Can Induction Prove the Inequality 2n + 1 < 2^n for n ≥ 3?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on proving the inequality 2n + 1 < 2^n for n ≥ 3 using mathematical induction. The proof begins by validating the base case with n = 3, where 2(3) + 1 = 7 is less than 2^3 = 8. The inductive step assumes the inequality holds for n = k and demonstrates it for n = k + 1 by manipulating the expressions to show that 2(k + 1) + 1 < 2^(k + 1). Key transitions in the proof involve replacing constants with expressions dependent on k, ensuring the inequality remains valid.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction
  • Familiarity with inequalities and algebraic manipulation
  • Basic knowledge of exponential functions
  • Ability to work with recursive definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Practice proving inequalities using induction with various examples
  • Explore the properties of exponential functions and their growth rates
  • Learn about common pitfalls in algebraic manipulation during proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students studying mathematics, particularly those focusing on algebra and proof techniques, as well as educators looking for examples of mathematical induction applications.

killerfish
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove: 2n + 1 < 2n , with n >= 3

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



2 (3) + 1 = 7 and 23 = 8.
So 2 (3) + 1 < 23.
Thus the inequality holds with n = 3:
Suppose the inequality holds with n = k
Then 2k+ 1 < 2k:
So 2k + 1 + 2 < 2k + 2
2k + 3 < 2k + 2k
2k + 3 < 2(2k)
2 (k + 1) + 1 < 2(k+1):
So, the inequality holds with n = k + 1:
Hi guys,

some of the transition on the RHS, I am blurred. Like the above there are 2 parts i don't understand,

So 2k + 1 + 2 < 2k + 2
2k + 3 < 2k + 2k

on RHS, how to get from 2k+2 to 2k+2k. Arent when we do a change on LHS(e.g +2), is should be equal to RHS(e.g+2)? sry my understanding for induction is weak, can someone help elaborate the solution...

Thanks very much.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's really simple.

You already have that the LHS is less than the RHS

2k + 3 < 2k + 2

If you replace the 2 on the RHS with 2k, a number greater than 2 (k > 1 by assumption), the inequality still holds, therefore

2k + 3 < 2k + 2k.
 
2< 2k for any k> 1 and so, adding 2k to both sides, 2k+ 2< 2k+ 2k so 2k+ 2< 2(2k)= 2k+1.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K