I find a question on quora: limit of a sequence.

Generalized Case 1

When you generalize this question like: \begin{align} a_1 &= \sqrt{k} \\ a_n &= \sqrt{k}^{a_{n-1}} \end{align} where $k =2$, Then: $$\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n =2$$

But what if you change $k$:

  1. Well, when $k =3$, it will be $\infty$,(am i wrong about this?). So I am wondering that it will be a number $\alpha$, when $2<k<\alpha$, limit of $a_n$ is finite. Dose this assumption right? if so, how can I find this number, if not, why?
  2. And what if $0<k<1$, what is the limit of $a_n$? or dose it exist? I do do some research about it. It is bounded, but not monotone. I plot this sequence which $k = \frac{1}{2}$ in mathematica, it seem convergence.

Generalized Case 2

If you treat original quora question as a special case of : \begin{align} a_1 &= k^{\frac{1}{k}} \\ a_n &= \left(k^{\frac{1}{k}} \right)^{a_{n-1}} \end{align} where $k=2$, Then $\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n =2$ also is true.

Now, consider $k>1$, Then how do I calculate:$$\lim_{n\to \infty}a_n$$

Thanks in advance.

  • $\begingroup$ This paper discusses this some. I haven't read it all, but starting on the third page it mentions "infinite power towers". $\endgroup$ – Mark May 6 '16 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ As always, drawing on a same figure the graphs of the functions $a\mapsto\sqrt{k}^a$ and $a\mapsto a$ would (explain the computations in the answer below and) yield readily the solution. $\endgroup$ – Did May 6 '16 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Did I don't think it's so simple. Look into this graph and this graph. To me, it doesn't look obvious in the least, but in the first case the sequence converges to a single limit of $0.3726324956$, while in the second case the sequence has two accumulation points: $0.2625203345$ and $0.4844466905$. Moreover, I think there's something to be said about when the sequence has a single limit versus when it has multiple accumulation points. $\endgroup$ – Fimpellizieri May 6 '16 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Now, looking into $a\mapsto\sqrt{k}^{\sqrt{k}^a}$ (and $a\mapsto a$) is much more interesting, and even actually explains why when there $a\mapsto \sqrt{k}^{\sqrt{k}^a}-a$ has multiple roots in $(0,1)$, the accumulation points are always the exterior roots. Still, it doesn't answer the question of for which $k$ the sequence is convergent. $\endgroup$ – Fimpellizieri May 6 '16 at 8:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Fimpellizieri Yes it is "that simple". Simply compare the values of the derivatives of the function $a\mapsto\sqrt{k}^a$ at $a$ such that $a=\sqrt{k}^a$. I am ready to bet that in the first case, this derivative is in $(-1,0)$ while it is $<-1$ in the second case. $\endgroup$ – Did May 6 '16 at 8:21

We show that $a_{2n}$ is a decreasing sequence and $a_{2n-1}$ an increasing sequence. In fact, we show that:

$$0 < a_1<a_3< \dots < a_{2n-1} < \dots < a_{2n} < \dots < a_4 < a_2 < 1$$

Base case: Since $0<k<1$, we have that $0<k<\sqrt{k}<1$. We have that $a_2={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_1}$, and since $0<a_1=\sqrt{k}<1$, it follows that $0<a_1<a_2<1$.

In truth, for the induction step we need to show the claim up until $a_4$, but I hope that a posteriori it becomes clear how the reasoning on the inductive step itself can be applied to show these cases.

Induction step: We now divide into two cases.

First, suppose that the induction claim holds up until $a_{2n-1}$. We show that $a_{2n}$ satisfies the induction claim. Indeed, we have that $a_{2n}={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-1}}$ and $a_{2n-1}={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-2}}$. Since $a_{2n-1}<a_{2n-2}$ and $0<\sqrt{k}<1$, it follows that $a_{2n}>a_{2n-1}$.

Indeed, we have that \begin{aligned} a_{2n}>a_{2n-1}&\Longleftrightarrow{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-1}}>{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-2}}\\ &\Longleftrightarrow a_{2n-1}\cdot\ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right)>a_{2n-2}\cdot\ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right)\\ &\Longleftrightarrow a_{2n-1}<a_{2n-2} \end{aligned} where the change in inequality direction is justified by $\ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right)<1$, because $0<\sqrt{k}<1$, and the last inequality is assumed by the induction step.

Similarly, since $a_{2n}={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-1}}$ and $a_{2n-2}={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-3}}$, it follows from $a_{2n-3}<a_{2n-1}$ and $0<\sqrt{k}<1$ that $a_{2n}<a_{2n-2}$, which completes this case.

The case when the induction holds up until $a_{2n}$ can be treated in much the same manner and will be omitted. We thus consider the claim proved.

