7

Let $u_n$ be a real sequence such that $\displaystyle u_{n+1}-u_n-u_n^2\to_{\infty} 0$.

Prove that either $u_n\to 0$ or $u_n \to +\infty$

Progress

  • If $u_n$ is bounded,

it has a convergent subsequence $u_{n_k}$ that goes to $\beta$.

By assumption, $\displaystyle u_{n_k+1}\to \beta^2+\beta$

This proves that if $\beta$ is an accumulation point of $u_n$, then $\beta^2+\beta$ also is.

This forces $\beta \in (-2,0]$ (otherwise the sequence is not bounded)

And in this case, iterating and using the closedness of the set of accumulation points yields that $0$ is an accumulation point of $u_n$.

I should prove next that $\beta=0$, but I can't.

EDIT: the crucial point that I missed is going backward (rewriting $u_n-u_{n-1}-u_{n-1}^2\to 0$), as Krokop did in his answer.

  • If $u_n$ is unbounded,

$u_n$ has a subsequence that goes to $+|-\infty$.

EDIT: this part still lacks a slick and elegant proof

Gabriel Romon
  • 35,428
  • 5
  • 65
  • 157

4 Answers4

4

Let $E$ be the set of accumulation point of $(u_n)$. You have already prove that $\beta^2+\beta\in E$

$u_n$ is bounded, one can extract a convergent subsequence of the sequence $u_{\phi(n)-1}$ and its limit $\mu$ verifies $\mu^2+\mu=\beta$. So $E$ is invariant under $f$. Where $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $x\mapsto x^2+x$.

Let $m=\inf E \quad\text{and}\quad M=\sup E$. We have $f(M)\le M$ then $M=0$.

Moreover,

If $\lambda\in E$ then there exist $\alpha\in E$ such that $f(\alpha) = \alpha^2+\alpha = \lambda$ : Every element of $E$ is in the image of $f$, then $m\ge\frac{-1}{4}$, and $[m^2+m,M^2+M] = f(E) = E = [m,M]$ because $f$ is increasing on $[\frac{-1}{4},0]$. So $m^2 + m = m$ and $M^2 + M = M$. So $m = M = 0$.

Therefore $E=\{0\}$ and your result follow.

Zarrax
  • 44,950
Krokop
  • 1,124
  • Thanks for this insightful answer. How did you derive $E\subset Im(f)$ ? What about when $u_n$ is unbounded ? Thank you anyway, I like your answers as a whole. – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 18:16
  • @G.T.R By definition,here, $E\subset Im(f)$. I didn't notice we are dealing with two cases. If $u_n$ is unbounded, I think we have to work with $\varepsilon$ 'method'. Define $v_n=u_{n+1}-u_n-u_n^2$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\vert v_n\vert\le \varepsilon^2$ for $n\ge n_0$. By induction we can prove that $u_n$ is increasing and bounded below by $\varepsilon$. – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 18:48
  • 1
    How is this part of the definition? – Zarrax Jun 17 '14 at 18:50
  • @Zarrax I edited, I hope its okay now. – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 20:19
  • @G.T.R I edited, I hope its okay now. – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 20:20
  • No @Krokop, I can't agree. What prevents $\lambda$ from being $-1$? – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 20:24
  • @G.T.R Not sure I understood your comment, but you have already prove that if $\lambda \in E$ then $f(\lambda) = \lambda^2+\lambda\in E$. – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 20:30
  • I did prove that if $\lambda \in E$ then $f(\lambda) = \lambda^2+\lambda\in E$. But that doesn't mean that every element in $E$ can be rewritten as $ \lambda^2+\lambda$ for some $\lambda$. For example, if $-1\in E$, then $2\in E$. Great. But you won't find any $\lambda \in \mathbb R$ such that $-1=\lambda^2+\lambda$ – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 20:37
  • @G.T.R Correct, I see your problem. I forgot an important information, I will edit now. – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 20:48
  • I still don't get your point @Krokop :( – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 21:30
  • I get it now, this looks good to me. +1 – Zarrax Jun 17 '14 at 21:52
  • I edited your answer to make it clearer, hope that's ok with you. – Zarrax Jun 17 '14 at 22:04
  • @Zarrax Sure :). Thanks! – Krokop Jun 17 '14 at 22:05
  • @Krokop I finally got it. Thanks. – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 22:30
1

