What are the steps to prove 2^n < n! using induction?

In summary, the conversation is about how to prove the inequality 2^n < n! for n>=4 by using induction. The first step is to establish the base case for n=4, which has already been done. Then, the conversation discusses the inductive hypothesis of n! > 2^n and n > 4. To prove the inequality for (n+1), the next step is to multiply n! (n+1) > 2^n (n+1) and use the fact that n+1 > 2 to get the desired result of (n+1)! > 2^{n+1}. The conversation also mentions the helpful resource of inductiveproofs.com for further guidance on writing in
  • #1
joshanders_84
23
0
I'm to prove that for n>=4, 2^n < n! holds, but I don't know where to go after the inductive hypothesis that it holds for n>= 4 after showing it works for the base case (n = 4). Here are my steps so far:

2^(n+1) < (n+1)!
2*(2^n) < (n+1)(n!)

but I dont' know where to now! help is much appreciated, thanks.
Josh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Start with:
1. [tex]n \geq 4[/tex]
2. [tex]n! > 2^n[/tex]
and try to get to
[tex](n+1)! > 2^{n+1}[/tex]

It shoud be pretty straightforward.
 
  • #3
I understand that I'm supposed to get there, but I don't see the *proper* first step to take, as the things I have tried haven't gotten me there.
 
  • #4
Well, for induction, you usually end up proving the n=1 (or in this case n=4) case first. You've got that done.

Then you need to identify your indictive hypothesis:
e.g.
[tex]n!>2^n[/tex]
and
[tex]n > 4[/tex]

In class the proof might look something like this:
[tex](n+1)!=n! (n+1)[/tex]
from the inductive hypothesis we have
[tex]n! (n+1) > 2^n (n+1)[/tex]
since [tex]n>1[/tex] we have
[tex]2^n(n+1) > 2^n(2)[/tex]
and
[tex]2^n(2) = 2^{n+1}[/tex]
Now, we can string it all togther to get the inequality:
[tex](n+1)!=n! (n+1) > 2^n(n+1) > 2^n(2) =2^{n+1}[/tex]
[tex](n+1)! > 2^{n+1}[/tex]

In general, it's worth trying to figure out wether it 'safe'
to multiply
[tex]n!>2^n[/tex]
by
[tex]n+1 > 2 [/tex]
while preserving the inequality.
Which is really what I wanted to do in my head. As soon as you are sure it is legitemate, you're done.
 
  • #5
I saw a great walkthrough of this proof on inductiveproofs.com. It's an e course about how to write inductive proofs. Very helpful!
 

1. Is "Proof by Induction: 2^n < n" a valid mathematical statement?

Yes, it is a valid statement in mathematics. It is an inequality that can be proven using the principle of mathematical induction.

2. What is the principle of mathematical induction?

The principle of mathematical induction is a proof technique used to establish the truth of an infinite number of statements. It involves proving a base case and then showing that if the statement is true for one value, it is also true for the next value.

3. How is the proof by induction for 2^n < n done?

The proof by induction for 2^n < n can be done by first proving the base case, which is usually n = 1. Then, the inductive step involves showing that if the statement is true for n, it is also true for n+1. This can be done by substituting n+1 into the original statement and simplifying until it matches the statement for n.

4. Can proof by induction be used for any mathematical statement?

No, proof by induction can only be used for statements that can be expressed in terms of integers. It also requires the statement to have a base case and an inductive step that can be proven.

5. How is the result of "2^n < n" useful in mathematics?

The result of "2^n < n" can be useful in proving other mathematical statements or in solving problems that involve exponential and factorial functions. It can also be used to show the growth rate of certain functions.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
875
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
872
Back
Top