With this in mind, it follows that both $a_{2n}$ and $a_{2n-1}$ are bounded strictly monotone sequences, and hence convergent.

Now, let $a_{2n-1}\to L$ and $a_{2n} \to L'$. I did spend quite some time trying to prove that $L=L'$ and some initial tests seemed to confirm this, but after trying some more I no longer suspect this is true. Indeed, we have that

\begin{aligned} &a_{2n} = {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-2}}}\\ &a_{2n-1} = {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-3}}} \end{aligned}

so as $n \to \infty$ we find that

\begin{aligned} &L = {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{L}}\\ &L' = {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{{\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{L'}} \end{aligned}

Letting $f(x)=a^{a^x}-x$ with $0<a=\sqrt{k}<1$, we have that $L,L'$ are roots of $f$ in $(0,1)$. Taking, say, $k=\frac{1}{250}$ or smaller, we can see that $f$ has multiple roots (I think three) in the interval, and running the sequence for these values it does seem that each subsequence is converging to a different one of these roots.

In fact, it appears that $L$ is the root closest to $0$ and $L'$ is the root closest to $1$; it seems no subsequence converges to the root in the middle.

Moreover, because $a_{2n} = {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{a_{2n-1}}$, as $n\to \infty$ we find that $L'={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{L}$, and similarly $L={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{L'}$. It follows that $\ln\left(L'\right)=L\cdot \ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right)$ and $\ln\left(L\right)=L'\cdot \ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right)$, so that


or $L'\cdot\ln\left(L'\right) = L\cdot\ln\left(L\right)$, or yet ${L'}^{L'}=L^L$.

It's late here, and although I am very intrigued I must sleep. I hope to look more into it tomorrow; it would be nice to confirm or disporve these observations. A very interesting sequence indeed.

EDIT: As discussed in the comments with Did, let $g(x)={\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^x$. There is a unique solution to $g(x)=x$ in $(0,1)$, given by ${x_0}^{\frac{1}{x_0}}= \sqrt{k}$. Its derivative is $$g'(x_0) = \ln\left(\sqrt{k}\right) \cdot {\left(\sqrt{k}\right)}^{x_0} = \ln(x_0)$$

Moreover,when $\sqrt{k} = e^{-e}$ we have $x_0=e^{-1}$ by inspection, so in this case $g'(x_0)=-1$. Since $x^{\frac1x}$ is strictly increasing in $(0,1)$, it follows that when $\sqrt{k} > e^{-e}$ we have $g'(x_0)>-1$ and when $\sqrt{k} < e^{-e}$ we have $g'(x_0)<-1$. This means that $x_0$ is an attractor in the first case and a repeller in the latter case (use that $g$ is convex!); thus the critical value is $k_c=e^{-2e}$.

Indeed, letting $a=\sqrt{k}$ and writing $h(x)=a^{a^x}$, we know that $L$ and $L'$ are solutions to $h(x)=x$ in $(0,1)$. Moreover, we know there is at least one solution: the solution $x_0$ to $g(x)=x$.

Claim: When $k<k_c$, there are two other solutions $x_1,x_2$ with $0<x_1<x_0<x_2<1$; when $k>k_c$, there are no other solutions.

Consider $f(x)=h(x)-x$, we will look for roots in $(0,1)$. Notice that $f(0)=a>0$ and $f(1)=a^a-1<0$. Differentiating with respect to $x$ yields:

\begin{equation}\tag{1}\label{f’}f'(x)=a^{a^x}\cdot a^x \cdot {\ln(a)}^2 – 1\end{equation}

First, we’ll need a lemma; it says that the graph of $f$ always crosses the $x$-axis near roots.

Lemma: Let $0<k<1$, $k \neq k_c$ and $x \in (0,1)$ be a root of $f$. Then $f’(x) \neq 0$.

Case 1: $k>k_c$

In this case, we have that $\eqref{f’}$ becomes

$$x\cdot \ln(x)\cdot\ln(a)-1$$

Now $k>k_c$ implies $a> e^{-e}$, so $|\ln(a)|<e$. On the other hand, $x\cdot\ln(x)$ has derivative $1+\ln(x)$ and attains its minimum value at $x=e^{-1}$, with value $-e^{-1}$. Hence, $|x\cdot\ln(x)|<e^{-1}$, and thus $| x\cdot \ln(x)\cdot\ln(a)|<1$.

It follows that $f’(x)<0$, so this case is done.

