A Proof with no words that $\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\cdots}}}=2$ Question
What are the words to describe the method in the image below? (from Nelsen's Proofs without Words II)

Attempt
I was thinking and could define the sequence $u_1=2; u_{n+1}=f\circ g^{−1}(u_n)$ where $f(x)=\sqrt x$ and $g(x)=x−2$, as suggested by image, and thus, by the graph, it suggests that the succession defined in this way, is increasing and that $u_n<2$, therefore increased, which was concluded to be convergent. Once it converges, let $l\in\mathbb R$ be its limit.
As $\lim u_n=\lim u_{n+1}$, since for the limit we are only interested in terms starting from a certain order, and that $f\circ g^{−1}$ is a continuous function, a composition of continuous functions is continuous, in the respective domains, we can conclude $\lim u_{n+1}=\lim f(g^{−1}(u_n))\iff l=\sqrt{l+2}$ and thus $l=−1$ or $l=2$, but $−1$ does not belong to the domain of the function. What do you think ? Am I complicating? I believe there will be an easier way out, although that's the idea.
Thanks in advance.
 A: The formal statement
Writing $$
\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\ldots}}}} = 2
$$
may be correct, but it's not rigorous because the LHS needs more care in definition. What seems to be proved using the image, is the following :

Let $x_1 = \sqrt{2}$, and $x_{i+1} = \sqrt{2+x_i}$ for $i \geq 1$. Then, $x_i \to 2$ (as $i \to \infty$).

We can try to interpret how the diagram proves this statement.

Understanding the points on the diagram + notation
Recall that the "ordinate" of a point on the plane is its $y$-coordinate, and the "abscissa" of a point on the plane is its $x$-coordinate.
The idea of interpreting the proof is to find the $x_i$ as the ordinates of appropriate points on the curve $y = \sqrt{x}$.
Of course, $x_1 = \sqrt 2$ is the ordinate of the point $(2,\sqrt{2})$. Let us use $A_i := (x_i^2,x_i)$ to denote the sequence of points whose ordinates are $x_i$. Naturally, all the $A_i$ lie on the curve $y = \sqrt{x}$.
Now, how do we move from $A_{i}$ to $A_{i+1}$? We have $x_{i+1}^2 = 2+x_i$, and therefore, $x_{i+1}^2 - 2 = x_i$. In other words, the abscissa of $A_{i+1}$ is $2$ more than the ordinate of $A_i$. That is, the point whose abscissa is that of $A_{i+1}$ and whose ordinate is that of $A_i$ (a point called as $B_i$ later on) lies on the line $x-2 = y$.
This tells us how to go from $A_{i}$ to $A_{i+1}$ geometrically :

*

*Find the point on $x-2=y$ with the same ordinate as $A_i$. If $A_i = (x_i^2,x_i)$, this will take you to the point $B_i := (x_i+2,x_i)$.


*Find the point on $y=\sqrt{x}$ with the same abscissa as $B_i$. If $B_i = (x_i+2, x_i)$, then this will take you to $A_{i+1} = (x_i+2, \sqrt{x_i+2})$, as desired.
Therefore, we have obtained the $A_i$ and $B_i$ as desired. We have also explained why the line $y = x-2$ appears here.
However, there are still some important things to be explained.

What we need to prove, and how the diagram hides a lot of small things
Now, what we need to prove is that $x_i \to 2$. Since the $x_i$ are the ordinates of the points $A_i$, we need to prove that the ordinates of $A_i$ go to $2$. To do this, some observations from the diagram have to be made rigorous.

*

*Why do all the points $A_i$ and $B_i$ lie in the rectangle $[0,4] \times [0,2]$?


