Given Tn = Tn-1 + Tn-2 + Tn-3 , T0 , T1 and T2 given, find the value of Ú¥

Ti
i=0 2i
.

First, write S = Ú¥ = Ú¥
Ti Ti-1 +Ti-2 +Ti-3 T T T
i=0 2i i=3 2i
+ 10 + 21 + 42

Then S - IT0 + M = Ú¥ = Ú¥i=3 2i + Úi=3 2i + Úi=3 2i

T1 T2 Ti-1 +Ti-2 +Ti-3 Ti-1 ¥ Ti-2 ¥ Ti-3
2
+ 4 i=3 2i
= 12 Ú¥ i=3 2i-1 + 4 Úi=3 2i-2 + 8 Úi=3 2i-3
Ti-1 1 ¥ Ti-2 1 ¥ Ti-3

= 12 IS - T0 - 12 T1 M + 14 HS - T0 L + 18 S = S - IT0 + 12 T1 + 14 T2 M
\ 7
8
S - 34 T0 - 14 T1 = S - T0 - 1
T - 14 T2 Þ S8 = 14 T0 + 14 T1 + 14 T2 Þ S = 2 HT0 + T1 + T2 L.
2 1

Interestingly, this shows that the sum relies on the initial three terms linearly and with equal weight.
However, this turns out to be a function of the powers of 2, instead of some other base: if we evalu-
ate the sum (in the same exact manner) with powers of x in the denominator instead, i.e. the sum
Ú¥
Ti xIT0 Ix 2 -x-1M+T1 Hx-1L+T2 M
i=0 xi
, we obtain S = x 3 -x 2 -x-1
. I quickly noticed the strange (though not unexpected)
connection between this and a very old post of mine where I investigated (to no satisfying end) the
fibonacci sequence and an extension of it, where the nth term of the sequence was given by the sum
of the previous 3, 4, 5, and so on, terms. (The T sequence we have here is the immediate extension,
each term being the sum of the previous 3 terms, the one I investigated most thoroughly.) My analy-
sis found only that, just as with the fibonacci sequence, each of these sequences became an geometric
sequence as the terms went to infinity, and that the ratio of the geometric sequence was given by the
solution to the polynomial x n - x n-1 - ... - x 2 - x - 1 = 0 in the range @1, 2D, where n is the number
of previous terms we sum to obtain the next term in the sequence. The proof is actually very similar
to the summation analysis above: letting FnHxL be the nth such sequence evaluated at integer x, con-
sider the limit

Lim Fn HxL Fn Hx-1L+Fn Hx-2L+Fn Hx-3L+...+Fn Hx-nL

x®¥ Fn Hx-1L Fn Hx-1L
1 1 1
= CHnL = Lim = 1 + CHnL + + ... +
x®¥ CHnL2 CHnLn-1

So that CHnLn - CHnLn-1 - ... - CHnL2 - CHnL - 1 = 0

,
1+ 5
For n = 2, the fibonacci sequence, the constant is the famous golden ratio, 2
. In any event, this
seems almost absolutely connected because the value of our sum above makes use (in a recursive
manner...?) of the polynomials of this form. Notice that if x was the ratio our T sequence has in the
Ti
sum, then the series clearly diverges, since after a while xi
is simply a constant, so that the sum is ¥
times a constant, which is ¥; note that if x is less than that value, the series sums to something nega-
tive, which makes no sense; well, it means (as we have noticed before) that it diverges, but can be
thought of as converging to something negative. And similarly, the sensible case is where x is greater
than that constant, so the sum converges to something normal.

