Is there any way to simplify my proof by induction?

In summary: Therefore, we have ##(k+1)^2 + 1 < (k+1)! ##This is simpler because it doesn't involve any inequalities, only equality.
  • #1
murshid_islam
457
19
TL;DR Summary
My proof by induction looks way too contrived. Is there a way to simplify it?
I'm trying to prove the statement ##n^2 + 1 < n!## for ##n \geq 4##. My proof by induction looks way too contrived. Is there a way to simplify it? Here's what I got.

For n = 4, ##n^2 + 1 = 17 < 4!##. So, the statement is true for n = 4. Now let's assume it's true for n = k, that is, ##k^2 + 1 < k!##

Now, for n = k+1,
##(k+1)^2 + 1 ##
##= (k^2 + 1) + 2k + 1##
##< k! + 2k + 1## ; [from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
##< k\cdot k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1-1)k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1)k! - k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1)! + 2k + (1 - k!)##
##< (k+1)! + 2k - k^2## ; [because 1 – k! < –k2 from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
##< (k+1)! + 0## ; [2k – k2 = k(2 – k) < 0 for k > 2]

Therefore, we have ##(k+1)^2 + 1 < (k+1)! ##

I was wondering if there's an easier way to do the n = k + 1 part.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It doesn't seem like a good example of induction, as you don't really need the inductive hypothesis. If we look for the cases where ##n^2 + 1 \ge n!##, then we have ##n + 1 \ge n + \frac 1 n \ge (n-1)!##.

Now, if ##n \ge 4##, then ##(n-1) \ge 3## and ##(n-1)! \ge 2(n-1)##. So we can look for ##n## such that: ##n +1 \ge 2n - 2## and so ##n \le 3##, which contradicts ##n \ge 4##.

You could, of course, logically use this in the inductive step. But, it shows that induction itself is not very helpful in this case.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Your presentation has arithmetic errors.
 
  • #4
Another way is to go continuous, using the gamma function.

$$n!= Γ(n+1)$$

the gamma function is known to grow very fast. So we can assume that at some value of x the factorial will be above any polynomial.

You can try to solve the equation numerically,
$$ Γ(x+1) = x^2+1 $$

Using python scipy root_scalar, I get the result 3.6467225149185953
 
  • #5
mathman said:
Your presentation has arithmetic errors.
Can you point out at which line? I can't find them.
 
  • #6
murshid_islam said:
For n = 4, ##n^2 + 1 = 17 < 4!##. So, the statement is true for n = 4. Now let's assume it's true for n = k, that is, ##k^2 + 1 < k!##

Now, for n = k+1,
##(k+1)^2 + 1 ##
##= (k^2 + 1) + 2k + 1##
##< k! + 2k + 1## ; [from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
You want the next inequality to be ##< (k + 1)!##
If you can show that ##(k + 1)! - k! - 2k - 1 > 0## that's equivalent to saying that ##k! + 2k + 1 < (k + 1)!##.
The first inequality above is equivalent to ##k!(k + 1 - 1) - 2k - 1 > 0##, or ##k! \cdot k - 2k - 1 > 0##. That should be fairly easy to do.
murshid_islam said:
##< k\cdot k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1-1)k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1)k! - k! + 2k + 1##
##= (k+1)! + 2k + (1 - k!)##
##< (k+1)! + 2k - k^2## ; [because 1 – k! < –k2 from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
##< (k+1)! + 0## ; [2k – k2 = k(2 – k) < 0 for k > 2]

Therefore, we have ##(k+1)^2 + 1 < (k+1)! ##
 
  • #7
murshid_islam said:
Can you point out at which line? I can't find them.
##(k+1)^2=k^2+2k+1## (secod line)
 
  • #8
mathman said:
##(k+1)^2=k^2+2k+1## (secod line)
This can be written as ##(k^2+1)+2k## .

Therefore, no error at that point.
 
  • Like
Likes murshid_islam
  • #9
mathman said:
##(k+1)^2=k^2+2k+1## (secod line)
That line (k + 1)2 + 1 was expanded and rearranged as k2 + 1 + 2k + 1.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS
  • #10
murshid_islam said:
TL;DR Summary: My proof by induction looks way too contrived.
It may be worth re-emphasising that using induction itself is contrived in this case and that's partly why the inductive step gets messy. It looks more natural to prove directly that$$n^2 + 1 < n!$$rather then$$k! + 2k + 1 \le (k+1)!$$In other words, using the inductive hypothesis makes things harder.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
If we look for the cases where ##n^2 + 1 \ge n!##, then we have ##n + 1 \ge n + \frac 1 n \ge (n-1)!##.
I did not get this part: ##n + \frac 1 n \ge (n-1)!## Can you elaborate?
 
  • #12
murshid_islam said:
I did not get this part: ##n + \frac 1 n \ge (n-1)!## Can you elaborate?
I divided through by ##n##. I didn't realise that might seem so obscure!
 
  • #13
PeroK said:
I divided through by ##n##. I didn't realise that might seem so obscure!
I had a brain fart.
 
  • #14
By the way, here's a simpler version of my original proof:

For ##n = k+1##,
##(k+1)^2 + 1 ##
##= (k^2 + 1) + 2k + 1##
##< k! + 2k + 1## ; [from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
##< k \cdot k! + k^2 + 1##
##< k \cdot k! + k!## ;[from the induction hypothesis for n = k]
##= (k+1)!##
 

1. How can I determine the base case for my proof by induction?

The base case for a proof by induction is the first value or condition that you are trying to prove. It is usually the simplest case and is often the starting point for the induction. To determine the base case, you should look at the pattern or sequence that your proof is trying to prove and identify the first value or condition in that sequence.

2. What is the role of the inductive hypothesis in a proof by induction?

The inductive hypothesis is a statement that assumes the truth of the proposition for a specific value or condition. It is used as a starting point for proving the next value or condition in the sequence. The inductive hypothesis is an important part of a proof by induction as it allows you to build upon previously proven values or conditions to prove the next one.

3. How do I determine the inductive step for my proof by induction?

The inductive step is the part of the proof where you show that if the proposition is true for one value or condition, it is also true for the next value or condition. To determine the inductive step, you should look for patterns or relationships between the values or conditions in the sequence. You can also use the inductive hypothesis to help you form the inductive step.

4. Can I use proof by induction for any type of mathematical statement?

Proof by induction is a commonly used method for proving mathematical statements, particularly those involving sequences or patterns. However, it may not be suitable for all types of mathematical statements. It is best used for statements that can be broken down into a sequence of values or conditions.

5. What are some common mistakes to avoid when using proof by induction?

One common mistake when using proof by induction is assuming that the statement is true for all values or conditions without actually proving it. Another mistake is using the wrong base case or inductive step, which can lead to an incorrect proof. It is also important to clearly explain each step of the proof and make sure it is logically sound.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
401
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
990
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
202
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top