be true but I don't see how to prove it.) –  Qiaochu Yuan Oct 14 '10 at 21:02
2  
@Qiaochu, @Joseph O'Rourke: Suppose we consider the set $X$ of all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ such that some $\tan^{n}(x)$ is not defined. Because $X$ is the union of repeated (set-valued) applications of $\tan^{-1}$ on $\{(2k+1)\pi/2\}$, it seems to me that $X$ is countable but dense in $\mathbb{R}$. Is it plausible to conjecture that $X$ contains no rational number? –  Rahul Oct 20 '10 at 18:40
1  
Generalizing to an arbitrary starting point x, rather than just starting at 1, the (possibly terminating) sequence [a(0),a(1),a(2),...] looks a lot like a kind of continued fraction representation. In fact, it gives a one-to-one map between real x and possibly terminating sequences of integers. So there are uncountably many starting points where every integer appears, and uncountably many where only a finite set of integers occur. There's uncountably many x for which only 0 and 1 appear. However, I think, for almost every x, the sequence a(n) will tend to some fixed distribution. –  George Lowther Oct 21 '10 at 23:18
1  
So, this question sounds like a much more difficult version of problems involving regular continued fractions. It is not even known if the continued fraction of $\pi$ contains every positive integer (according to Sloane: akpublic.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A032523). It seems likely that this question is much harder than that. –  George Lowther Oct 21 '10 at 23:23
show 2 more comments

2 Answers 2

This isn't a proof, but's too long for a comment, and may just be a restatement of the problem.

For contradiction, let $k$ be any integer such that $b(n) = k$ never holds. This means $k \leq a(n) < k+1$ never holds.

Since $a(n)$ can't be between $k$ and $k+1$, $\arctan a(n)$ can't be either.

Thus, there's an interval between $-\pi/2$ and $\pi/2$ that a(n) may not touch. Let's call it $[c,d)$.

Since tan is periodic, $a(n)$ must also avoid $m\pi+[c,d)$.

Since $\pi$ is irrational, $m\pi+[c,d)$ must contain an infinite number of integers (pretty sure this is true, but I could be wrong).

Therefore, there are an infinite number of intervals (approaching $\pi/2$) that $a(n)$ must avoid. Further, $a(n)$ must avoid the arctans of these intervals, and the arctans of those intervals, etc. The repeated arctan intervals approach 0.

Of course, $a(n)$ also has to avoid those intervals plus any multiple of $\pi$.

This non-proof actually applies to any interval $a(n)$ misses, so, if true, shows that $a(n)$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$. Hope that helps.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I had made the same conjecture as Fekete, apparently around the same time -- mid-2007. In 2008 I verified that the first twenty million terms do not include 319. (I actually pushed the verification further, but I can't find the more recent records at the moment.)

Because tan(x) - x = x^3/3 + O(x^5), the function spends a lot of its time in a small neighborhood around 0. It escapes when it nears $\pi/2$ and quickly returns for many iterations.

A mostly-unexplained phenomenon presumably related to the above: there are long spans of small numbers followed by short, 'productive' spans with large numbers. $\tan^k(1)$ is "below 20 or so" (according to a 2008 email I sent) for $360110\le k\le1392490$ but in the next 2000 numbers there are five which are above 20.

More theory is needed!

share|improve this answer
    
@Charles: Indeed, more theory is needed! Very interesting that you have explored this so substantively... Thanks for sharing (as the kids say)! –  Joseph O'Rourke Oct 21 '10 at 2:02
    
@Charles: That's very interesting. But I have to ask-- how can you assure accuracy of your values under so many iterations? As you note, iterations of values close to pi/2 are arbitrarily sensitive to small changes in the initial value. –  Jonas Kibelbek Oct 21 '10 at 2:15
    
I repeated the calculations to about 10 million (sorry, don't have the exact numbers here; hopefully I saved them somewhere) on a different computer using a different computer program and they matched. On the larger calculation I used interval arithmetic which gave further confidence. –  Charles Oct 21 '10 at 3:16
2  
I should have looked at the OEIS link above. It mentions that 3000-digit precision was used. I would have guessed that millions of iterations at that level were unfeasible. Wow! –  Jonas Kibelbek Oct 21 '10 at 7:58
2  
@Jonas: Far more than 3000 digits are needed to get to ~25 million where I had targeted. Of course using that much precision, one must use quasilinear tangent algorithms rather than quadratic. I used a quadratic algorithm to 10 million as a double-check and it took the better part of a year. –  Charles Oct 21 '10 at 13:23
show 4 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.