Without even doing it out, we might see what the value of the sum would look like for different the
 Fn HxL Fn Hx-1L+Fn Hx-2L+Fn Hx-3L+...+Fn Hx-nL
n Hx-1L Fn Hx-1L
1 1 1
Lim F
= CHnL = Lim = 1 + CHnL + + ... +
2x®¥
Assorted Problems.nb x®¥ CHnL2 CHnLn-1

So that CHnLn - CHnLn-1 - ... - CHnL2 - CHnL - 1 = 0

,
1+ 5
For n = 2, the fibonacci sequence, the constant is the famous golden ratio, 2
. In any event, this
seems almost absolutely connected because the value of our sum above makes use (in a recursive
manner...?) of the polynomials of this form. Notice that if x was the ratio our T sequence has in the
Ti
sum, then the series clearly diverges, since after a while xi
is simply a constant, so that the sum is ¥
times a constant, which is ¥; note that if x is less than that value, the series sums to something nega-
tive, which makes no sense; well, it means (as we have noticed before) that it diverges, but can be
thought of as converging to something negative. And similarly, the sensible case is where x is greater
than that constant, so the sum converges to something normal.

Without even doing it out, we might see what the value of the sum would look like for different the
various sequences, extending the formula we had for S above:
xIT0 Ix n-1 -...-x-1M+T1 Ix n-2 -...-x-1M+...+Tn-2 Hx-1L+Tn-1 M
Sn = x n -x n-1 -...-x-1
. I have no desire to check that this is correct, as no
other formula seems possible.

The next problem was inspired by J-Walking. Suppose you are thinking about crossing the street
illegally: there is a car coming from one direction, but it travels just as fast as you: 1 ms . (We'll vary this
later.) The street is k meters wide: what is the minimal angle you must take so as to make it across
safely (i.e. just as the car reaches the point where you successfully crossed)?

Π
Suppose you leave at an angle of Θ to the perpendicular across the street, i.e. of 2
- Θ to the curb;
then you must walk k Sec Θ units to make it across, while the car, to make it to that point exactly
when you do, will have to drive 1 + k Tan Θ units: thus, we have
k Sec Θ = 1 + k Tan Θ • Cos Θ + k Sin Θ = k; letting u = Cos Θ, we have

k - u = k 1 - u2
k2 - 2 k u + u 2 = k2 - k2 u 2
u 2 H1 + k2 L - uH2 kL = 0
2k
u = 0 or Θ = ArcCosI 1+k 2
M

Thus, since Θ = Π2 represents us making it across the street at the point at infinity, the other one is the
one we're looking for. Considering the graph below, with k = 1, for example, this implies that you
can walk straight across (though somewhat uncomfortably) safely; for 0 < k < 1, you can actually cut
backwards toward the car at the desired angle to the vertical (though there is no point, unless the
restauraunt you're trying to get to is on that part of the street), and for k > 1 you have to take a less
and less agressive angle, nearing slowly Θ = Π2 as k®¥.
 2
then you must walk k Sec Θ units to make it across, while the car, to make it to that point exactly
when you do, will have to drive 1 + k Tan Θ units: thus, we have Assorted Problems.nb 3
k Sec Θ = 1 + k Tan Θ • Cos Θ + k Sin Θ = k; letting u = Cos Θ, we have

k - u = k 1 - u2
k2 - 2 k u + u 2 = k2 - k2 u 2
u 2 H1 + k2 L - uH2 kL = 0
2k
u = 0 or Θ = ArcCosI 1+k 2
M

Thus, since Θ = Π2 represents us making it across the street at the point at infinity, the other one is the
one we're looking for. Considering the graph below, with k = 1, for example, this implies that you
can walk straight across (though somewhat uncomfortably) safely; for 0 < k < 1, you can actually cut
backwards toward the car at the desired angle to the vertical (though there is no point, unless the
restauraunt you're trying to get to is on that part of the street), and for k > 1 you have to take a less
and less agressive angle, nearing slowly Θ = Π2 as k®¥.

