Recursive sequence problem: proofs by mathematical induction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving by mathematical induction that the recursive sequence defined by a_{n+1}=3-\frac{1}{a_n} with a_1=1 is both increasing and bounded above by 3. The first task confirms that if a_k < 3 holds, then a_{k+1} also remains less than 3. The second task establishes that the sequence is increasing by showing a_{k+2} > a_{k+1} under the assumption that a_k > a_{k-1}. Participants note the need for clearer notation and emphasize the importance of correctly stating the inductive hypothesis. Overall, the proof strategy is validated, but clarity in presentation is recommended.
DivGradCurl
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
Guys,

I'm trying to prove by induction that the sequence given by
a_{n+1}=3-\frac{1}{a_n} \qquad a_1=1 is increasing and a_n &lt; 3 \qquad \forall n .

Is the following correct? Thank you. :smile:

Task #1.
n = 1 \Longrightarrow a_2=2&gt;a_1 is true.
We assume n = k is true. Then,
3-\frac{1}{a_{k+1}} &gt; 3-\frac{1}{a_k}
a_{k+2} &gt; a_{k+1} is true for n=k+1.
This shows, by mathematical induction, that
a_{n+1} &gt; a_{n} \qquad \forall n .

Task #2
We already know that
a_1 &lt; 3 is true.
We assume n=k is true. Then,
a_k &lt; 3
\frac{1}{a_k} &gt; \frac{1}{3}
-\frac{1}{a_k} &lt; -\frac{1}{3}
3-\frac{1}{a_k} &lt; 3-\frac{1}{3}
a_{k+1} &lt; \frac{8}{3} &lt; 3
a_{k+1} &lt; 3 is true for n = k+1. Thus,
a_{n} &lt; 3 \qquad \forall n .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This is not written very well and some indices are wrong.
For the first step with ##n=1## we have ##3 > 2 = a_2 = 3- \frac{1}{a_1} > 1 = a_1 > 0##.
Let us next assume we have shown ##3 > a_n > a_{n-1} > 0##.

[Here we have to write the calculation 'backwards'.]
$$
3 > 3- \frac{1}{a_n} = a_{n+1} \stackrel{(1)}{>} 3 - \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} = a_n > 0
$$
where ##(1)## follows from: ##a_n > a_{n-1} \Longrightarrow \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} > \frac{1}{a_n} \Longrightarrow -\frac{1}{a_n} > -\frac{1}{a_{n-1}}##
 
In addition to fresh_42's comments, this line:
We assume n=k is true. Then,
a_k &lt; 3
You don't "assume" that n = k is true -- you assume that the proposition ##a_n < 3## is true for n = k.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top