Is This Induction Proof of Bernoulli's Inequality Correct?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of an induction proof for Bernoulli's inequality, specifically examining the steps involved in proving the inequality A(n) = (1+x) ^n ≥ 1 + nx for n in the natural numbers. Participants explore the structure of the proof, including the base case and induction step, as well as alternative methods of proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Bob presents an initial proof attempt for Bernoulli's inequality but receives feedback that the induction step is not correctly formulated, as it should apply to an arbitrary natural number n.
  • Bob seeks clarification on how to properly demonstrate that A(n+1) is true, suggesting a specific form of the inequality for the induction step.
  • Another participant confirms that Bob should show A(n+1) is true given A(n) is true for some arbitrary n.
  • One participant proposes an alternative proof method using derivatives of the function f(x) = (1+x) ^n - 1 - nx, suggesting that showing the function is greater than zero and increasing could suffice.
  • Bob attempts to clarify the derivative of f(x) but receives a correction regarding the expression for f'(x) from another participant.
  • A participant emphasizes the three steps of proof by induction and suggests proving the base case for n = 0, as well as providing a detailed outline of the induction process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to correctly formulate the induction step, but there is no consensus on the sufficiency of Bob's original proof or the alternative methods proposed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to complete the proof.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions and potential misunderstandings regarding the derivative calculations and the structure of the proof by induction. The discussion highlights the complexity of proving inequalities and the importance of clarity in mathematical reasoning.

Bob19
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Hi I'm doing a small induction proof for bernoullis inequailty:
Proof:
Given the inequality [tex]A(n) = (1+x) ^n \geq 1+nx[/tex]
[tex]r \geq -1[/tex], [tex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex]
Initial step:
A(n=1) is true cause [tex](1+x) \geq 1 + x[/tex] is true.
Induction step:
A(n) is true is since n = 1 and [tex]r \geq -1[/tex] so
[tex]0 \geq 0[/tex]
Therefore by the rules of induction
A(n+1) is true.
q.e.d.
Is my proof sufficient ??
Best Regards,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No.

Induction step:
A(n) is true is since n = 1...

In the inductive step, n is supposed to be an /arbitrary/ natural number for which A(n) is true.
 
Okay and thank you for your answer,
What do I need to add under the induction step to complete the proof?
Do I need to show that A(n+1) is true?
By that I mean

[tex]A(n+1) = (1+x) ^{n} (1+x) \geq (1 + nx) (1+x)[/tex]
[tex]A(n+1) = (1+x) ^{n} (1+x) \geq (1 + x + nx^2)[/tex]

Is this correct to way to show that A(n+1) is true ?
Sincerley
Bob
 
Last edited:
Yes. Given that A(n) is true for some (arbitrary) n, show that A(n + 1) is true.
 
You could also prove it by saying:

[tex]f\left(x\right)=\left(1+x\right)^{n}-1-nx,[/tex]

then use derivatives to show that it is greater than zero and increasing on a certain interval.
 
apmcavoy said:
You could also prove it by saying:
[tex]f\left(x\right)=\left(1+x\right)^{n}-1-nx,[/tex]
then use derivatives to show that it is greater than zero and increasing on a certain interval.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

d/dx = n x ^ (n-1)

Since [tex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex] then if n > 0, A(n+1) groves and therefore its true.

Is that what you mean ?

best regards,
Bob
 
Bob19 said:
Hi I'm doing a small induction proof for bernoullis inequailty:
Proof:
Given the inequality [tex]A(n) = (1+x) ^n \geq 1+nx[/tex]
[tex]r \geq -1[/tex], [tex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex]
Bob
?
I just wondered what r is in your first post?? :confused:
-----------------
There are 3 steps in proof by induction:
(1) Test if the statement's true for n = 0.
(2) Assume the statement is true for n = k.
(3) Prove the statement is true for n = k + 1 using the induction hypothesis (2).
----------
(1) So you have shown that for n = 1, the equality is true. Or you can even show that the inequality is true for n = 0.
For n = 0, you'll have:
(1 + x)0 ≥ 1 + 0x. And that's true!
(2)Then assume the inequality is true for n = k, ie:
(1 + x)k ≥ 1 + kx.
(3)Now let's prove it's true for n = k + 1. That means, you have to prove:
(1 + x)k + 1 ≥ 1 + (k + 1)x.
So (1 + x)k + 1 = (1 + x)k (1 + x)
Since x ≥ -1, so 1 + x ≥ 0.
Using the induction hypothesis, you have:
(1 + x)k ≥ 1 + kx
<=> (1 + x)k (1 + x) ≥ (1 + kx) (1 + x) (Note that: 1 + x ≥ 0).
<=> (1 + x)k (1 + x) ≥ 1 + x + kx + kx2. From there, can you show that (1 + x)k + 1 ≥ 1 + (k + 1)x?
---------------------
You don't have to prove it by taking the derivatives of f(x). But by the way, your f'(x) is wrong.
f(x) = (1 + x)n - 1 - nx, then
f'(x) = (1 + x)n' - 1' - nx' = n(1 + x)n - 1 - n.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K