Case 2: $k<k_c$

Taking logarithms in $\eqref{f’}$, we find that whenever $x$ is a critical point of $f$ it holds that

\begin{equation}\tag{2}\label{f’2} a^x+x=2\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{-\ln(a)} \end{equation} Rewrite $\eqref{f’2}$ as $ a^x=2\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{-\ln(a)} -x$ and raise $a$ to each of its sides. This yields

$$a^{a^x}=a^{-2\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{\ln(a)}}\cdot \frac{1}{a^x}=\frac{\frac{1}{{\big(\ln(a)\big)}^2}}{2\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{-\ln(a)}-x}$$

In the last equality, we used that $\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{\ln(a)}=\log_a(-\ln(a))$ (and the squaring does away with the minus sign). Now, suppose that, in addition to being a root of $f$ (that is, $a^{a^x}=x$), $x$ were also a critical point. We will derive a contradiction.

Indeed, if our supposition were true we’d have that


which may be rearranged to

$$x^2+2\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{ \ln(a)}\cdot x+\frac{1}{{\big(\ln(a)\big)}^2}=0$$

Solving for $x$ yields

$$x=-\frac{1}{\ln(a)}\cdot\left( \ln(-\ln(a))\pm \sqrt{{\ln(-\ln(a))}^2-1}\right)$$

We now substitute these values back into $\eqref{f’2}$, and analyze the results. After some rearranging we get that

$$\frac{-1}{\ln(a)}\left(e^{\mp \sqrt{{\ln(-\ln(a))}^2-1}} \pm \sqrt{{\ln(-\ln(a))}^2-1} - \ln(-\ln(a))\right)=0$$

Clearly, for the above to be true, the expression in parentheses must be $0$. Since $k<k_c$, it holds that $a< e^{-e}$ so $\ln(-\ln(a))>1$. We investigate the expression in parentheses above using the substitution $u=\sqrt{{\ln(-\ln(a))}^2-1}$ (so $u>0$). It becomes

$$e^{\mp u} \pm u - \sqrt{u^2+1}$$

We will show that neither of these two expressions can never be $0$ for $u>0$, which concludes the proof for this case. Indeed, if they were $0$ we’d have

\begin{align} &e^{\mp u}\pm u =\sqrt{u^2+1} \\ \Longrightarrow \,\, &e^{\mp 2u} \pm 2ue^{\mp u} + u^2 = u^2 +1\\ \Longrightarrow \, \, &e^{\mp 2u} \pm 2ue^{\mp u} -1 = 0\tag{3}\label{subsu} \end{align}

This last equation is true when $u=0$. However, the derivative of the LHS with respect to $u$ is

$$\mp 2e^{\mp 2u} \pm 2e^{\mp u} \mp 2ue^{\mp u} = \mp 2e^{\mp u} \cdot \left( e^{\mp u} -1 + u \right)$$

The term before the parentheses has constant sign (negative for the upper sign, positive for the lower sign).

The term inside the parentheses is $0$ when $u=0$, and has derivative $1 \mp e^{\mp u}$, which is positive for all $u>0$. It follows that the term inside parentheses is strictly increasing for $u>0$, and so is positive for all $u>0$. Thus, the expression as a whole, the derivative of the LHS of $\eqref{subsu}$, is never zero and has constant sign. In other words, the LHS of $\eqref{subsu}$ is strictly monotone in $u$ for all $u>0$, so the equation cannot be satisfied.

With this, the lemma is proved.

With the lemma out of the way, we turn back to proving the claim. We know that $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)<0$. By the lemma, every change of sign in $f$ corresponds to a root of $f$, so $f$ has an odd number of roots.

Moreover, between any two roots of $f$, there must be a critical point; in other words, if $f$ has $2n+1$ roots, it must have at least $2n$ critical points. We will study the number of critical points of $f$ for each case and employ this observation to prove the claim.

Case 1: $k>k_c$

Consider $\eqref{f’2}$. Let $y(x)=a^x+x$. Its derivative is $y’(x)=a^x\cdot\ln(a)+1$, and its only critical point, a global minimum, is at $x=\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))}{-\ln(a)}$. Hence, the minimal value of $y$ is $\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))+1}{-\ln(a)}$.

For case 1, $\ln(-\ln(a))< 1$, and hence the RHS of $\eqref{f’2}$ is less than the minimum of its LHS. Thus, no real $x$ satisfies $\eqref{f’2}$, that is, no $x$ is a critical point of $f$.

It follows that $f$ has a single root in $(0,1)$, so half of the original claim is proved.

Case 2: $k<k_c$

Once again, consider $\eqref{f’2}$. Let $v(a)$ be the function of $a$ given by the RHS, with $a \in \left(0, e^{-e}\right)$. We have that $$v’(a)=\frac{2}{{\ln(a)}^2}\cdot(\ln(-\ln(a))-1)$$ which is always positive for $a$ in the given range. Hence, $v$ is strictly increasing and for all $a \in \left(0, e^{-e}\right)$ it holds that

$$0=\lim_{x\to 0^{+}}v(x) < v(a) < v\left(e^{-e}\right) = 2e^{-1}$$

In particular, observe that $v(a)$ is always less than $1$, that is, $v(a)$ is always less that $y(0),y(1)$.