F, 8k, 0, 10<, PlotRange ® 80, Pi  2<F

2k
PlotBArcCosB
1 + k^2

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Now suppose you travel at S ms , while the car's speed remains, WLOG, 1 m
s
; similarly, leaving the
starting distance between you and the car hasn't lost generality since all that really matters is the ratio
between the distance between you and the car and the width of the street, which we are already
varying (the variable kL. Then the minimal crossing angle is given by

k Sec Θ
S
= k Tan Θ + 1 • k Sec Θ = S + S k Tan Θ; with the same substitution we obtain

k = S u+S k 1 - u 2 , and after a bit of algebra,

Θ = ArcCosA s22 +k
kS
2
E

Clearly, a zero occurs where S = k Þ Θ = 0; other than that, the graph has all the same properties as
the S = 1 case, which is to be expected; you just have more or less leeway for each k depending on
your speed, and vice versa.
between the distance between you and the car and the width of the street, which we are already
varying (the variable kL. Then the minimal crossing angle is given by
4 Assorted Problems.nb

k Sec Θ
S
= k Tan Θ + 1 • k Sec Θ = S + S k Tan Θ; with the same substitution we obtain

k = S u+S k 1 - u 2 , and after a bit of algebra,

Θ = ArcCosA s22 +k
kS
2
E

Clearly, a zero occurs where S = k Þ Θ = 0; other than that, the graph has all the same properties as
the S = 1 case, which is to be expected; you just have more or less leeway for each k depending on
your speed, and vice versa.

F, 8k, 0, 50<, PlotRange ® 80, Pi  2<F, 8S, 0, 50<F

2kS
ManipulateBPlotBArcCosB
S2 + k2

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Take this problem as a last example: suppose you want to cross the street; the car is still 1m away, the
street is 20m wide, and the car is still going 1 ms ; if you want to run across at an angle of 30 degrees,
how fast will you have to run it?

We let Π
6
= ArcCosA S240+400
S
E”S = 20
H2 ± 1L, which is probably about how fast New Yorkers can
3
Π
walk (around 11.5 ms ). The ± is there because you could run at 6
of the perpendicular toward or away
from the car: running toward the car clearly requires more speed, so it is the one with the +; the
other is the -. (Graphically it's clear- at each value for Θ, there are two values of S that give you that
value.) Well, suppose you're carrying some luggage and can't run; how much easier would it be to run
at a 60 degree angle to the perpendicular? Π
3
= ArcCosA S240+400
S
E”S = 20 I2 ± 3 M, which is approxi-
mately 5.36 ms , still a little unreasonable; better to just find the crosswalk.

This next problem is one I solved a while ago; I'm not positive of my solution, but I'm going to post
it and edit it later if need be.
street is 20m wide, and the car is still going 1 ms ; if you want to run across at an angle of 30 degrees,
how fast will you have to run it?
Assorted Problems.nb 5

We let Π
6
= ArcCosA S240+400
S
E”S = 20
H2 ± 1L, which is probably about how fast New Yorkers can
3
Π
walk (around 11.5 ms ). The ± is there because you could run at 6
of the perpendicular toward or away
from the car: running toward the car clearly requires more speed, so it is the one with the +; the
other is the -. (Graphically it's clear- at each value for Θ, there are two values of S that give you that
value.) Well, suppose you're carrying some luggage and can't run; how much easier would it be to run
at a 60 degree angle to the perpendicular? Π
3
= ArcCosA S240+400
S
E”S = 20 I2 ± 3 M, which is approxi-
mately 5.36 ms , still a little unreasonable; better to just find the crosswalk.

This next problem is one I solved a while ago; I'm not positive of my solution, but I'm going to post
it and edit it later if need be.

Problem: A house with some number of rooms has an even number of lamps so the lamps can be
set in pairs of 2 so that both lamps in each pair have their states switched by flicking the same switch.
As well, each room has at least 3 lamps. Prove that for every initial state of lamps, (onness/offness),
we can flip switches in such a way that every room has one lamp on and one lamp off.

