{
  "index": "2012-B-4",
  "type": "ANA",
  "tag": [
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "Suppose that $a_0 = 1$ and that $a_{n+1} = a_n + e^{-a_n}$ for $n=0,1,2,\\dots$. Does $a_n - \\log n$\nhave a finite limit as $n \\to \\infty$? (Here $\\log n = \\log_e n = \\ln n$.)",
  "solution": "\\textbf{First solution.}\nWe will show that the answer is yes. First note that for all $x>-1$,\n$e^x \\geq 1+x$ and thus\n\\begin{equation} \\label{eq:log}\nx \\geq \\log(1+x).\n\\end{equation}\nWe next claim that $a_n > \\log(n+1)$ (and in particular that $a_n-\\log\nn > 0$) for all $n$, by induction on $n$. For $n=0$ this follows\nfrom $a_0=1$. Now suppose that $a_n > \\log(n+1)$, and define $f(x)\n= x+e^{-x}$, which is an increasing function in $x>0$; then\n\\begin{align*}\na_{n+1} &= f(a_n) > f(\\log(n+1)) \\\\\n&= \\log(n+1) + 1/(n+1) \\geq \\log(n+2),\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the last inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $x=1/(n+1)$. This completes\nthe induction step.\n\nIt follows that $a_n-\\log n$ is a decreasing function in $n$: we have\n\\begin{align*}\n&(a_{n+1} - \\log(n+1)) - (a_n - \\log n) \\\\\n&\\,= e^{-a_n} + \\log(n/(n+1)) \\\\\n&\\,< 1/(n+1) + \\log(n/(n+1)) \\leq 0,\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the final inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $x = -1/(n+1)$. Thus\n$\\{a_n-\\log n\\}_{n=0}^\\infty$ is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers,\nand so it has a limit as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nPut $b_n = e^{a_n}$, so that $b_{n+1} = b_n e^{1/b_n}$.  In terms of the\n$b_n$, the problem is to prove that $b_n/n$ has a limit as $n \\to \\infty$;\nwe will show that the limit is in fact equal to 1.\n\nExpanding $e^{1/b_n}$ as a Taylor series in $1/b_n$, we have\n\\[\nb_{n+1} = b_n + 1 + R_n\n\\]\nwhere $0 \\leq R_n \\leq c/b_n$ for some absolute constant $c>0$.\nBy writing\n\\[\nb_n = n+e + \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} R_i,\n\\]\nwe see first that $b_n \\geq n+e$. We then see that\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &\\leq \\frac{b_n}{n} - 1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{n} + \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\frac{R_i}{n}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{n} + \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\frac{c}{n b_i}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{n} + \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\frac{c}{n (i+e)}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{n} + \\frac{c \\log n}{n}.\n\\end{align*}\nIt follows that $b_n/n \\to 1$ as $n \\to \\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nThis problem is an example of the general principle that one can often predict the asymptotic behavior of a recursive\nsequence by studying solutions of a sufficiently similar-looking differential equation. In this case, we\nstart with the equation $a_{n+1} - a_n = e^{-a_n}$, then replace $a_n$ with a function $y(x)$\nand replace the difference $a_{n+1} - a_n$ with the derivative $y'(x)$ to obtain the differential equation\n$y' = e^{-y}$, which indeed has the solution $y = \\log x$.",
  "vars": [
    "a_0",
    "a_n+1",
    "a_n",
    "b_n+1",
    "b_n",
    "b_i",
    "f",
    "i",
    "n",
    "R_n",
    "x",
    "y"
  ],
  "params": [
    "c"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [
    "e"
  ],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "a_0": "initialvalue",
        "a_{n+1}": "subsequent",
        "a_n": "sequenceterm",
        "b_{n+1}": "subsequentb",
        "b_n": "sequenceb",
        "b_i": "indexb",
        "f": "transform",
        "n": "indexer",
        "R_n": "remainderterm",
        "x": "variablex",
        "y": "variabley",
        "c": "absoluteconst"
      },
