Can Induction Prove 3^n ≥ n2^n for All n ≥ 0?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality \(3^n \geq n \cdot 2^n\) for all \(n \geq 0\) using mathematical induction. Participants explore the structure of the inductive proof and the challenges associated with the inductive step.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the base case and the inductive hypothesis, with some attempting to manipulate the inequality for \(n = k + 1\) based on the assumption for \(n = k\). There are various attempts to express \(3^{k+1}\) and \((k+1)2^{k+1}\) in terms of \(3^k\) and \(k2^k\). Some participants suggest using proof by contradiction or exploring alternative approaches to simplify the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their thoughts on the inductive step and the validity of their approaches. Some express uncertainty about their methods, while others provide suggestions for re-evaluating their assumptions and exploring different angles. There is no explicit consensus yet on the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints such as the requirement to prove the statement directly using induction and the challenges posed by small values of \(n\). There is also a note about the formatting of mathematical expressions, indicating a focus on clarity in communication.

Hat1324
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The question asks me to prove inductively that 3n ≥ n2n for all n ≥ 0.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I believe the base case is when n = 0, in which case this is true. However, I cannot for the life of me prove n = k+1 when n=k is true. I start with:
3^k ≥ k2^k

and then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ (k+1)2^{k+1} which gets me nowhere.

I then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ 3k2^k

but I still have no idea where to go from there. Please help :(

Whoops the Latex is all whack. Edit: Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hat1324 said:

Homework Statement


The question asks me to prove inductively that 3n ≥ n2n for all n ≥ 0.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I believe the base case is when n = 0, in which case this is true. However, I cannot for the life of me prove n = k+1 when n=k is true. I start with:
3^k ≥ k2^k

and then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ (k+1)2^{k+1} which gets me nowhere.
This is unrelated to what you need to do.
Hat1324 said:
I then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ 3k2^k
The above is what you need to show, so you can't just start with it.
Start with ##3^{k + 1}## which is the same as 3 * 3k, and use what you have already assumed in your induction hypothesis (i.e., that 3k ≥ n*2n.
Hat1324 said:
but I still have no idea where to go from there. Please help :(

Whoops the Latex is all whack
It's fine, but you were doing it wrong. If an exponent has more than one character, surround it with braces, as in 3^{k + 1}. This renders as ##3^{k + 1}##.
 
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
 
Have you heard of proof by contradiction?
 
I have and I wish. But we're required to prove this directly using induction
 
There's no rule that says you can't use a contradiction argument as part of proving the inductive step!
 
Heh. I'm following as best I can I really don't follow. :P I can't see how ∃ 3^{k+1} ≤ (k+1)2^{k+1} is any easier to disprove than ∀ 3^{k+1} ≥ (k+1)2^{k+1} is to prove.
 
It's almost always a good idea if you're stuck proving something to turn it round and assume what you're trying to show is false and see where that leads.

So, if:

##3^k > k2^k##

But

##3^{k+1} < (k+1)2^{k+1}##

Where does that lead?
 
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
Perok calls is contradiction; you could also try what I call working from the other end: write out ##(k+1)2^{k+1}## and see what you can strike off
 
  • #10
OK. I think I have it. So what I ended up doing was brute forcing a base case of ##0 \le n \le 2## and testing it for 0, 1, and 2 (which holds). Then I showed that for all ##k \ge 2##
##3^{k+1} = 3*3^k##
##2^{k+1} = 2*2^k##
##k+1 \le (1.5)k##

This got me to derive ##3^{k+1} \ge (k+1)2^{k+1} \rightarrow (3)3^k \ge (1.5)(2)k2^k## which is ##(3)3^k \ge (3)k2^k## which is obviously true. Does what I did count as induction?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Hat1324 said:
OK. I think I have it. So what I ended up doing was brute forcing a base case of ##0 \le n \le 2## and testing it for 0, 1, and 2 (which holds).
You need only one base case.
Hat1324 said:
Then I showed that for all ##k \ge 2##
##3^{k+1} = 3*3^k##
##2^{k+1} = 2*2^k##
##k+1 \le (1.5)k##

This got me to derive ##(3)3^k \ge (1.5)(2)k2^k## which is ##(3)3^k \ge (3)k2^k## which is obviously true. Does what I did count as induction?
I don't think so. As I said earlier, assume that the statement is true for n = k. Then use this assumption to show that the statement is true for n = k + 1. The work you have done above might be useful in doing this.
 
  • #12
Yeah I know I only need one base case, but I couldn't do the work above without showing n=0,1,2 so I included them anyway
 
  • #13
Hat1324 said:

Homework Statement


The question asks me to prove inductively that 3n ≥ n2n for all n ≥ 0.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I believe the base case is when n = 0, in which case this is true. However, I cannot for the life of me prove n = k+1 when n=k is true. I start with:
3^k ≥ k2^k

and then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ (k+1)2^{k+1} which gets me nowhere.

I then try:
3^{k+1} ≥ 3k2^k

but I still have no idea where to go from there. Please help :(

Whoops the Latex is all whack. Edit: Thanks

You can write the desired statement as ##(3/2)^n \geq n##; that may be a lot easier to deal with.
 
  • #14
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, o:) Ray's post was right in front of me. More coffee, please...
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Hat1324 said:
OK. I think I have it. So what I ended up doing was brute forcing a base case of ##0 \le n \le 2## and testing it for 0, 1, and 2 (which holds). Then I showed that for all ##k \ge 2##
##3^{k+1} = 3*3^k##
##2^{k+1} = 2*2^k##
##k+1 \le (1.5)k##

This got me to derive ##3^{k+1} \ge (k+1)2^{k+1} \rightarrow (3)3^k \ge (1.5)(2)k2^k## which is ##(3)3^k \ge (3)k2^k## which is obviously true. Does what I did count as induction?

More egg o:), since you did as I suggested, and did quite well.

Let me recapitulate (a chance for still more egg :) ):

To me it counts as induction, especially if you write it down in a neat order:

You need to prove ##P_k : 3^k > k 2^k ## for all k ##\ge 0.## You show ##P_0, P_1, P_2## and for k ##\ge## 2 you show
$$P_k \Rightarrow 3\; 3^k \ge 3k\;2^k \Rightarrow 3^{k+1} \ge 1.5\;k\;2^{k+1} \Rightarrow 3^{k+1} \ge (k+1)\;2^{k+1} = P_{k+1}$$Therefore ##P_k \; \forall {k\ge 0} ##

It's a slightly liberal interpretation of what my (1971!) math book calls 'an analogon of full induction' : if ##P_{n_0}## for a certain integer ##n_0##, and .. etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K