The statement to be proved is equivalent to saying that if $u_n$ does not converge to $\infty$, then for all $\epsilon > 0$ there is an $N$ such that for $n > N$ you have $$|u_n| < \epsilon \tag 1$$ Furthermore, the condition that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} u_{n+1} - u_n - u_n^2 = 0$ has the consequence that for all $\eta > 0$ there is an $M$ such that if $n > M$ you have $$u_{n+1} > u_n + u_n^2 - {\epsilon^2 \over 2} \tag 2$$ In particular $(2)$ implies $$u_{n+1} - u_n > - {\epsilon^2 \over 2} \tag 3$$

Here is the proof that $(1)$ holds:

Suppose $n > N,M$ and $u_n > \epsilon$. Then $(2)$ says that $u_{n+1} > u_n +{\epsilon^2 \over 2}$. This continues with each iteration and the sequence goes to infinity, which we are supposing does not happen.

Suppose now $n > N,M$ with $u_n <-\epsilon$. Then again $u_{n+1} > u_n + {\epsilon^2 \over 2}$ and the sequence will start to increase. By $(2)$, it can only decrease after that if $u_k^2 < {\epsilon^2 \over 2}$, in other words if $|u_k| < {\epsilon \over \sqrt{2}}$. But by $(3)$ the amount it can decrease is at most $\epsilon^2 \over 2$, and so you will never be below $-\epsilon$ again; you can only go as far as ${\epsilon \over \sqrt{2}} - {\epsilon^2 \over 2}$ before the sequence starts going up again. Hence eventually $u_k$ stays above $-\epsilon$.

Zarrax
  • 44,950
0

Doing unbounded case for now.

First we prove that $u_n$ can't be bounded above. If $u_n$ is bounded below then we are done so suppose $u_n$ isn't. Fix $\epsilon >0$ and assume $|u_{n+1}-u_n-u_n^2 |< \epsilon$ for all $n >N$ for some $N$. For all $C>2$ there exist $m \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ s.t $u_M < -C$ and we can assume $m> N$. Then $|u_{m+1}-u_m -u_m^2| < \epsilon$. Choosing $C$ large enough and $\epsilon$ small enough we can gather $u_{m+1}>C$.

In fact with this construction we prove that $(u_n)$ is eventually increasing sequence which is not bounded above so it must tend to infinity.

I think similar epsilon argument should work for the first case as well but I haven't tried yet.

Jack Yoon
  • 1,466
0

I will work by absud:

Suppose that $u_n\not\to0$ and $u_n\not\to+\infty$. So either $u_n\rightarrow\ell\in\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\}$ or $u_n\rightarrow-\infty$.

  • Suppose that $u_n\rightarrow\ell\in\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\}$. Since $u_{n+1}-u_n-u_n^2\rightarrow0$ then $\ell-\ell-\ell^2=0$. Thus, $\ell=0$.

    Absurd.

    Therefore, if $u_n$ converges it must converges to $0$.

  • If $u_n$ diverges, $u_n\rightarrow-\infty$, then we have $$\lim_{n\to+\infty}u_{n+1}-u_n-u_n^2=\underbrace{u_{n+1}}_{\to-\infty}\;\;\underbrace{\underbrace{-\;u_n}_{\to+\infty}\;\;\underbrace{(u_n+1)}_{\to-\infty}}_{-\infty}=-\infty.$$ Absurd.

    Therefore, if $u_n$ diverges it must diverges to $+\infty$ .

Jika
  • 2,970
  • 1
    Nope, it's not that simple. $u_n$ could be oscillating wildly without having a finite limit, and without going to minus infinity. You can't have only two cases to check (unfortunately). – Gabriel Romon Jun 17 '14 at 17:02
  • Ah. Sorry, I forgot that. – Jika Jun 17 '14 at 17:05