      "question": "Suppose that $initialvalue = 1$ and that $subsequent = sequenceterm + e^{-sequenceterm}$ for $indexer = 0,1,2,\\dots$. Does $sequenceterm - \\log indexer$ have a finite limit as $indexer \\to \\infty$? (Here $\\log indexer = \\log_e indexer = \\ln indexer$.)",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution.}\nWe will show that the answer is yes. First note that for all $variablex>-1$, $e^{variablex} \\geq 1+variablex$ and thus\n\\begin{equation} \\label{eq:log}\nvariablex \\geq \\log(1+variablex).\n\\end{equation}\nWe next claim that $sequenceterm > \\log(indexer+1)$ (and in particular that $sequenceterm-\\log indexer > 0$) for all $indexer$, by induction on $indexer$. For $indexer=0$ this follows from $initialvalue=1$. Now suppose that $sequenceterm > \\log(indexer+1)$, and define $transform(variablex)= variablex+e^{-variablex}$, which is an increasing function in $variablex>0$; then\n\\begin{align*}\nsubsequent &= transform(sequenceterm) > transform(\\log(indexer+1)) \\\\\n&= \\log(indexer+1) + 1/(indexer+1) \\geq \\log(indexer+2),\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the last inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $variablex=1/(indexer+1)$. This completes the induction step.\n\nIt follows that $sequenceterm-\\log indexer$ is a decreasing function in $indexer$: we have\n\\begin{align*}\n&(subsequent - \\log(indexer+1)) - (sequenceterm - \\log indexer) \\\\\n&\\,= e^{-sequenceterm} + \\log(indexer/(indexer+1)) \\\\\n&\\,< 1/(indexer+1) + \\log(indexer/(indexer+1)) \\leq 0,\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the final inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $variablex = -1/(indexer+1)$. Thus $\\{sequenceterm-\\log indexer\\}_{indexer=0}^\\infty$ is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers, and so it has a limit as $indexer\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nPut $sequenceb = e^{sequenceterm}$, so that $subsequentb = sequenceb e^{1/sequenceb}$. In terms of the $sequenceb$, the problem is to prove that $sequenceb/indexer$ has a limit as $indexer \\to \\infty$; we will show that the limit is in fact equal to 1.\n\nExpanding $e^{1/sequenceb}$ as a Taylor series in $1/sequenceb$, we have\n\\[\nsubsequentb = sequenceb + 1 + remainderterm\n\\]\nwhere $0 \\leq remainderterm \\leq absoluteconst/sequenceb$ for some absolute constant $absoluteconst>0$. By writing\n\\[\nsequenceb = indexer+e + \\sum_{i=0}^{indexer-1} remainderterm,\n\\]\nwe see first that $sequenceb \\geq indexer+e$. We then see that\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &\\leq \\frac{sequenceb}{indexer} - 1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{indexer} + \\sum_{i=0}^{indexer-1} \\frac{remainderterm}{indexer}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{indexer} + \\sum_{i=0}^{indexer-1} \\frac{absoluteconst}{indexer\\, sequenceb}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{indexer} + \\sum_{i=0}^{indexer-1} \\frac{absoluteconst}{indexer (i+e)}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{indexer} + \\frac{absoluteconst \\log indexer}{indexer}.\n\\end{align*}\nIt follows that $sequenceb/indexer \\to 1$ as $indexer \\to \\infty$.\n\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nThis problem is an example of the general principle that one can often predict the asymptotic behavior of a recursive sequence by studying solutions of a sufficiently similar-looking differential equation. In this case, we start with the equation $subsequent - sequenceterm = e^{-sequenceterm}$, then replace $sequenceterm$ with a function $variabley(variablex)$ and replace the difference $subsequent - sequenceterm$ with the derivative $variabley'(variablex)$ to obtain the differential equation $variabley' = e^{-variabley}$, which indeed has the solution $variabley = \\log variablex$. "
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "a_0": "peppermint",
        "a_n+1": "marigolds",
        "a_n": "cinnamon",
        "b_n+1": "butternut",
        "b_n": "gingerale",
        "b_i": "tangerine",
