A funny proof, but what is wrong with it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobsism
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Funny Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques a proof attempting to establish that for all positive integers n, [(n+1)/2]^n is greater than or equal to n!. The proof incorrectly assumes that disproving the statement for a single case (n=2) is sufficient to negate the universal claim. The mistake lies in misunderstanding the negation of a universal statement, which requires demonstrating that there exists at least one counterexample, rather than just one case where the statement holds true. The participants clarify that the proof fails to address all possible values of n, leaving the original assertion unproven. The conversation highlights the importance of rigorous logical reasoning in mathematical proofs.
jobsism
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Here's a question:-

Prove that for all positive integers n,

[(n+1)/2]^n >= n!

And here's a funny proof for it:-

Assume to the contrary that, for all positive integers n,

[(n+1)/2]^n < n!

However, for n=2,

(3/2)^2 > 2!

Therefore, our assumption must be false.

And hence, for all positive integers n, [(n+1)/2]^n >= n!

Now, I know that this proof can't be correct, because I've seen the real proof, and it's a marvel, making use of algebraic inequalities, and the proof above simply seems too simple compared to it. But I wonder, what's the mistake with the above proof?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You've made a logic mistake.

Consider the sentence

"All men are mortal"

This is true. But what's the negation of this sentence?? Is it

"All men are immortal"?

or is it

"There is a man that is immortal"??

It's the second one.

So, if your assertion is

"For all natural numbers n holds the inequality blabla"

then the negation of that is

"There is a natural number n such that the inequality does not hold"

Your proof shows that the inequality holds for n=2. But this does not contradict the negation, as there could still be an n such that it doesn't hold.
 
The assumption that for all possible integers n, n!>[(n+1)/2]^n is violated by your counter example, so that demonstrates that your assumption is false. You have not checked all possible values of n so it says nothing about any of those values. Your assumption being false says nothing about the case of only some n's satisfying the inequality.
 
Oh...now I understand. Thanks, micromass and bmxicle! :D
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Back
Top