How can you prove Spivak's Calculus problem without using induction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dabd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Spivak's Calculus concerning the factorization of the expression x^n - y^n. The original poster seeks a proof that does not rely on mathematical induction, as induction is not introduced until later in the text.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the possibility of proving the statement by expanding the right-hand side and observing cancellations, rather than using induction. Some express concerns about the rigor of using ellipses in notation.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different methods to approach the proof, with some participants suggesting that expanding the right-hand side is a more straightforward method. Others are questioning the appropriateness of using induction in this context and are sharing tips on using LaTeX for mathematical notation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem must be solved using only the material covered in earlier chapters, which may limit the methods available for proof. There is also a mention of the original poster's uncertainty regarding the use of informal notation.

dabd
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am attempting to solve the problems in chapter 1 - Basic Properties of Numbers from Spivak's book.

Problem 1(v) asks the student to prove that
x^n - y^n = (x - y)(x^(n - 1) + (x^(n - 2))y + ... + x(y^(n - 2)) + y^(n - 1))

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I solved it by using induction, but induction is not taught until later in the book.
I assume you can solve the exercises solely using the material in the previous chapters, or the hints in the exercise.
After repeatedly applying P9 (distributive law of multiplication) it is obvious that all the terms cancel, except for the first and the last, but proofs with elipses (..) don't strike me as rigorous. So, how can you prove this without using induction?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you multiply out the right hand side, all the terms cancel in pairs except x^n and y^n. That doesn't involve induction.

You can't explicitly write all the terms in the general case, so you are forced to use some notation like "...". You could write something like
[tex](x-y)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x^{n-1-i}y^i[/tex]
if you feel "..." is a too informal, but remember the main point of notation is to communicate, not to be rigorous for its own sake.
 
Last edited:
AlephZero said:
If you multiply out the right hand side, all the terms cancel in pairs except x^n and y^n. That doesn't involve induction.

You can't explicitly write all the terms in the general case, so you are forced to use some notation like "...". You could write something like
[tex](x-y)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x^{n-1-i}y^i[/tex]
if you feel "..." is a too informal, but remember the main point of notation is to communicate, not to be rigorous for its own sake.

Thanks for the reply.
Do you think it is incorrect to use induction in this proof? I agree it is more direct to expand the right hand side, though.
BTW, I am a newbie here, where do I find help for the tex notation for writing formulas in posts like you did with the summation?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain how you used induction to prove this? Then somebody can comment on what you did.

Induction is a perfectly acceptable way to proove things, unless you are doing a homework question which explicitly says "don't use it" of course.

Re Tex, look at the "sticky" threads on the forums, one of them is an introduction to Latex. Also, if you click on a Latex image in a post, you get a pop-up window showing the source code, which is a good learning tool as well a help when doing cut-and-paste editing.
 
AlephZero said:
Can you explain how you used induction to prove this? Then somebody can comment on what you did.

Induction is a perfectly acceptable way to proove things, unless you are doing a homework question which explicitly says "don't use it" of course.


Re Tex, look at the "sticky" threads on the forums, one of them is an introduction to Latex. Also, if you click on a Latex image in a post, you get a pop-up window showing the source code, which is a good learning tool as well a help when doing cut-and-paste editing.

Here is my induction proof attempt:
[tex]Let P(n) = x^{n} - y^{n} = (x - y)(x^{n-1} + x^{n-2}y + \dots + x y^{n-2} + y^{n-1})[/tex]

[tex]For n = 1[/tex]:
[tex]The equality is trivial.[/tex]
[tex]P(1) = x^{1} - y^{1} = (x - y)[/tex]

[tex]if P(n) is true then[/tex]
[tex]P(n+1) = (x - y)(x^{n} + x^{n-1}y + \dots + x y^{n-1} + y^{n}) =[/tex]
[tex](x - y)(x^{n} + y(x^{n-1} + \dots + x y^{n-2} + y^{n-1})) =[/tex]
[tex](x - y)x^{n} + y(x-y)(x^{n-1} + \dots + x y^{n-2} + y^{n-1}) =[/tex]
[tex](x - y)x^{n} + y P(n) =[/tex]
[tex](x - y)x^{n} + y(x^{n} - y^{n}) =[/tex]
[tex]x^{n+1} - y^{n+1}[/tex]
QED

(Sorry but I couldn't format the post properly.
I will read the sticky thread about LaTex when I have more time.)
 
Last edited:
Use ^{n-1} to get the whole thing superscripted.
 
ZioX said:
Use ^{n-1} to get the whole thing superscripted.

How do I put line breaks? I get all equalities on the same line...
 
That looks OK - though it seems like more work than just multiplying the terms and cancelling them.

A few of LaTex tips BTW:

(1) Things like superscripts and subscripts will only contain a single character unless you use { } brackets. The { and } don't appear in the generated equation. In other words, x^n-1 and x^{n-1} mean different things, and you wanted x^{n-1}.

(2) If you have several lines of equation, use several different TeX expressions. Otherwise, the result is too wide to fit on the page.

(3) You don't need to use "*" for multiplication, TeX will format the equation in the conventional maths style without it.

[tex]P(n+1) = (x - y)(x^n + x^{n-1}y + \dots + xy^{n-1} + y^n)[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)(x^n + y(x^{n-1} + \dots + xy^{n-2} + y^{n-1}))[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y(x-y)(x^{n-1} + \dots + xy^{n-2} + y^{n-1})[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y P(n)[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y(x^n - y^n)[/tex]
[tex]= x^{n+1} - y^{n+1}[/tex]

I also fixed a typo in your original proof :wink:
 
Last edited:
AlephZero said:
That looks OK - though it seems like more work than just multiplying the terms and cancelling them.

A few of LaTex tips BTW:

(1) Things like superscripts and subscripts will only contain a single character unless you use { } brackets. The { and } don't appear in the generated equation. In other words, x^n-1 and x^{n-1} mean different things, and you wanted x^{n-1}.

(2) If you have several lines of equation, use several different TeX expressions. Otherwise, the result is too wide to fit on the page.

(3) You don't need to use "*" for multiplication, TeX will format the equation in the conventional maths style without it.

[tex]P(n+1) = (x - y)(x^n + x^{n-1}y + \dots + xy^{n-1} + y^n)[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)(x^n + y(x^{n-1} + \dots + xy^{n-2} + y^{n-1}))[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y(x-y)(x^{n-1} + \dots + xy^{n-2} + y^{n-1})[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y P(n)[/tex]
[tex]= (x - y)x^n + y(x^n - y^n)[/tex]
[tex]= x^{n+1} - y^{n+1}[/tex]

I also fixed a typo in your original proof :wink:

Thanks :-)
 
  • #10
AlephZero said:
If you multiply out the right hand side, all the terms cancel in pairs except x^n and y^n. That doesn't involve induction.

You can't explicitly write all the terms in the general case, so you are forced to use some notation like "...". You could write something like
[tex](x-y)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x^{n-1-i}y^i[/tex]
if you feel "..." is a too informal, but remember the main point of notation is to communicate, not to be rigorous for its own sake.

I am having the same problem. Is there an easier way to write it without i's ? You wrote : [tex](x-y)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x^{n-1-i}y^i[/tex] When I did the proof, I simply wrote the that the ... signifies the middle terms that are simply inverses of each other and cancel out.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K