![]() ![]() Explicit ones are a lot simpler and faster. It would make sense, as I can't really see the value of recursive formulas if explicit ones always work. It seems that for a formula on the given issue to work, it is necessary to refer back to the previous term, and that you can't make explicit formulas for any sequence, even if you can make a recursive one. I've been trying for over an hour now though, to convert this into an explicit one, with no luck. It seems I've managed to make a recursive one that works: I was inspired by these formulas to make an explicit and recursive formula for the remaining debt after payment per term on a mortgage, with a fixed payment per term plan. Feel free to ask any questions for further explanation. I know that is a mouthful, but it is about the best way I can explain it. So in mathematical terms this means 4 * (-0.5)^n-1 times. Since f(1) is always 4 this means you can say 4 * -0.5 (whatever your n is, minus one, and you have to multiply times 0.5 this many times. so like f(50), that means you have to multiply f(1) * -0.5 49 times. So now you should see a pattern that whatever n equals you have to multiply f(1) n-1 times -0.5 to get the answer. ![]() to get f(4) you had to multiply f(1) * -0.5 three times. ![]() to get f(3) you had to multiply f(1) * -0.5 two times. But if you notice to get f(2) you had to multiply f(1) * -0.5 one time. then you could use f(2) to work out f(3) till you got to f(50). since you know f(1)=4 because it was given to you, you can plug in the numbers. You would have to get 47, then 46, then 45 until you got all the way back to 1. This is why it is called "recursive", the answer needs you to get the answer of the previous term to get your final answer. So you would have to find f(49) So you plug it in. Well then you need to know what f(49) is. If someone were to ask you "what is f(50). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |