How can 2^n > n be proven by induction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Archetype2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality 2^n > n using mathematical induction. Participants are exploring the steps involved in the induction process and questioning the validity of the proof for various values of n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessary steps in mathematical induction, including the base case and the induction hypothesis. There is confusion regarding the completeness of the proof for k > 1 and the implications of the induction process. Some participants inquire about general methods for proving the inequality for n = k + 1.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the induction process and raising questions about specific steps. Some guidance has been offered regarding the base case and the induction hypothesis, but there is no explicit consensus on the proof's completeness or methodology.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof must be shown for all integers n, and there is a concern about the assumptions made during the proof process. The discussion also touches on alternative methods of proof, such as using the binomial theorem.

Archetype2
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



prove 2^n > n by induction

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


In my math class we start off assuming 2^n > n is true for n=k.
Then we try to prove that when n=k+1 the inequality is true. So,I
start off going, 2^(k+1) > (k+1) which is equivalent to 2*2^k > (k+1)

which is then equivalent to 2^k+2^k > (k+1) then my math teacher said

to make the next step which is, since we assumed that 2^k > k then 2^k

+ 2^k > k+k and then he said that k+k > (k+1) and that was the end of

the proof. I do not get this last part at all, since I thought that
when you prove something by induction, it's going to be proven for all
numbers but we only proved that the inequality is true for k>1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are all together 3 steps to the mathematical induction. You have left out the first step, namely showing the inequality holds true for the case when n = 1. Now, when n = 1, 2^1 = 2 > 1.

So he case is true when n = 1.

Then you proceed to the case where n = k, and finally n = k+1.

So when your k = 1 is true, (because you have shown that the inequality holds when n = k = 1), your k + 1 = 2 is also true.

When k = 2 is true, k + 1 = 3 is also true. And the rest is just like the dominoes effect.

I might be wrong, but that's my understanding regarding mathematical induction.
 
lkh1986 said:
There are all together 3 steps to the mathematical induction. You have left out the first step, namely showing the inequality holds true for the case when n = 1. Now, when n = 1, 2^1 = 2 > 1.
This is usually called the base case. It doesn't have to be for n = 1, but often is.
lkh1986 said:
So he case is true when n = 1.

Then you proceed to the case where n = k, and finally n = k+1.
The idea is that you assume that your statement is true for n = k (the induction hypothesis), and then use that to show that the statement is also true for n = k + 1.
lkh1986 said:
So when your k = 1 is true, (because you have shown that the inequality holds when n = k = 1), your k + 1 = 2 is also true.

When k = 2 is true, k + 1 = 3 is also true. And the rest is just like the dominoes effect.

I might be wrong, but that's my understanding regarding mathematical induction.
 
"The idea is that you assume that your statement is true for n = k (the induction hypothesis), and then use that to show that the statement is also true for n = k + 1."

Yes, I understand that this is the objective, but I am wondering if there is a general method of doing this and how you would you do it for 2^(k+1) > (k+1)
 
Archetype2 said:
"The idea is that you assume that your statement is true for n = k (the induction hypothesis), and then use that to show that the statement is also true for n = k + 1."

Yes, I understand that this is the objective, but I am wondering if there is a general method of doing this and how you would you do it for 2^(k+1) > (k+1)

Well, if it's true for n = k then

[tex]2^k > k[/tex]

Try multiplying both sides by something appropriate.
 
By the way, an interesting non-inductive way to prove the same thing is to expand

[tex]2^n = (1 + 1)^n[/tex]

using the binomial theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K