*Why does every $B_i$ lie strictly to the right of $A_i$, and every $A_{i+1}$ lie strictly above $B_i$?
We need to answer each of these questions using the appropriate analytic tools. That is not going to be revealed by the picture.
Why do all the points $A_i$ and $B_i$ lie in the rectangle $R := [0,4] \times [0,2]$?
Clearly, $A_0 \in R$. From here, one proves two things : if $A_i \in R$, then $B_i \in R$, and if $B_i \in R$ then $A_{i+1} \in R$ for all $i$. If each is proved, then by induction all the $A_i,B_i \in R$.
Now, if $A_i = (x_i^2,x_i) \in R$ then $0 \leq x_i \leq 2$. This implies that $0\leq x_i+2 \leq 4$, so obviously $B_i = (x_i+2,x_i) \in R$.
On the other hand, if $B_i = (x_i+2,x_i)\in R$, then $0 \leq x_i+2 \leq 4$, so $0 \leq \sqrt{x_i+2} \leq 4$. This implies that $A_{i+1} = (x_i+2, \sqrt{x_i+2}) \in R$.
Therefore, both sequences of points lie within $R$.
Why does every $B_i$ lie strictly to the right of $A_i$, and every $A_{i+1}$ lie strictly above $B_i$?
The movement from $A_i$ to $B_{i}$ is a movement of the abscissa from $x_i^2$ to $x_i+2$. One can check that $t^2 \leq t+2$ for $-1 \leq t \leq 2$. Indeed, note that $t^2-t-2 = (t-2)(t+1)$ which is strictly negative for $-1 < t < 2$. Therefore, $B_i$ is always strictly to the right of $A_i$.
The movement from $B_{i}$ to $A_{i+1}$ is a movement of the ordinate from $x_i$ to $\sqrt{x_i+2}$. Using the same argument as above, $t \leq \sqrt{t+2}$ for $-1<t<2$. Therefore, $A_{i+1}$ is always strictly above $B_i$.

Proving the limit
Remarkably, the two facts above are geometrically enough to explain why the $A_i$ and $B_i$ converge : and to the same point.
Why $A_i,B_i$ converge to the same point : geometrically and analytically.
To explain this geometrically, note that $A_{i+1}$ lies vertically and to the right of $A_i$, and $B_{i+1}$ also lies vertically and to the right of $B_i$ for each $i$. However, we also know that all the $A_i$ and $B_i$ lie within the rectangle $R$. Therefore, as $i$ progresses, the points $A_i$ and $B_i$ are actually getting compressed into smaller and smaller sub rectangles and are therefore getting closer and closer to some limit. This happens for both the $A_i$ and for the $B_i$.
To be precise : the ordinates and abscissa of the $A_i$ are monotone increasing sequences (which follows from the fact that $A_{i+1}$ is always to the top right of $A_i$) which are bounded (because $A_i \in R$ for all $i$ and $R$ is bounded) and therefore converge : so $A_i$ converges. The same applies with $B_i$.
However, the $A_i$ and $B_i$ converge to the same point! To prove this, go back to the construction : we construct $A_{i+1}$ from $A_i$ by first going from $A_{i}$ to $B_i$, and then from $B_{i}$ to $A_{i+1}$. In this process, if you look at the triangle formed by the points $A_i,B_i,A_{i+1}$, then it's right-angled at $B_i$, so the hypotenuse (which is the longest side of the triangle) is the line connecting $A_i$ and $A_{i+1}$, which must be longer than the line joining $A_i$ and $B_i$ which is one of the sides of that triangle. Therefore, as the $A_i$ get closer to each other, the $A_i$ are also forced to get closer to the $B_i$.
To put this mathematically, $d(A_i, B_i) < d(A_{i}, A_{i+1})$ for all $i$ by the construction of $A_i$ and $B_i$, where $d$ denotes the (Euclidean) distance between the points. Since $A_i$ is a convergent sequence, we know that $d(A_i,A_{i+1})$ goes to $0$ (i.e. it is also a Cauchy sequence). However, this forces $d(A_i,B_i) \to 0$ and therefore , $A_i$ and $B_i$ share the same limit.
What is the limit?
So, what is that limit? Since the $A_i$s lie on the curve $y=\sqrt{x}$ and the $B_i$s lie on the curve $y = x-2$, their limits continue to lie on those curves respectively. However , the limits of both $A_i$ and $B_i$ are the same! Then it must be an intersection point of the two curves.
To make this rigorous : suppose that $A_i$ converges to a limit $A$. The $A_i$s lie on the curve $y = \sqrt{x}$. Now, $y = \sqrt{x}$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb R^2$ because it's equal to $f^{-1}(\{0\})$ where $f(x,y) = x^2-y$ on $[0,\infty) \times \mathbb R$. Therefore, $A$ continues to lie on the curve $y = \sqrt{x}$. An analogous argument tells you that the limit $B$ of $B_i$ will lie on $y = x-2$. However, $A=B$, hence the intersection assertion follows.
So where do $y = x-2$ and $y = \sqrt{x}$ intersect? Using simple algebra, this happens when $\sqrt{x} = x-2$ i.e. when $x = x^2-4x+4$. This simplifies to $x^2-5x+4 = 0$ which gives $(x-1)(x-4) = 0$. Therefore, $x=1$ or $x=4$. However, note that $x=1$ is impossible since any point with an abscissa of $1$ must be to the left of $A_1$, which is not possible by their construction. Therefore, $x=4$ and $y=2$.
The intersection point is $(4,2)$. Thus, by the remark made in the start of section $2$, the ordinate $2$ is the limit of the ordinates of $A_i$ i.e. $x_i \to 2$.

