Is there any way to simplify my proof by induction?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on simplifying a proof by induction for the statement \( n^2 + 1 < n! \) for \( n \geq 4 \). The initial proof attempts to establish the base case and inductive step but is criticized for being overly complex and containing arithmetic errors. A more straightforward approach is suggested, emphasizing direct proof over induction, particularly using the gamma function, \( \Gamma(n+1) \), to illustrate the rapid growth of factorials compared to polynomials. The conclusion highlights that the inductive hypothesis complicates the proof unnecessarily.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction
  • Familiarity with factorial notation and properties
  • Knowledge of the gamma function and its applications
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the gamma function and its relationship to factorials
  • Learn about direct proof techniques in mathematical analysis
  • Explore common pitfalls in proof by induction
  • Investigate numerical methods for solving equations, such as using Python's SciPy library
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, and students seeking to enhance their understanding of proof techniques, particularly in the context of inequalities involving factorials and polynomials.

murshid_islam
Messages
468
Reaction score
21
TL;DR
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
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:
Your presentation has arithmetic errors.
 
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
 
mathman said:
Your presentation has arithmetic errors.
Can you point out at which line? I can't find them.
 
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)! ##
 
murshid_islam said:
Can you point out at which line? I can't find them.
##(k+1)^2=k^2+2k+1## (secod line)
 
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   Reactions: murshid_islam
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   Reactions: 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)!##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
837
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K