3
$\begingroup$

The Wikipedia article, here, describes in some detail the derivation of Ramanujan's famous nested radical, $$\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1+4\sqrt{1+\cdots}}}}.$$ In the Wikipedia article it provides a generalized expression: $$F(x)=\sqrt{ax+(n+a)^2+x\sqrt{a(x+n)+(n+a)^2+(x+n)\sqrt{\cdots}}}$$ where the first expression is defined for $a=0$, $n=1$, $x=2$. Taking the square root of both sides allows for the recurrence relation, $$F(x)^2=ax+(n+a)^2+xF(x+n).$$ The article then solves the relation, simply saying, "it can then be shown that" $$F(x)=x+n+a.$$ How is this kind of recurrence relation solved? I don't want to see Ramanujan's method. I want to know exactly what steps were taken to get from recurrence to no recurrence.

More importantly, can a recurrence relation be solved such as $$F(x)^2=ax+(n+a)^2+g(x)F(x+n)?$$ By all means, let $a=0$ and $n=1$ for simplification.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Knowing Ramanujan, that could well have been the proof he gave. $\endgroup$ – preferred_anon Jul 13 '15 at 20:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DanielLittlewood: Bragging again about personally knowing Ramanujan, Littlewood ? ;-$)$ $\endgroup$ – Lucian Jul 13 '15 at 21:30
3
$\begingroup$

I'm not very familiar with functional equations, but I was able to get some seemingly meaningful results. Someone feel free to correct if wrong. So, clearly $$F(0)=a+n$$ Then, we can rewrite the equation as $$F(x)=g(x)+a+n$$ With $g(0)=0$. Now, after a substitution with $F(0)$, we find $$F(-n)=a$$ And then plugging in again, $$F(-n)=g(-n)+a+n=a$$ So, $g(-n)=-n$. A fixed point! Then, $$F(x)=x+n+a$$ Of course plugging in will confirm the results.

As for the other part of the question, I seriously doubt that this functional equation can be solved in general. Notice how solving it depended greatly on the form of the equation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Didn't you just go in a circle without providing any significant proof? You started with $F(x)=x+n+a$ and then went round-about, plugging in $x=0$ and so on and ended up again saying $F(x)=x+n+a$. $\endgroup$ – tyobrien Jul 14 '15 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, I'm still not clear. The functional equation is dependent on $F(x+n)$ which is furthermore dependent on $n$. Just setting $x$ to zero does not get to $F(0)=a+n$. Even if you knew $n$ (like I said by all means, let $n=1$) you still wouldn't be able to get a LHS $F(x)$ in closed form this easily. $\endgroup$ – tyobrien Jul 14 '15 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ Oh wait. I see what you did. Let me think about this for a sec. $\endgroup$ – tyobrien Jul 14 '15 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ I see what I was thinking wrong. I +1 your answer. I'll award it when I've decided. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – tyobrien Jul 14 '15 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ I think there may be a logical flaw. Consider your function $g(x)$. You are saying that this function must be defined as $g(x)=x$. But couldn't it be defined differently. For eg. it could be that $g(x)=2^x-1$. This still lets $F(0)=a+n$. I see where you were going but I think some assumptions were made. $\endgroup$ – tyobrien Jul 14 '15 at 22:53
0
$\begingroup$

This may be of interest to you, given the pattern to your questions, I had invented a generalization of this:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0177v1.pdf

See bottom of page 1 to page 2.

The idea is that if you encounter a continuous increase between the coefficients in front of the radicals.

Then a simple test can be done to the floating additive constants (in this case the 1's) that allows you to verify if it has a good closed form.

Ramanujan's radical falls out of here as a special case, but this method doesn't directly line up with his, so it's better to say that I have a different mechanism of finding the same results as his.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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