New to induction, stuck on a proof and i need some help

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyICON
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof Stuck
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that 3 divides the expression n^3 - 7n + 3 for all integers n greater than or equal to 0. Participants are exploring the use of mathematical induction to establish this divisibility, with various approaches and expansions being proposed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant is attempting to prove the statement using induction and has reached the point of needing to show that the expression for k+1 is divisible by 3.
  • Another participant suggests expanding the expression for (k+1) and using the induction hypothesis that k^3 - 7k + 3 is divisible by 3, questioning how to factor out a 3 from the remaining terms.
  • A different approach is proposed, factoring n^3 - 7n + 3 into a product of three consecutive integers and a term that is divisible by 3, suggesting that proving the product of three consecutive integers is always divisible by 3 would suffice.
  • Some participants express confusion over the expansion and the treatment of the -7 term, indicating a need for clarification on how it affects the divisibility.
  • One participant presents a method of assuming the statement is true for n and then attempting to prove it for n+1, showing the steps of expansion and simplification to demonstrate divisibility by 3.
  • Another participant questions whether n^3 - 7n is also divisible by 3 if n^3 - 7n + 3 is, and explores the implications of n not being divisible by 3, leading to a discussion about remainders and factors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to the proof, with multiple competing views and methods being presented. There is ongoing debate regarding the treatment of specific terms in the expressions and the validity of certain steps in the induction process.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their approaches and the implications of their assumptions, particularly regarding the treatment of the -7 term and the conditions under which the expressions are divisible by 3.

johnnyICON
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I am trying to prove that 3 divides [tex]n^3~-7n+3[/tex] for all integers n greater than or equal to 0.

I have gotten to this point:
[tex]3|(k~+~1)^3~-~7(k~+~1)~+~3[/tex]
Where I try to show that is true for k+1. I have been scribbling on scrap paper trying to figure it out. I've expanded the expression countless times no avail.
Could someone give me a hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about multiplying out (k+1)3- 7(k+1)+ 3?
Part of it, of course, will be k3-7k+ 3 which you know, by the "induction hypothesis", is divisible by 3: k3- 7k+ 3= 3n for some integer n. What is the rest? Can you factor a "3" out of it?
 
Consider n^3-7n+3= n^3-n-6n+3=n(n^2-1)-3(2n-1)=(n-1)n(n+1)-3(2n-1). You just need to prove (by induction) that the product of three consecutive integers ((n-1)n(n+1)) is always divisible by 3 since 3(2n-1) is divisible by 3.
 
HallsofIvy said:
How about multiplying out (k+1)3- 7(k+1)+ 3?
Part of it, of course, will be k3-7k+ 3 which you know, by the "induction hypothesis", is divisible by 3: k3- 7k+ 3= 3n for some integer n. What is the rest? Can you factor a "3" out of it?

Ahhh, I didn't notice that when I was expanding out. The k's threw me off :(
Question: You expanded -7(k+1). Where is the -7?

[tex][(k+1)^3-7k+3]-7[/tex]
The equation within the brackets is divisible by 3, but -7 is not. I really like this approach because this is more of how I would try to solve the problem. The -7 doesn't make sense though. Maybe I missed something in your explanation.

Thanks for the help.

LittleWolf said:
Consider n^3-7n+3= n^3-n-6n+3=n(n^2-1)-3(2n-1)=(n-1)n(n+1)-3(2n-1). You just need to prove (by induction) that the product of three consecutive integers ((n-1)n(n+1)) is always divisible by 3 since 3(2n-1) is divisible by 3.

Awesome. This makes sense. I wonder how you are able to see these things right away. Must take a lot of practice to be able to play around with terms that easily. I'll probably give this one a shot, I just feel like I didn't do any work :( Thanks for the help though. :D
 
johnnyICON said:
[tex][(k+1)^3-7k+3]-7[/tex]
The equation within the brackets is divisible by 3, but -7 is not.
Recheck that. The part within brackets is not divisible by 3. You must multiply out the cubic term and keep only the k^3 part within the brackets. The rest go outside, by the "-7".
 
Gokul43201 said:
Recheck that. The part within brackets is not divisible by 3. You must multiply out the cubic term and keep only the k^3 part within the brackets. The rest go outside, by the "-7".

Isn't it though? By the induction hypothesis I am assuming that P(n) is true, that is 3 divides n3-7k+3 where n is just k+1.
 
Whoops, ignore my previous post. :D
 
I have an easy prove for you, but is not quite sure if I'm making an illegal conclusion (I have not learned about induction yet). Take a look:

First I asume that 3|(n^3 - 7n + 3) is true. Then I try to prove that 3|((n+1)^3 - 7(n+1) + 3) is also true...

I do this by expanding the expresion to:
n^3 + 3n^2 + 3n + 1 - 7n - 7 + 3

And move the terms around:
(n^3 - 7n + 3) + (3n^2 + 3n + 1 - 7)

And at last simplify it:
(n^3 - 7n + 3) + (3n^2 + 3n - 6)
(n^3 - 7n + 3) + 3*(n^2 + n - 2)

Since 3*(n^2 + n - 2) is divisible with 3, I have proven that if 3|(n^3 - 7n + 3) is true, then 3|((n+1)^3 - 7(n+1) + 3) is also true! I guess that is what induction is all about?
 
if n^3-7n+3 is divisible by 3 then isn't
n^3-7n is divisible by 3?

n^3-7n= n(n^2-7)
if n is not divisible by 3, then n^2-7 must. when 3 is in, n^2-7 is never divisible by 3, always a remainder of 2. n^2-7= n^2-4-3

(n-2)(n+2)-3 must be divisible by 3 when n is not divisible by 3.
the three at the end cancels because we know that if k is divisible by 3, then so is k-3.
(n-2)(n+2) must be divisible by 3.
If n has a remainder of 1, like 4, then n+2 must be divisible by 3. If n has a remainder of 2, then (n-2) must be divisible by 3. And the maximum remainder you could possibly have is 2.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K