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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshanders_84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
joshanders_84
Messages
23
Reaction score
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
Start with:
1. n \geq 4
2. n! &gt; 2^n
and try to get to
(n+1)! &gt; 2^{n+1}

It shoud be pretty straightforward.
 
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.
 
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.
n!&gt;2^n
and
n &gt; 4

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

In general, it's worth trying to figure out wether it 'safe'
to multiply
n!&gt;2^n
by
n+1 &gt; 2
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.
 
I saw a great walkthrough of this proof on inductiveproofs.com. It's an e course about how to write inductive proofs. Very helpful!
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top