On the other hand, $y$ attains its minimum at $x=\tfrac12 v(a) \in \left(0,e^{-1}\right)$. Because in case 2 $\ln(-\ln(a))> 1$, the minimal value of $y$, given by $\frac{\ln(-\ln(a))+1}{-\ln(a)}$, is less than $v(a)$.

Graphically, it looks something like this:

enter image description here

The graph in red is $y(x)$, the blue line is the height of $2e^{-1}$ and the green line is the height of $y$’s minimum. We showed that the image above is ‘typical’, meaning that the minimum is always in $(0,1)$, the green line is always below the blue line, and $v(a)$ is always some number between the two lines. Notice that the extremes of the red graph are always $1$ or greater.

It follows that in case 2 there are exactly two solutions to equation $\eqref{f’2}$, that is, $f$ has exactly two critical points. With our previous observation, this means $f$ has either one root or three.

To complete the proof of the claim, we show that the derivative of $f$ at $x_0$ is positive (remember $x_0$ is the root of $f$ given by $x_0=a^{x_0}$). In other words, for $x<x_0$ near $x_0$, $f$ is negative; and for $x>x_0$ near $x_0$. $f$ is positive. Because $f(0)$ is positive and $f(1)$ is negative, this means $f$ has a root before $x_1$ before $x_0$ and a root $x_2$ after $x_0$, which completes the proof claim.

Indeed, using $x_0=a^{x_0}$, the expression for $f’(x_0)$ (see $\eqref{f’}$) can be simplified to ${\left(x_0\cdot \ln(a)\right)}^2-1$. Because $\ln(a)<0$, we have that \begin{align} & {\left(x_0\cdot \ln(a)\right)}^2-1>0\\ \Longleftrightarrow\,\, & {\left(x_0\cdot \ln(a)\right)}^2>1\\ \Longleftrightarrow\,\, & x_0\cdot\ln(a) < -1\\ \Longleftrightarrow\,\, & a^{x_0} < e^{-1}\\ \Longleftrightarrow\,\, & x_0 < e^{-1} \end{align}

Now, consider $r(a)=a^{\frac{1}{e}}-\frac{1}{e}$. Its derivative is positive for $a>0$, so it is strictly increasing in that range. Now, notice that $r(e^{-e})=0$, so for $0<a<e^{-e}$ (that is, when $k<k_c$) it holds that $r(a)<0$.

Finally, remember that $x_0$ is the only root of $g(x)=a^x-x$ in $(0,1)$. We have that $g(0)=1>0$ and $g\left(\frac{1}{e}\right) = r(a) < 0$. It follows that $x_0$, the root of $g$, happens between $0$ and $\frac{1}{e}$, ie, $x_0<\frac{1}{e}$ as was to be shown.

The claim is thus fully proved.

What the claim means is that for $k>k_c$ the typical situation looks like this:

enter image description here

In red is the graph of $h(x)=a^{a^x}$ and in blue the line is $y=x$. Thus, $a_1=h(0)$ and $a_2=h(1)$, that is, the subsequence $\left(a_{2n-1}\right)$ starts from the bottommost point of the red graph, and the subsequence $\left(a_{2n}\right)$ starts from the topmost of the blue graph. It’s clear that in this situation, both sequences are funneled into the only intersection between the graphs, so in this case $a_n$ converges and $L=L’$.

Conversely, for $k<k_c$ the typical situation looks like this:

enter image description here

Now we can see that $\left(a_{2n-1}\right)$ is funneled into $x_1<x_0$ and $\left(a_{2n}\right)$ is funneled into $x_2>x_0$ and hence $L<x_0<L’$.

What about the critical case $k=k_c$?

When $k=k_c$, we have $a=e^{-e}$, so equation $\eqref{f’2}$ becomes


We use the same idea of looking at the minimum of the LHS. It occurs on $x=\frac{1}{e}$, with value $\frac{2}{e}$. Hence, $f$ has a single critical point, at $x=\frac{1}{e}$. Moreover, by inspection $f\left(\frac{1}{e}\right)=0$, so the single critical point of $f$ is a root of $f$. Because $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)<0$, it’s easy to see that this implies $f$ has no other roots in $(0,1)$. This means the critical case behaves much like the case $k>k_c$: $L=L’$ and $a_n$ converges.

For reference, a picture of the critical case:

enter image description here


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.