Component of Fibonacci Sequence

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter leospyder
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Component Sequence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the inequality Fk+1 ≤ (7/4)k+1 as part of a mathematical proof involving the Fibonacci sequence. The user seeks clarification on the application of the induction hypothesis, specifically how Fk and Fk-1 can be bounded by (7/4)k and (7/4)k-1, respectively. The confusion arises from the calculation involving (7/4)k+1 and the application of the properties of inequalities. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding induction in mathematical proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fibonacci sequence properties
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Knowledge of inequalities and their properties
  • Basic proficiency in algebraic manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Explore the properties of the Fibonacci sequence and its growth rates
  • Learn about bounding techniques in inequalities
  • Practice solving mathematical proofs involving sequences and series
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding proofs related to the Fibonacci sequence and mathematical induction.

leospyder
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Please excuse my total ignorance but can someon explain to me how the following part of a certain proof makes sense

We want to show that Fk+1 ≤ (7/4)^(k+1). Consider fk+1 = fk + fk−1 (We can do this
as k +1 is at least 2; see the comment following the basis) < (7/4)^k +(7 /4)^(k−1) (by the Induction Hypothesis;
notice how the stronger hypothesis comes in handy here.)

The parts I bolded in red are mainly the things I don't understand. I plugged in the (7/4)...part into my calculator and did not get the alleged answer I was supposed to get if it were simply (7/4)^k+1. Can someone please enlighten me? :bugeye:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a<b, and c>0, then ac<bc (and no that is not cryptic - you end up with something that you wish to show is less than something else - there is no reason to suppose they are equal, nor is it necessary. If I want to show something is less than 4 and I show it is less than 3 I've shown it is less than 4, for example).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K