Is My Induction Proof for (1+ny) ≤ (y+1)n Correct?

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality (1+ny) ≤ (y+1)n using mathematical induction. The problem involves understanding the implications of the variables involved, particularly the nature of y and n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the induction process, starting with the base case and attempting to establish the inductive step. There are discussions about the assumptions regarding the value of y, particularly whether it can be negative or must be positive.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided hints and clarifications regarding the assumptions necessary for the proof, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the inequality holds. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of different values for y and how they affect the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem specifies x as a positive real number and n as a positive integer, which implies that y must also be positive. This constraint is central to the validity of the inductive proof being discussed.

nascentmind
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Using induction I need to prove (1+ny) [tex]\leq[/tex] (y+1)n


Homework Equations



------

The Attempt at a Solution



For n = 1. 1+y = y+1.

For some n = k
(1+ky) [tex]\leq[/tex] (y+1)k

Now to prove for k+1
(1+ky+y)[tex]\leq[/tex] (y+1)k+y
Now I have to prove that (y+1)k+y [tex]\leq[/tex] (y+1)k+1

By simply expanding (y+1)k (y+1) can we can see it is greater?

Am I right to this point in solving the problem? If not please provide just a hint.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are not wrong, but you can only prove the last step assuming something about the value of y.
 
The real question is actually (1+x)1/n - 1 [tex]\leq[/tex] x/n .

I have substituted x/n = y. That was the hint given in the book. Here x is a real number and n is an integer.
So now y would be a real number.
 
Let me rephrase: can you prove your inequality if, say, y = -2?
 
Yes I can. -3 < 1 for k = 1.
 
That only proves the base case. Can you prove it for all n > 0?
 
You mean for all y>0 instead of n>0?
 
I mean n > 0.

Perhaps my questions are more confusing than helpful, so let me be more direct. In your induction step you want to show that

(1) [tex](1+ky)+y \leq (1+y)^k + y(1+y)^k[/tex]

given the premises that [itex]1+ky \leq (1+y)^k[/itex]. This means that if you can prove

(2) [tex]y \leq y(1+y)^k[/tex]

then you can prove (1), since [itex]a \leq b[/itex] and [itex]c \leq d[/itex] implies [itex]a+c\leq b+d[/itex]. To prove (2) you have two cases, y > 0 and y < 0. The later result in [itex](1+y)^k \leq 1[/itex] which is clearly false for some values of y and k, so that means you can only prove your original inequality by induction when y > 0, and you therefore have to make additional analysis to prove or disprove if your original inequality holds for y < 0.


(I'm off for new year preparations and won't follow this discussion for a while).
 
Re-read the problem and it mentions x is a positive real number and n is a positive integer.
Hence y = x/n > 0
Correct me if I am wrong
Now to prove
y [tex]\leq[/tex] y(1+y)k

If y > 0 is true then y + 1 > 1. (Adding 1 to both sides)
Hence (y+1)k > 1
Multiplying y on both the sides we have y (y+1)k > y
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K