MHB Inequality proof w/ induction, 2 unknowns

skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I am given a statement to prove: Show (without using the Binomial Theorem) that \((1+x)^n\geq{1+nx}\) for every real number \(x>-1\) and natural numbers \(n\geq{2}\). I am given a hint to fix \(x\) and apply induction on \(n\).
I started by supposing \(x\) is a fixed, real number larger than -1, and then calling the given formula \(P(n)\), and evaluating \(P(n)\) at the base case \(n=2\).
This gives \((1+x)^2\geq{1+2x}\) which can be rewritten as \(1+2x+x^2\geq{1+2x}\).
It is know that for all real \(x\), the statement \(x^2\geq{0}\) is true.

Here is where I get tripped up.
We need to assume that \(m=n\) a.k.a. \(P(m)\) is true for all natural \(m\geq{2}\).
So we have \((1+x)^m\geq{1+mx}\). Now we need to show that \(P(m+1)\) holds to be true. \(P(m+1)\):
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\).
Now here I would usually try to translate the original formula by plugging in what we had originally, but I am pretty iffy on how to do this with an inequality. If anybody could help me construct a new formula that would help me prove that
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\) is true I would be very thankful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
skatenerd said:
I am given a statement to prove: Show (without using the Binomial Theorem) that \((1+x)^n\geq{1+nx}\) for every real number \(x>-1\) and natural numbers \(n\geq{2}\). I am given a hint to fix \(x\) and apply induction on \(n\).
I started by supposing \(x\) is a fixed, real number larger than -1, and then calling the given formula \(P(n)\), and evaluating \(P(n)\) at the base case \(n=2\).
This gives \((1+x)^2\geq{1+2x}\) which can be rewritten as \(1+2x+x^2\geq{1+2x}\).
It is know that for all real \(x\), the statement \(x^2\geq{0}\) is true.

Here is where I get tripped up.
We need to assume that \(m=n\) a.k.a. \(P(m)\) is true for all natural \(m\geq{2}\).
So we have \((1+x)^m\geq{1+mx}\). Now we need to show that \(P(m+1)\) holds to be true. \(P(m+1)\):
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\).
Now here I would usually try to translate the original formula by plugging in what we had originally, but I am pretty iffy on how to do this with an inequality. If anybody could help me construct a new formula that would help me prove that
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\) is true I would be very thankful.

\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left( 1 + x \right) ^{m + 1} &= \left( 1 + x \right) \left( 1 + x \right) ^m \\ &\geq \left( 1 + x \right) \left( 1 + m\,x \right) \\ &= 1 + \left( m + 1 \right) \, x + m\,x^2 \\ &\geq 1 + \left( m + 1 \right) \, x \end{align*}
 
Okay, you have shown the base case is true, and so your induction hypothesis $P_m$ is:

$$(1+x)^m\ge1+mx$$

I would consider for the inductive step:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}=(1+x)^{m}(1+x-1)=(1+x)^{m}x$$

Can you use the inductive hypothesis to construct from this a weak inequality that you can then add to $P_m$?
 
Thanks to both of you for the responses. So I was actually able to figure out and finish the proof going by what Prove It wrote. But to MarkFL, what do you mean by constructing a "weak inequality"? Does that refer to the point where you find an inequality where you have \(mx^2\geq{0}\)?
 
What I had in mind is to take the equation:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}=(1+x)^{m}x$$

and then use the induction hypothesis (which we have multiplied by $x$) to write:

$$(1+x)^{m}x\ge(1+mx)x$$

so that we now have:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}\ge(1+mx)x$$

Adding this to $P_m$, we get:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}\ge 1+mx+(1+mx)x=1+(m+1)x+mx^2$$

Since $mx^2\ge0$, we have:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}\ge1+(m+1)x+mx^2\ge1+(m+1)x$$

And so we may conclude:

$$(1+x)^{m+1}\ge1+(m+1)x$$

Thus, we have derived $P_{m+1}$ from $P_{m}$, thereby completing the proof by induction.
 
Ahh I see. Yeah I ended up writing something similar to that, with the same ending. Thanks for the help guys!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top