Prove: n*x^(n-1)(x-y)>=x^n-y^n for n>0

  • Thread starter amarch
  • Start date
In summary, the goal of this homework is to solve an equation where x is greater than y by using induction. The equation can be simplified using the property x^n-y^n = (x-y)(some polynomial). After introducing the base case, the inductive step assumes that p(k) is true for some k. The problem is that the student is stuck after simplifying the equation. They need to substitute y into x in the second term of kx^(k+1)-ky*x^k in order to make the inequality greater than x^n-y^n.
  • #1
amarch
7
0

Homework Statement



for reals x and y with x greater than y, prove that n*x^(n-1)(x-y)>=x^n-y^n for n>0.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Let p(n) be that the statement is true for some n.
base case: obviously follows

inductive step: assume p(k) is true for some k.
Look at (n+1)x^(n-1+1)(a-b) = (n*x^n+x^n)(x-y)
= n*x*x^n - n*y*x^n+x*x^n-y*x^n

I'm stuck here. I know there is a way to do it using the property (x^n-y^n) = (x-y)(some polynomial), but we were specifically asked not to use that and to do it by induction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
amarch said:

Homework Statement



for reals x and y with x greater than y, prove that n*x^(n-1)(x-y)>=x^n-y^n for n>0.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Let p(n) be that the statement is true for some n.
base case: obviously follows

inductive step: assume p(k) is true for some k.
Look at (n+1)x^(n-1+1)(a-b) = (n*x^n+x^n)(x-y)
= n*x*x^n - n*y*x^n+x*x^n-y*x^n

I'm stuck here. I know there is a way to do it using the property (x^n-y^n) = (x-y)(some polynomial), but we were specifically asked not to use that and to do it by induction.

You need to use ##x > y## at this point. Your first and third term can be simplified. Also, in the formal proof you need to show the base case and mention ##p(k+1)##. I also noticed a minor typo with the ##a-b##, but I'm sure that is all it was.

Edit: You should change your ##n## variables to ##k## after introducing ##p(k)##.
 
  • #3
Yeah I'll show the base case and such details in the formal write up, it's really this step where I am stuck.

So I simplified it to:

k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k+x^(k+1)-y*x^k

What am I supposed to do with x>y?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Try to do a substitution using ##x > y## so that two terms cancel out and you create an inequality. i.e. either plug in ##x## for ##y## or vice versa for one of the terms. The step after that is similar.
 
  • #5
can we say

k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k+x^(k+1)-y*x^k > k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k since x>y?
 
  • #6
amarch said:
can we say

k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k+x^(k+1)-y*x^k > k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k since x>y?

Absolutely. You substituted in ##y## for one of the ##x## in the ##+x^{k+1}## term so the result is smaller than the original equation (because you were adding the term) and then they canceled. Can you do something similar for the next step?
 
  • #7
I don't see what to do here. If we take k*x^(k+1)-k*y*x^k and did the same thing wouldn't we just get zero?
 
  • #8
Depending on the substitution you do, yes, you could end up with 0. That's obviously not what you want though. The goal in this proof by induction is to end up with the inequality ##\geq x^{k+1} - y^{k+1}##. What substitution can you do to make it look like that? (You aren't done just yet, almost there!)
 
  • #9
I suspected I should substitute y into x in the second term of kx^(k+1)-ky*x^k, but wouldn't that not work since we would be subtracting a smaller number than before?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
never mind, I figured it out. thanks for all your help!
 

What is the meaning of the inequality in the statement?

The inequality states that for any positive integer n, multiplying a number x raised to the power of n-1 by the difference of x and y will always be greater than or equal to the difference of x raised to the power of n and y raised to the power of n.

What is the significance of n being greater than 0?

The inequality only holds true for positive values of n, as raising a number to a negative power results in a fraction, which may not satisfy the inequality. Therefore, n being greater than 0 ensures that both sides of the inequality are positive.

How can this inequality be proven?

This inequality can be proven by using mathematical induction, where we first prove that the statement holds true for n=1, and then assume it is true for n=k and prove it for n=k+1. This shows that the statement holds true for all positive integers n.

Is there a specific case where this inequality is not true?

Yes, for n=0, the inequality does not hold true as it results in division by 0. Therefore, the statement is only valid for n>0.

Can this inequality be extended to other types of numbers?

Yes, this inequality can be extended to real numbers and complex numbers as well, as long as the values of n are positive. However, it may not hold true for all values of n in these cases.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
22
Views
327
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
513
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
457
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
808
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
261
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
754
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
646
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
939
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top