        "f": "grapeseed",
        "i": "paprikas",
        "n": "cardamom",
        "R_n": "hazelnuts",
        "x": "safflower",
        "y": "eldertree",
        "c": "turmeric"
      },
      "question": "Suppose that $peppermint = 1$ and that $marigolds = cinnamon + e^{-cinnamon}$ for $cardamom=0,1,2,\\dots$. Does $cinnamon - \\log cardamom$\nhave a finite limit as $cardamom \\to \\infty$? (Here $\\log cardamom = \\log_e cardamom = \\ln cardamom$.)",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution.}\nWe will show that the answer is yes. First note that for all $safflower>-1$,\n$e^{safflower} \\geq 1+safflower$ and thus\n\\begin{equation} \\label{eq:log}\nsafflower \\geq \\log(1+safflower).\n\\end{equation}\nWe next claim that $cinnamon > \\log(cardamom+1)$ (and in particular that $cinnamon-\\log\ncardamom > 0$) for all $cardamom$, by induction on $cardamom$. For $cardamom=0$ this follows\nfrom $peppermint=1$. Now suppose that $cinnamon > \\log(cardamom+1)$, and define $grapeseed(safflower)\n= safflower+e^{-safflower}$, which is an increasing function in $safflower>0$; then\n\\begin{align*}\nmarigolds &= grapeseed(cinnamon) > grapeseed(\\log(cardamom+1)) \\\\\n&= \\log(cardamom+1) + 1/(cardamom+1) \\geq \\log(cardamom+2),\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the last inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $safflower=1/(cardamom+1)$. This completes\nthe induction step.\n\nIt follows that $cinnamon-\\log cardamom$ is a decreasing function in $cardamom$: we have\n\\begin{align*}\n&(marigolds - \\log(cardamom+1)) - (cinnamon - \\log cardamom) \\\\\n&\\,= e^{-cinnamon} + \\log(cardamom/(cardamom+1)) \\\\\n&\\,< 1/(cardamom+1) + \\log(cardamom/(cardamom+1)) \\leq 0,\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the final inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $safflower = -1/(cardamom+1)$. Thus\n$\\{cinnamon-\\log cardamom\\}_{cardamom=0}^\\infty$ is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers,\nand so it has a limit as $cardamom\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nPut $gingerale = e^{cinnamon}$, so that $butternut = gingerale e^{1/gingerale}$.  In terms of the\n$gingerale$, the problem is to prove that $gingerale/cardamom$ has a limit as $cardamom \\to \\infty$;\nwe will show that the limit is in fact equal to 1.\n\nExpanding $e^{1/gingerale}$ as a Taylor series in $1/gingerale$, we have\n\\[\nbutternut = gingerale + 1 + hazelnuts\n\\]\nwhere $0 \\leq hazelnuts \\leq turmeric/gingerale$ for some absolute constant $turmeric>0$.\nBy writing\n\\[\ngingerale = cardamom+e + \\sum_{paprikas=0}^{cardamom-1} hazelnuts,\n\\]\nwe see first that $gingerale \\geq cardamom+e$. We then see that\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &\\leq \\frac{gingerale}{cardamom} - 1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{cardamom} + \\sum_{paprikas=0}^{cardamom-1} \\frac{hazelnuts}{cardamom}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{cardamom} + \\sum_{paprikas=0}^{cardamom-1} \\frac{turmeric}{cardamom \\, gingerale}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{cardamom} + \\sum_{paprikas=0}^{cardamom-1} \\frac{turmeric}{cardamom (paprikas+e)}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{cardamom} + \\frac{turmeric \\log cardamom}{cardamom}.\n\\end{align*}\nIt follows that $gingerale/cardamom \\to 1$ as $cardamom \\to \\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nThis problem is an example of the general principle that one can often predict the asymptotic behavior of a recursive\nsequence by studying solutions of a sufficiently similar-looking differential equation. In this case, we\nstart with the equation $marigolds - cinnamon = e^{-cinnamon}$, then replace $cinnamon$ with a function $eldertree(safflower)$\nand replace the difference $marigolds - cinnamon$ with the derivative $eldertree'(safflower)$ to obtain the differential equation\n$eldertree' = e^{-eldertree}$, which indeed has the solution $eldertree = \\log safflower$.",