Summary
Geometrically :

*

*The points $A_i$ are constructed by having $A_1 = (2,\sqrt 2)$ and $A_{i+1}$ constructed as follows : begin from $A_i$, travel horizontally till you hit the line $x = y-2$, then travel vertically till you hit the curve $y = \sqrt{x}$. That point is $A_{i+1}$.


*The points $A_{i},B_i$ thus constructed all lie in the rectangle $R = [0,4] \times [0,2]$. Furthermore, for all $i$, $A_{i+1}$ is to the top right of $A_i$ and $B_{i+1}$ is to the top right of $B_i$.


*By the boundedness of $R$ and the above monotonicity property, the points $A_i$ and $B_i$ converge. Furthermore, they converge to the same point by the construction made. That limit must be the intersection of the graphs.
Analytically :

*

*Define $A_1 = (2,\sqrt 2)$ and for $A_i = (x_i^2,x_i)$ define $B_i = (x_i+2,x_i)$ and $A_{i+1} = (x_i+2,\sqrt{x_i+2})$.


*For all $i$, we have $A_{i}, B_{i} \in [0,4] \times [0,2]$. Furthermore, for each $i$, the abscissa and ordinate of $A_{i+1}$ exceed that of $A_i$, and the abscissa and ordinate of $B_{i+1}$ exceed that of $B_i$.


*By the boundedness of $R$ , the sequence of abscissas and ordinates of each of the $A_i$ and $B_i$ all converge i.e. $A_i,B_i$ converge as points in $\mathbb R^2$. Furthermore, since $d(A_i,B_i) < d(A_i,A_{i+1})$ for all $i$, they converge to the same point. Since the sets $y = \sqrt{x}$ and $y = x-2$ are closed, the two sequences converge to the same point which must be an intersection point of the curves. Finally, that intersection point is $(4,2)$ whose ordinate is $2$, revealing that $2 = \lim_{i \to \infty} x_i$, as desired.
A: The image is showing two (convergent) fixed-point iterations:
$$f: x\mapsto \sqrt{2+x}\quad\text{with the starting value of }x=0\tag 1$$
and
$$g: x\mapsto 2+\sqrt{x}\quad\text{with the starting value of }x=2\tag 2$$
However, in contrast to usual depictions of fixed-point iterations over $\Bbb R$, the picture has some extra obfucsations, which are particularly bad in the advertiset "no words, one image will do the trick" context. Hence, prior to discussing the iteration(s), let's point out these obfuscations.
Usually, such depictions of fixed-point iterations have 3 identifying features:

*

*The graph of a function $f(x)$ that's being iterated, for $x$-values that are near the fixed-point(s) of interest.


