1 | initial version |
The simple reason is that your conjecture is False. Try with:
A = 1
b = 2
c = 1/2
You will get :
sage: Sequence_rec(3) - Sequence_rec(2)
-20/3
Note also that the denominator can vanish along the loop when i=c+2
.
2 | No.2 Revision |
The simple reason is that your conjecture is False. Try with:
A = 1
b = 2
c = 1/2
You All those numbers are strictly positive, but you will get : get:
sage: Sequence_rec(3) - Sequence_rec(2)
-20/3
Note also that the denominator can vanish along the loop when i=c+2
., which may be another cause of trouble.
3 | No.3 Revision |
The simple reason is that your conjecture is False. Try with:
A = 1
b = 2
c = 1/2
All those numbers are strictly positive, but you will get:
sage: Sequence_rec(3) - Sequence_rec(2)
-20/3
Note also that the denominator can vanish along the loop when i=c+2
, which may be another cause of trouble.trouble (you will have a lot of poles). By the way, even if the sequence was indeed increasing, Sage will not be able to give an answer for all n
together (it does not understands loops symbolically, and you could even imagine coding undecidable problems there).
4 | No.4 Revision |
The simple reason is that your conjecture is False. Try with:
A = 1
b = 2
c = 1/2
All those numbers are strictly positive, but you will get:
sage: Sequence_rec(3) - Sequence_rec(2)
-20/3
Note also that the denominator can vanish along the loop when i=c+2
, which may be another cause of trouble (you will have a lot of poles). By the way, even if the sequence was indeed increasing, Sage will not be able to give an answer for all n
together (it does not understands loops symbolically, and symbolically). Moreover, you could even imagine coding to encode undecidable problems there).in the iteration of such formulas.