      "status": "complete"
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "a_0": "infinitefinal",
        "a_n+1": "previousterm",
        "a_{n+1}": "previousterm",
        "a_n": "nextvalue",
        "b_n+1": "beforevalue",
        "b_{n+1}": "beforevalue",
        "b_n": "aftervalue",
        "b_i": "postindex",
        "b_{i}": "postindex",
        "f": "constantfun",
        "i": "staticindex",
        "n": "constantindex",
        "R_n": "mainpart",
        "R_i": "mainparti",
        "x": "outputvar",
        "y": "horizontalaxis",
        "c": "variableconst"
      },
      "question": "Suppose that $infinitefinal = 1$ and that $previousterm = nextvalue + e^{-nextvalue}$ for $constantindex=0,1,2,\\dots$. Does $nextvalue - \\log constantindex$\nhave a finite limit as $constantindex \\to \\infty$? (Here $\\log constantindex = \\log_e constantindex = \\ln constantindex$.)",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution.}\nWe will show that the answer is yes. First note that for all $outputvar>-1$,\n$e^{outputvar} \\geq 1+outputvar$ and thus\n\\begin{equation} \\label{eq:log}\noutputvar \\geq \\log(1+outputvar).\n\\end{equation}\nWe next claim that $nextvalue > \\log(constantindex+1)$ (and in particular that $nextvalue-\\log\nconstantindex > 0$) for all $constantindex$, by induction on $constantindex$. For $constantindex=0$ this follows\nfrom $infinitefinal=1$. Now suppose that $nextvalue > \\log(constantindex+1)$, and define $constantfun(outputvar)\n= outputvar+e^{-outputvar}$, which is an increasing function in $outputvar>0$; then\n\\begin{align*}\npreviousterm &= constantfun(nextvalue) > constantfun(\\log(constantindex+1)) \\\\\n&= \\log(constantindex+1) + 1/(constantindex+1) \\geq \\log(constantindex+2),\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the last inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $outputvar=1/(constantindex+1)$. This completes\nthe induction step.\n\nIt follows that $nextvalue-\\log constantindex$ is a decreasing function in $constantindex$: we have\n\\begin{align*}\n&(previousterm - \\log(constantindex+1)) - (nextvalue - \\log constantindex) \\\\\n&\\,= e^{-nextvalue} + \\log(constantindex/(constantindex+1)) \\\\\n&\\,< 1/(constantindex+1) + \\log(constantindex/(constantindex+1)) \\leq 0,\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the final inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $outputvar = -1/(constantindex+1)$. Thus\n$\\{nextvalue-\\log constantindex\\}_{constantindex=0}^\\infty$ is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers,\nand so it has a limit as $constantindex\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nPut $aftervalue = e^{nextvalue}$, so that $beforevalue = aftervalue e^{1/aftervalue}$.  In terms of the\n$aftervalue$, the problem is to prove that $aftervalue/constantindex$ has a limit as $constantindex \\to \\infty$;\nwe will show that the limit is in fact equal to 1.\n\nExpanding $e^{1/aftervalue}$ as a Taylor series in $1/aftervalue$, we have\n\\[\nbeforevalue = aftervalue + 1 + mainpart\n\\]\nwhere $0 \\leq mainpart \\leq variableconst/aftervalue$ for some absolute constant $variableconst>0$.\nBy writing\n\\[\naftervalue = constantindex+e + \\sum_{staticindex=0}^{constantindex-1} mainparti,\n\\]\nwe see first that $aftervalue \\geq constantindex+e$. We then see that\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &\\leq \\frac{aftervalue}{constantindex} - 1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{constantindex} + \\sum_{staticindex=0}^{constantindex-1} \\frac{mainparti}{constantindex}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{constantindex} + \\sum_{staticindex=0}^{constantindex-1} \\frac{variableconst}{constantindex postindex}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{constantindex} + \\sum_{staticindex=0}^{constantindex-1} \\frac{variableconst}{constantindex (staticindex+e)}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{constantindex} + \\frac{variableconst \\log constantindex}{constantindex}.