Proof:Call a room "isolated" if the lamps in that room are paired only with other lamps in the same
room; similarly, isolated rooms are rooms whose lamps are paired only to other lams in those rooms.
An unstable room is neither fully light nor dark; a stable room is either fully light or dark. For an
unstable room, if there are more lights in one state than the other, or the numbers are equal, call the
lamps in the state with more (or equal) the strong group of that room. The proof goes by induction
on the number of rooms.

Assume that we can reach an unstable house given any house with 1, 2, 3, ... or k rooms; also,
assume that the case with i stable rooms is solveable. Show that we can reach an unstable state if
there are k + 1 rooms and i + 1 stable rooms. We know that if there is any isolated room or rooms, we
can achieve an unstable house by assumption, since each group of isolated rooms has size less than
k + 1, i.e. one of the sizes 1, 2, 3... or k. As well, the cases we consider will vary the number of stable
rooms in the initial state: if any of those rooms are isolated, we can flip the switch to make them
unstable, and by our second inductive hypothesis we are done.

Now, if any pair of stable rooms is connected by a single lamp pair, we can flip that switch and be
done by assumption; thus, we need only consider cases where stable rooms connect only to unstable
rooms Hi + 1 rooms stable, k - i rooms unstableL. If any of the stable rooms' lamps connect to the
strong group in an unstable room, then flip that switch ® we are done by hypothesis.

Now, if any of the stable rooms' lamps connect to the strong group in an unstable room then we may
flip that switch, and by assumption are done. If all the stable rooms connect only to the weak groups
of the unstable rooms, then since there are at least 3 i + 3 weak-group lamps, if any stable room lamp
pair is in a weak-group with another stable room lamp pair, we may flip one of them ” the state of
Assume that we can reach an unstable house given any house with 1, 2, 3, ... or k rooms; also,
assume that the case with i stable rooms is solveable. Show that we can reach an unstable state if
there
6
are k + 1 rooms and i + 1 stable rooms. We know that if there is any isolated room or rooms, we
Assorted Problems.nb
can achieve an unstable house by assumption, since each group of isolated rooms has size less than
k + 1, i.e. one of the sizes 1, 2, 3... or k. As well, the cases we consider will vary the number of stable
rooms in the initial state: if any of those rooms are isolated, we can flip the switch to make them
unstable, and by our second inductive hypothesis we are done.

Now, if any pair of stable rooms is connected by a single lamp pair, we can flip that switch and be
done by assumption; thus, we need only consider cases where stable rooms connect only to unstable
rooms Hi + 1 rooms stable, k - i rooms unstableL. If any of the stable rooms' lamps connect to the
strong group in an unstable room, then flip that switch ® we are done by hypothesis.

Now, if any of the stable rooms' lamps connect to the strong group in an unstable room then we may
flip that switch, and by assumption are done. If all the stable rooms connect only to the weak groups
of the unstable rooms, then since there are at least 3 i + 3 weak-group lamps, if any stable room lamp
pair is in a weak-group with another stable room lamp pair, we may flip one of them ” the state of
the unstable room isn't changed, and by hypothesis the house is solveable. Finally, the case remains
where every stable room lamp pair has its own room and is the weak group in that room; if any lamp
pair shares the weak group with another lamp pair in taht room, flip that switch, (the one connecting
it to the stable room) and we're done by hypothesis. IF every lamp is in the weak group and is the
only lamp in that group, take on of those unstable rooms and flip the switch of a lamp in its strong
group; that lamp can't turn any unstable room back to a stable one since the unstable rooms each
have at least two lamps in their strong groups ” that room now has at least two lamps in the weak
group, so flip the one connected to the stable room and we're done by hypothesis.

Base Cases: 1) k + 1 rooms, 0 stable rooms : this house is already solved. 2) 1 room, i stable rooms: if
it is unstable, we are done; if not, it must be isolated ® flip that switch, and since there are 2 lamps in
the weak group, there must be 2 X - 2 ³ 1 > 0 lamps in teh strong group, so it is in fact unstable. ƒ