Hat1324 said:
I think I've explained my steps a little wrong. The first thing I did after the base case was assume 3^k≥k2^k
Then I setup 3^{k+1}=3(3k)≥3(k2^k)≥...
But I simply cannot find something to substitute ... that is actually true
Let me go back to where you were after the first step: If 3^k≥k2^k is true, then you want to prove 3^{k+1}\ge (k+1)2^{k+1} and you started well with 3^{k+1}=3\;3^k.
Now my suggestion (and in fact PerOK's as well) was to write out (k+1)2^{k+1} and see what happens. Not so much as a sequence of ##\ge## , but as a sum of terms you might be able to strike off:$$
(k+1)2^{k+1}= k\;2^{k+1} +2^{k+1}= 2k\;2^k + 2\;2^k
$$Do you see what you can strike off (because it's assumed to satisfy the ##\ge## ) ? And what remains ?
If you can prove that remainder also satisfies the ##\ge## , then you have the ingredients to write it down in a decent sequence of .. is true for k = 0 & if .. then .. , therefore .. is true for all k.
But I think there's a nice little snag built in that forces you to backtrack one step with this approach: it doesn't go smoothly for small k. So you have to bootstrap the induction (true for k = .., .. and from then on induction).
Sorry about the vague description; I don't want to give it all away.
Open for more elegant approaches :)
[edit]Oh boy,

Ray's post was right in front of me. More coffee, please...