How do you formally show subsequent element in a series is larger?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter golmschenk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Series
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how to formally demonstrate that subsequent elements in a specific sequence are larger than their predecessors. The sequence in question is defined recursively, and participants explore methods to prove this property, including the use of mathematical induction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a recursive sequence and questions how to formally show that if \( s_n > 1 \), then \( s_{n+1} > s_n \).
  • Another participant suggests examining whether \( (s_n - 1)^2 > 0 \) when \( s_n > 1 \).
  • There is a discussion about using mathematical induction to prove the inequality, with a suggestion to establish a base case and assume \( s_n > s_{n-1} \) to show \( s_{n+1} > s_n \).
  • Some participants express uncertainty about formally proving that the square of a non-zero number is positive, questioning if it is acceptable to state this as a fact.
  • A later reply provides a reasoning that for any real \( x \), \( x^2 \ge 0 \) and if \( x \neq 0 \), then \( x^2 > 0 \), presenting this as a "formal" proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about the formal proof of certain mathematical properties, and while some suggest methods like induction, there is no consensus on the best approach to demonstrate the inequality.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of formal proofs and the use of mathematical induction, as well as the conditions under which certain inequalities hold.

golmschenk
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
As an example, for the sequence:
[tex]s_{1} =2[/tex]
[tex]s_{n+1}=\frac{s^{2}_{n}+1}{2}[/tex]
We see:
When [tex]s_{n} >1[/tex] then,
[tex]s_{n+1}=\frac{s^{2}_{n}+1}{2}>s_{n}[/tex]
But how do I formally show that this last inequality is true? This example is fine or just one similar to it. Thanks!

EDIT: Many of those superscripts are suppose to be subscripts. I don't seem to be able to edit them so there correct though. Sorry, hopefully you can still figure it out. If, it doesn't have any subscript at all, then whatever is the superscript is suppose to be the subscript. However, if there is a subscript then the superscript is correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
If s_n > 1, is (s_n-1)^2>0?
 
Yes, but I'm not quite sure how to use that to formally explain that the inequality is true. Also, again, I know that what you asked is true, but how do you formally show this?
 
You might try showing this by mathematical induction. Clearly, S2 > S1, so that establishes your base case.

Assume that Sn > Sn - 1, and see if you can use this assumption and your formula for Sn to show that Sn + 1 > Sn.
 
golmschenk said:
Yes, but I'm not quite sure how to use that to formally explain that the inequality is true. Also, again, I know that what you asked is true, but how do you formally show this?
You're not sure how to show that the square of a non-zero number is greater than zero?
 
zhentil said:
You're not sure how to show that the square of a non-zero number is greater than zero?

Not formally, no. And that's what this thread was about to begin with. Is it ok just to state that the square of a non-zero, real number is positive?

Mark44 said:
You might try showing this by mathematical induction. Clearly, S2 > S1, so that establishes your base case.

Assume that Sn > Sn - 1, and see if you can use this assumption and your formula for Sn to show that Sn + 1 > Sn.

Thanks, I think I've got it mostly figured out.
 
golmschenk said:
Not formally, no. And that's what this thread was about to begin with. Is it ok just to state that the square of a non-zero, real number is positive?
Surely, for any real x, [itex]x^2\ge 0[/itex] which means "either [itex]x^2= 0[/itex] or [itex]x^2> 0[/itex]. Further, if [itex]x^2= 0[/itex] then, taking the square root of both sides, x= 0. Therefore, if [itex]x\ne 0[/itex], [itex]x^2> 0[/itex].
That's a "formal" proof.

Thanks, I think I've got it mostly figured out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K