| Thread Closed |
proof for k natural numbers |
Share Thread |
| Jan19-09, 10:10 PM | #1 |
|
|
proof for k natural numbers
Hi, how would you show that 4^(k)+4 * 9^(k) [tex]\equiv[/tex] 0 (mod 5)
|
| Jan19-09, 11:37 PM | #2 |
|
|
Note that 9 is congruent to 4 mod 5.
|
| Jan20-09, 01:23 AM | #3 |
|
|
Checking a few small values of k shows it is not always true.
|
| Jan20-09, 02:55 AM | #4 |
|
|
proof for k natural numbers |
| Jan20-09, 07:47 AM | #5 |
|
|
[tex] 4^{k+4} \cdot 9^{k} [/tex] Then letting [tex] k = 0 [/tex] we get [tex] 4^{0+4} \cdot 9^{0} = 256 [/tex] That is certainly not 0 mod 5. Next letting [tex] k = 1 [/tex] we get [tex] 4^{1+4} \cdot 9^{1} = 9216 [/tex] Also not 0 mod 5? |
| Jan20-09, 09:02 AM | #6 |
|
|
Actually, what he meant was [tex]4^k + 4*9^k \equiv 0 \text{mod} 5[/tex].
Hint. Try induction over [tex]k[/tex]. You may rephrase it to: for every [tex]k \in N[/tex], there's an [tex]n \in N[/tex] such that [tex]4^k + 4*9^k = 5n[/tex]. |
| Jan20-09, 05:23 PM | #7 |
|
|
sorry for the typo i corrected it. so if i use induction than its easy for the base case K=0 which gives me 5 congruent 0 mod 5 which is true. Now, wsalem wrote that expression using the relationship a=mn+b with b=0. Now how am I supposed to use induction for k in this case when there is also n present.
|
| Jan20-09, 06:14 PM | #8 |
|
|
would really appreciate if someone could help me on this.
|
| Jan20-09, 06:56 PM | #9 |
|
|
Define [tex]P(k)[/tex] as the statement: [tex]4^k + 4*9^k = 5n[/tex] for some [tex]n \in N[/tex]
For the inductive step. Suppose [tex]P(k)[/tex] hold, i.e there is an [tex]n \in N[/tex] such that : [tex]4^k + 4*9^k = 5n[/tex]. Then you need to show that P(k+1) also holds, i.e there is an [tex]m \in N[/tex] such that [tex]4^{k+1} + 4*9^{k+1} = 5m[/tex]. |
| Jan20-09, 07:54 PM | #10 |
|
|
i know how induction works but i cant figure out what specific 4^k expression do i have to add/multiply to [tex]
4^{k+1} + 4*9^{k+1} = 5m [/tex] make it work for m+1. |
| Jan20-09, 08:09 PM | #11 |
|
|
No, you are missing the point of induction here! It is k we want to run induction over, not m, so it is pointless to say "m+1". The existence of a such m is merely for the statement P(k) to hold at a particular case.
Inductive step: Suppose P(k) holds, then [tex]4^k = 5n - 4*9^k[/tex] Now [tex]4^{k+1} + 4*9^{k+1} = ....[/tex] now, for P(k+1) to hold, you must show that [tex]4^{k+1} + 4*9^{k+1} = 5*m[/tex] for some integer m. |
| Jan20-09, 08:24 PM | #12 |
|
|
sorry i didnt mean m+1. What i'm saying is that there is some expression involving k which must be multiplied on either side of the equation. I don't know what that expression is.
|
| Jan20-09, 08:28 PM | #13 |
|
|
I gave it to you in the earlier reply. Think harder, it should be quite obvious by now!
|
| Jan20-09, 08:29 PM | #14 |
|
|
You know that
[tex] 4^k + 4 \cdot 9^k = 5m, k,m \in \mathbb{Z} [/tex] Now we want to show that [tex] 4^{l+1} + 4 \cdot 9^{l+1} = 5n, l, n \in \mathbb{Z} [/tex] So let's work with our expression [tex] 4^{l+1} + 4 \cdot 9^{l+1} = 4 \cdot 4^l + 4 \cdot 9 \cdot 9^l = 4 \cdot 4^l + 4 \cdot (4+5) \cdot 9^l = 4 \cdot 4^l + 4^{2} \cdot 9^l + 4 \cdot 5 \cdot 9^l = 4 \left(4^l + 4 \cdot 9^l) + 5 \cdot 4 \cdot 9^l [/tex] The first part you know is divisible by 5 from the hypothesis, the 2nd part has a factor of 5 so obviously it is too. |
| Jan20-09, 08:33 PM | #15 |
|
|
I think holding the final answer to enable saadsarfraz to reach it would have been much better!
|
| Jan20-09, 08:40 PM | #16 |
|
|
NoMoreExams,
|
| Jan20-09, 08:41 PM | #17 |
|
|
Yes sorry I'll fix it
|
| Thread Closed |
Similar discussions for: proof for k natural numbers
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Natural Numbers | General Math | 7 | ||
| Natural numbers Z? | Linear & Abstract Algebra | 6 | ||
| Natural Numbers - Pi, Log, .... | General Math | 8 | ||
| Natural numbers [please help] | Calculus | 4 | ||