\n\\end{align*}\nIt follows that $aftervalue/constantindex \\to 1$ as $constantindex \\to \\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nThis problem is an example of the general principle that one can often predict the asymptotic behavior of a recursive\nsequence by studying solutions of a sufficiently similar-looking differential equation. In this case, we\nstart with the equation $previousterm - nextvalue = e^{-nextvalue}$, then replace $nextvalue$ with a function $horizontalaxis(outputvar)$\nand replace the difference $previousterm - nextvalue$ with the derivative $horizontalaxis'(outputvar)$ to obtain the differential equation\n$horizontalaxis' = e^{-horizontalaxis}$, which indeed has the solution $horizontalaxis = \\log outputvar$. "
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "a_0": "qzxwvtnp",
        "a_n+1": "hjgrksla",
        "a_n": "mldpxqve",
        "b_n+1": "tcvwralh",
        "b_n": "kfmdsajo",
        "b_i": "rgnvtecu",
        "f": "yphrksam",
        "i": "lodqweuv",
        "n": "zpkjaqmr",
        "R_n": "jsvhtpoc",
        "x": "blmkduhe",
        "y": "wgfnspie",
        "c": "vzrdlkho"
      },
      "question": "Suppose that $qzxwvtnp = 1$ and that $hjgrksla = mldpxqve + e^{-mldpxqve}$ for $zpkjaqmr=0,1,2,\\dots$. Does $mldpxqve - \\log zpkjaqmr$\nhave a finite limit as $zpkjaqmr \\to \\infty$? (Here $\\log zpkjaqmr = \\log_e zpkjaqmr = \\ln zpkjaqmr$.)",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution.}\nWe will show that the answer is yes. First note that for all $blmkduhe>-1$,\n$e^{blmkduhe} \\geq 1+blmkduhe$ and thus\n\\begin{equation} \\label{eq:log}\nblmkduhe \\geq \\log(1+blmkduhe).\n\\end{equation}\nWe next claim that $mldpxqve > \\log(zpkjaqmr+1)$ (and in particular that $mldpxqve-\\log zpkjaqmr > 0$) for all $zpkjaqmr$, by induction on $zpkjaqmr$. For $zpkjaqmr=0$ this follows\nfrom $qzxwvtnp=1$. Now suppose that $mldpxqve > \\log(zpkjaqmr+1)$, and define $yphrksam(blmkduhe)\n= blmkduhe+e^{-blmkduhe}$, which is an increasing function in $blmkduhe>0$; then\n\\begin{align*}\nhjgrksla &= yphrksam(mldpxqve) > yphrksam(\\log(zpkjaqmr+1)) \\\\\n&= \\log(zpkjaqmr+1) + 1/(zpkjaqmr+1) \\geq \\log(zpkjaqmr+2),\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the last inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $blmkduhe=1/(zpkjaqmr+1)$. This completes\nthe induction step.\n\nIt follows that $mldpxqve-\\log zpkjaqmr$ is a decreasing function in $zpkjaqmr$: we have\n\\begin{align*}\n&(hjgrksla - \\log(zpkjaqmr+1)) - (mldpxqve - \\log zpkjaqmr) \\\\\n&\\,= e^{-mldpxqve} + \\log(zpkjaqmr/(zpkjaqmr+1)) \\\\\n&\\,< 1/(zpkjaqmr+1) + \\log(zpkjaqmr/(zpkjaqmr+1)) \\leq 0,\n\\end{align*}\nwhere the final inequality is \\eqref{eq:log} with $blmkduhe = -1/(zpkjaqmr+1)$. Thus\n$\\{mldpxqve-\\log zpkjaqmr\\}_{zpkjaqmr=0}^\\infty$ is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers,\nand so it has a limit as $zpkjaqmr\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nPut $kfmdsajo = e^{mldpxqve}$, so that $tcvwralh = kfmdsajo e^{1/kfmdsajo}$.  In terms of the\n$kfmdsajo$, the problem is to prove that $kfmdsajo/zpkjaqmr$ has a limit as $zpkjaqmr \\to \\infty$;\nwe will show that the limit is in fact equal to 1.\n\nExpanding $e^{1/kfmdsajo}$ as a Taylor series in $1/kfmdsajo$, we have\n\\[\ntcvwralh = kfmdsajo + 1 + jsvhtpoc\n\\]\nwhere $0 \\leq jsvhtpoc \\leq vzrdlkho/kfmdsajo$ for some absolute constant $vzrdlkho>0$.