You have some conceptual mistakes right from the beginning.
So, from what i know, if this recurence relation has a limit, it have to be bounded and monotonous.
No, you have that the wrong way around. Every sequence that is bounded and monotonic has a limit, but there are sequences that have limits without being monotonic, such as
$$ 2, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{5}{4}, \frac{7}{8}, \frac{17}{16}, \frac{31}{32}, \frac{65}{64}, \frac{127}{128} $$
(which is generated by the recurrence $x_{n+1}=\frac{3-x}{2}$ and has limit $1$, but alternately increases and decreases).
(The word is "monotonic", not "monotonous", by the way).
Now to check if it's monotonous i have to check if $a_{n+1}−a_n$ is monotonous.
Um, no, checking whether the sequence is monotonic is not the same as checking whether the sequence of first differences are monotonic.
Instead of trying to concoct a single test for montonoicity, it is better to think of it as asking two questions: Is is increasing? Is it decreasing?
In this case, you should be able to prove that if $a_n$ is between $1$ and $3$, then $a_{n+1}$ is smaller than $a_n$ and still between $1$ and $3$. So this case will continue holding forever, and the sequence is decreasing (which is one of the ways it can be monotonic). The same proof shows it is bounded.
(Why $1$ and $3$? Because those are the fixed points of the functions you're iterating, and I know from experience that the behavior of iterated functions change near such points -- effectively I have seen informally that the limit is probably going to be $1$, and I'm now trying to construct a proof that my hunch is right, not trying to feign stupidity and approach it with no hunches).
If you graph the function $y=\frac{3}{4-x}$ it is possible that the only proof you need here is some handwaving that says "for $1<x<3$ this graph is below the line $y=x$ and the function value is always in $[1,3]$".
Your computation of the fixed points now shows that the only limit that's consistent with being decreasing and staying between $1$ and $3$ is $1$, so $1$ must be the limit.
I was starting to check it... What if $a_0=1/2$? What if $a_0=5$ or $a_0=2$ it turns out that, no matter what starting value we have, sequence always goes to the same limit ( at least in this example ). Is it true for all recurence relations?
Even in this example, if $a_0=3$, then $a_n=3$ for all $n$, and therefore the limit is $3$. But otherwise, if $a_0\ne 4$ such that you avoid dividing by zero, the sequence does tend to $1$ no matter where you start it. To convince yourself of this you need to prove
- If $a_n<1$ then from that point on the sequence will increase monotonically towards $1$ (but never become greater than $1$).
- If $a_n>4$ then the next term in the sequence will be negative, and then we're in the previous case.
- If $3<a_n<4$, then the $a_n$ will get progressively further away from $3$ until you reach one that is larger than $4$, and then we're in the previous case.
There are also functions where you can end up with a sequence that grows without bound (such as $a_{n+1}=a_n^2$ if $a_0>1$), or sequences that stay bounded but don't tend to a limit -- such as $a_{n+1}=4a_n(a_n-1)$ which famously exhibits chaotic behavior when $a_0\in(0,1)$.
There are also recurrences that have several different attractive limits, depending on where you start them, such as $a_{n+1}=a_n+\sin a_n$.