Help needed with a likely rather obvious induction proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boombaard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that for all natural numbers n, the expression 3^(2n+1) + 2^(n-1) is divisible by 7. The proof utilizes mathematical induction, specifically showing that if the statement holds for a natural number N, it must also hold for N+1. The key steps involve rewriting the expression and demonstrating that it can be expressed in terms of known multiples of 7, confirming the inductive step.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction
  • Familiarity with exponentiation and properties of integers
  • Basic knowledge of divisibility rules, particularly for the number 7
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Learn about divisibility rules and their applications in proofs
  • Explore examples of induction proofs involving exponential functions
  • Practice rewriting algebraic expressions to facilitate proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students in mathematics, particularly those studying number theory or discrete mathematics, as well as educators looking for examples of induction proofs.

Boombaard
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


show that for all natural numbers n: 3^(2n+1)+2^(n-1) is divisible by 7

The Attempt at a Solution



i've been trying to get the second part of the proof to look like the first part, so as to be able to conclude some multiple is also divisible by 7, but i don't seem to get what needs to be done..
3^(2(n+1)+1)+2^(n+1-1) -> 3^(2n+2+1)+2^(n+1-1) -> 3²*3^(2n+1)+2*2^(n-1) (= 7*k)
only here i sort of get stuck trying to get the multipliers out, and I'm not certain enough of my math 'certain knowledge' otherwise to just posit that 3*(something)+2*(something) always yields multiples of 7 (not that it does, in this case)

am i really trying to go down the wrong path here? or am i just missing something entirely too obvious? :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, as you say, 3*(something)+ 2*(something) does NOT always yield multiples of 7 (for example if each "something" is 1, the sum is 5 which is not a multiple of 5 so you cannot "posit" that it always does!

What you need to show is that if 3^(2N+1)+2^(N-1) is a multiple of 7 for some specific N (do you see the difference between that and "3^(2n+1)+2^(n-1) is a multiple of 7 for all n?) then 3^(2(N+1)+1)+2^((N+1)-1) is also a multiple of 7.

3^(2(N+1)+1)+2^(N+1-1)= 3^(2N+1+2)+2^(N+1-1)= 3²*3^(2N+1)+2*2^(N-1)= 9(3^(2N+1))+2(2^(N-1))= 2[3^(2n+1)+ 2^(N-1)]+ 7(3^(2N+1). Now, you know that 3^(2N+1)+ 2^(N-1) is a multiple of 7: 3^(2N+1)- 2^(N-1)= 7m. What does that tell you about 2[3^(2n+1)+ 2^(N-1)]+ 7(3^(2N+1)?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, as you say, 3*(something)+ 2*(something) does NOT always yield multiples of 7 (for example if each "something" is 1, the sum is 5 which is not a multiple of 7) so you cannot "posit" that it always does!

What you need to show is that if 3^(2N+1)+2^(N-1) is a multiple of 7 for some specific N (do you see the difference between that and "3^(2n+1)+2^(n-1) is a multiple of 7 for all n?) then 3^(2(N+1)+1)+2^((N+1)-1) is also a multiple of 7.

3^(2(N+1)+1)+2^(N+1-1)= 3^(2N+1+2)+2^(N+1-1)= 3²*3^(2N+1)+2*2^(N-1)= 9(3^(2N+1))+2(2^(N-1))= 2[3^(2n+1)+ 2^(N-1)]+ 7(3^(2N+1). Now, you know that 3^(2N+1)+ 2^(N-1) is a multiple of 7: 3^(2N+1)- 2^(N-1)= 7m. What does that tell you about 2[3^(2n+1)+ 2^(N-1)]+ 7(3^(2N+1)?

ugh.. as i suspected, totally obvious :(
thank you for the quick reply, HallsofIvy :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K