*The line $x=y$ which maps $y$-values back to $x$-values. This is the realization of the iteration of $x\mapsto f(x)$.  The line $x=y$  intersects the graph of $f$ at the fixed-point(s) of $f$.


*A zig-zag line between these two graphs: Vertical portions implement the mapping $x\mapsto f(x)$, and horizontal portions that take the resulting $y$-values and "transform" them to $x$-values, which can be fed back into $f$ again.
Here is an animation from Wikimedia that's showing the Verhulst process for some parameter (It has an attractive fixed-point around $x=0.6$ and a repelling one at $x=0$):

Obfucsations

*

*The author chose to decompose $f$ and $g$ into a square-root-part $q(x)=\sqrt{x}$ and an adding-2-part $t(x)=2+x$:$$f=q\circ t\qquad\text{and}\qquad g=t\circ q$$


*In order to map $y$-values back to $x$-values, they do not use $y\mapsto x$ but the function $t$ which must be used in reverse, namely the contorted $x+2\mapsto x$ which means $x\mapsto x-2$.


*The coordinate dimensions are not 1:1. A fixed-point iteration will converge for a smooth $f$, if I. the function is a contraction over some interval, i.e. $f([a,b]) \subseteq [a,b]$ and II. $|f'(x)|<1$ for $x\in [a,b]$.  This means that by visual inspection one can discriminate between attracting fixed-points (flat $|f'(x)|<1$ around the fixed-point) and repelling ones (steep $|f'(x)|>1$).  Visual inspection is hampered by the distorted aspect ratio, however.
Analysis
As the book mentions $\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\cdots}}}=2$, I'll restrict myself to iteration $(1)$.  As mentioned above, the iteration generates a sequence of values $x_n$ that satisfy
$$x_{n+1} = f(x_n) = \sqrt{2+x_n}\quad\text{with } x_0 = 0 \tag 1$$
We already unravelled the very iteration, and I see no reason to include the contrived use of $x+2\mapsto x$ into the analysis.
A necessary condition for convergence is that $f$ has a fixed point, i.e. if $X=\lim_{x\to\infty} x_n$ exists, then we must have $X=f(X)$ which means $X=\sqrt{X+2}$, thus $X^2=X+2$ and $X\geqslant 0$.  The only solution is $X=2$. Also notice that $f$ is continuous, and as it's even differentiable, we can estimate $x_n-X$ as follows:
$$x_{n-1}-X = f(x_n) - f(X) \stackrel{(3)} = (x_n-X)f'(\xi)\quad\text{ with } \xi\in I(x_n,X)$$
where $I(x_n,X)$ denotes the interval limited by $x_n$ and $X$, and $(3)$ holds due to the mean value theorem.
Now $f$ is increasing and concave, hence we have $x_n \geqslant x_0$ for all $x_n$ and thus
$$|x_{n+1}-X| = |x_n-X|\cdot|f'(\xi)| \leqslant |x_n-X|\cdot\underbrace{|f'(x_0)|}_{\textstyle =1/\sqrt 8}$$
and by induction:
$$|x_n-X| \leqslant |x_0-X|\frac1{8^{n/2}}$$
This means that $x_n\to X$ because $|1/\sqrt 8| < 1$.
Notice that this reasoning is pretty general. The only property we used from $X$ is that it is a fixed-point of $f$.  And from $f$ we only used that it's smooth, and we managed to estimate $|f'(x) < 1|$ for all $x$ in question.  And that is what the picture conveys: $f$ is flat and has a fixed-point, thus the fixed-point is attractive and the iteration will approach it.
