0
$\begingroup$

Given a standard infinitely nested radical such as:

$$x = \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{ 1 + ...}}}$$

depending on where you choose to first substitute $x$ in the nest, aren't there infinitely many solutions when solving for $x$?

For example, you could substitute $x$ as follows:

$$x = \sqrt{1 + x}$$

in which case, you get the equation $x^2 - x - 1 = 0$.

However, couldn't I just as well substitute $x$ in the following way:

$$x = \sqrt{ 1 +\sqrt{1 + x}}$$

in which case, you get the equation $x^4 - 2x^2 - x = 0$

Obviously, you could keep this up and generate infinitely different equations depending on where in the infinite nested loop you decided to substitute $x$. So, my questions are:

  1. Is this an actual phenomenon or did I violate some sort of rule?

  2. What are the implications of this?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why do you think these give different answers? Both seem to give $\frac {1+\sqrt 5}2$. Note that, if the value exists at all, it is clearly $>0$ so we can discard non-positive roots. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 1 at 19:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But those solutions are extraneous and therefore discarded, regardless of how many there are. The only correct solution is the golden ratio, as pointed out. $\endgroup$ – KM101 Jan 1 at 19:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @S.Cramer True but each time you square you pick up an "extra" solution which must be discarded. Here the fact that any value for this expression would have to exceed $1$ lets us discard the irrelevant values. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 1 at 19:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because $\sqrt{1+{\sqrt{1+…}}}$ is clearly positive. Any non-positive solution obtained is the solution to the new polynomial constructed, not the original nested radicals. $\endgroup$ – KM101 Jan 1 at 19:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @S.Cramer The problem is that squaring "loses" signs. Study my example of $\sqrt x = x-1$. That only has a single real solution (easy to see) but squaring also picks up the real solution to $\sqrt x = 1-x$. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 1 at 19:30
2
$\begingroup$

Every time you square this you add extraneous solutions which arise from taking the negative value of some of the square roots. The use of $x$ implies that the pattern is recurrent, but the quartic arising from squaring twice corresponds to the four possible choices for the square roots you have removed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does this logic apply if, instead of square roots, I used cube roots to construct this nesting? Then, I would have odd powered solutions half of the time. $\endgroup$ – S.Cramer Jan 1 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ @S.Cramer There are three (complex) cube roots of any non-zero real number - so you have three solutions of the resulting cubic - but quite often only one of these is a real number, corresponding to the original expression. $\endgroup$ – Mark Bennet Jan 1 at 19:40
0
$\begingroup$

No, there aren't infinite solutions, because $$ f(x)=\sqrt{x+1} $$ is a contraction of $[1,2]$ ($\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\leq f'(x)\leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$ for any $x\in\left[1,2\right]=I$), hence the Banach fixed point theorem ensures that the iteration $$ x_{n+1} = \sqrt{1+x_n} $$ with starting point $x_0=0$ (such that both $x_1$ and $x_2$ belong to $I$) converges to the unique solution of $f(x)=x$ in $I$, i.e. $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. In fancy terms,

$$ 1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\ldots}}}}=\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\ldots}}}} $$ In general, when squaring both sides of an equation involving one or many square roots you may introduce spurious solutions.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The issue is the convergence of the nested radical.

Let $(x_n)$ be the sequence of iterated radicals. We'll have

$$x_n = \left\{\begin{matrix} 1 & n = 1\\ \sqrt{1+x_{n-1}} & n > 1 \end{matrix}\right.$$

A sequence can logically only converge to one unique value, i.e. $(x_n) \to x$. Take $n \to \infty$ and we have the infinite nested radical described,

$$x = \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{1+\sqrt{...}}}$$


Suppose we have some number $\alpha$ we want to express as an infinite root. A video by blackpenredpen on YouTube goes over generating such expressions, and touches on why some of these roots may seem to be equal to multiple values or have multiple solutions - namely, the implicit introduction of extraneous solutions.

We can start by saying the following: let $x = \alpha$ be a solution to our hypothetical infinite root. Then, throwing another arbitrary constant $\beta$ in, where $\beta \neq \alpha$,

$$\begin{align} x = \alpha &\implies x - \alpha = 0 \\ &\implies (x - \alpha)(x - \beta) =0 \\ &\implies x^2 -(\beta+\alpha)x + \beta\alpha = 0 \\ &\implies x^2 = (\beta+\alpha)x - \beta \alpha \\ &\implies x = \sqrt{(\beta+\alpha)x - \beta \alpha} \\ \end{align}$$

And from here, we can use this sort of recursive definition to generate our infinitely nested radical:

$$\begin{align} x &= \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) x } \\ &= \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) x } } \\ &= \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) x } } } \\ &= \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) \sqrt{ -\beta \alpha + ( \beta + \alpha ) ... } } } \\ \end{align}$$

Notice how through all this, the other root $\beta$ still was introduced as an extraneous solution. And of course our chose to multiply by $(x - \beta)$ was arbitrary: we could've gone

$$\begin{align} x = \alpha &\implies x - \alpha &= 0 \\ &\implies (x - \alpha)(x - \beta_1) &=0 \\ &\implies (x - \alpha)(x - \beta_1)(x - \beta_2) &=0 \\ &\implies (x - \alpha)(x - \beta_1)(x - \beta_2)(x - \beta_3) &=0 \\ &\implies (x - \alpha)(x - \beta_1)(x - \beta_2)(x - \beta_3)...(x - \beta_n) &=0 \\ \end{align}$$

and thus introduced $n$ arbitrary constants $\beta_1 ... \beta_n$, all not equal to $\alpha$, as these "fake solutions." (Fake in that we begin with the presumption that $\alpha$ is the only solution, so to say $\beta_k$ for any $k$ is a solution when $\beta_k \neq \alpha$ is an immediate contradiction.)

The algebra would be a pain in the butt in constructing these radicals for $n>1$, but it's doable. Our situation when presented with solving such a root, instead of constructing it, is essentially the same, but in reverse: we have no inherent idea of how many arbitrary solutions might have been generated, and indeed in a sense infinitely many were depending on your interpretation of the root and its recursion. So we always have to hearken back to what would make the root a proper solution:


That being, convergence of the iterated root to that value.

For example, for the sequence $(x_n)$ introduced initially, you can show that:

  • It is monotone increasing
  • It is bounded above by $\phi = (1 + \sqrt 5) / 2$
  • We have $\sup(x_n) = \phi$ as well
  • As a consequence of the previous statements, $(x_n) \to \phi$

Thus, $\phi$ is the only actual solution to this nested radical. Sure, you can have manipulations and such that supply other solutions - but take $x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4, ...$, take the limit as $n \to \infty$ of $(x_n)$: it's not going to approach any of them but $\phi$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer. I’m going to nitpick purely because I can! $(x_n) \to \phi$ because the $(x_n)$ is monotonically increasing and $\sup (x_n) = \phi$, not simply because it is increasing and bounded above by $\phi$. $\endgroup$ – 雨が好きな人 May 7 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ Good point, I'll add that in. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer May 7 at 18:37

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.