\nBy writing\n\\[\nkfmdsajo = zpkjaqmr+e + \\sum_{lodqweuv=0}^{zpkjaqmr-1} R_{lodqweuv},\n\\]\nwe see first that $kfmdsajo \\geq zpkjaqmr+e$. We then see that\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &\\leq \\frac{kfmdsajo}{zpkjaqmr} - 1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{zpkjaqmr} + \\sum_{lodqweuv=0}^{zpkjaqmr-1} \\frac{R_{lodqweuv}}{zpkjaqmr}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{zpkjaqmr} + \\sum_{lodqweuv=0}^{zpkjaqmr-1} \\frac{vzrdlkho}{zpkjaqmr rgnvtecu}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{zpkjaqmr} + \\sum_{lodqweuv=0}^{zpkjaqmr-1} \\frac{vzrdlkho}{zpkjaqmr (lodqweuv+e)}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{e}{zpkjaqmr} + \\frac{vzrdlkho \\log zpkjaqmr}{zpkjaqmr}.\n\\end{align*}\nIt follows that $kfmdsajo/zpkjaqmr \\to 1$ as $zpkjaqmr \\to \\infty$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nThis problem is an example of the general principle that one can often predict the asymptotic behavior of a recursive\nsequence by studying solutions of a sufficiently similar-looking differential equation. In this case, we\nstart with the equation $hjgrksla - mldpxqve = e^{-mldpxqve}$, then replace $mldpxqve$ with a function $wgfnspie(blmkduhe)$\nand replace the difference $hjgrksla - mldpxqve$ with the derivative $wgfnspie'(blmkduhe)$ to obtain the differential equation\n$wgfnspie' = e^{-wgfnspie}$, which indeed has the solution $wgfnspie = \\log blmkduhe$. "
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $b_0 = 2$ and define \n\\[\n b_{n+1}= b_n + e^{-b_n}\\qquad(n=0,1,2,\\dots).\n\\]\nDetermine whether the sequence $\\bigl\\{\\,b_n-\\ln(n+2)\\,\\bigr\\}_{n\\ge 0}$ converges as $n\\to\\infty$, and justify your answer.",
      "solution": "We claim that\n\n  b_n − ln(n+2) → 0    as n→∞,\n\nso in particular the sequence converges to the finite limit 0.\n\nProof.  Define\n\n  B_n = e^{b_n}.\n\nThen from b_{n+1} = b_n + e^{−b_n} we get\n\n  B_{n+1} = e^{b_{n+1}} = e^{b_n}·e^{e^{−b_n}} = B_n·e^{1/B_n}.\n\nWe now expand the exponential in a one–term Taylor remainder form.  For t>0,\n\n  e^t = 1 + t + R(t),    where   R(t) = e^ξ·t^2/2   for some ξ∈[0,t].\n\nApply this with t=1/B_n.  Then\n\n  e^{1/B_n} = 1 + 1/B_n + R_n,\n\nwhere R_n = O(1/B_n^2); in particular there is a constant C such that\n\n  0 ≤ R_n ≤ C/B_n^2.\n\nHence\n\n  B_{n+1} = B_n·(1 + 1/B_n + R_n) = B_n + 1 + (R_n·B_n)\n          = B_n + 1 + E_n,\n\nwhere\n\n  0 ≤ E_n = R_n·B_n ≤ C/B_n ≤ C/(n+2)\n\n(since trivially B_n = e^{b_n} ≥ e^{ln(n+2)} = n+2 by the easy lower–bound b_n>ln(n+2)).\n\nSumming this recursion from k=0 to k=n−1 gives\n\n  B_n = B_0 + n + ∑_{k=0}^{n−1} E_k = e^2 + n + ∑_{k=0}^{n−1}E_k.\n\nBut 0 ≤ ∑_{k=0}^{n−1}E_k ≤ C∑_{k=0}^{n−1}1/(k+2) = O(log n).  Therefore\n\n  B_n = n + O(log n)\n\nand more precisely\n\n  B_n/(n+2) = 1 + O((log n)/(n+2)) → 1.\n\nTaking logarithms,\n\n  b_n = ln B_n = ln(n+2) + ln(B_n/(n+2))\n\nand since B_n/(n+2)→1, ln(B_n/(n+2))→0.  Hence\n\n  b_n − ln(n+2) → 0\n\nas claimed.  In particular, the sequence {b_n − ln(n+2)} converges (to 0).",
      "_meta": {
        "core_steps": [
          "Apply e^x ≥ 1 + x  (⇔  x ≥ log(1+x)) to relate linear and logarithmic terms.",
          "Use monotonicity of f(x)=x+e^{-x} plus induction to prove a_n > log(n+1).",
          "Compute Δ_n = (a_{n+1}-log(n+1))-(a_n-log n) and show Δ_n ≤ 0 with the same inequality, hence {a_n−log n} is decreasing.",
          "Observe that a_n−log n ≥ 0 from Step 2, so the sequence is bounded below.",
          "Invoke the monotone-convergence principle: a positive, decreasing sequence has a finite limit."
        ],
        "mutable_slots": {
          "slot1": {
            "description": "Initial value of the recursion; any choice that already exceeds log 1 keeps the induction base valid.",
            "original": "a_0 = 1"
          },
          "slot2": {
            "description": "Constant multiplier in the update rule (a_{n+1}=a_n + c·e^{−a_n}); any c ≥ 1 still makes k/(n+1) dominate log(1+1/(n+1)).",
            "original": "c = 1"
          },
          "slot3": {
            "description": "Fixed shift in the comparison term log(n+β); any β > 0 works because log(n+β+1)−log(n+β) ≤ 1/(n+β).",
            "original": "β = 0  (i.e. log n vs. log(n+1))"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}