Mathematical Induction: Proving Inequalities with k and k+1

gfd43tg
Gold Member
Messages
947
Reaction score
48

Homework Statement


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Hello, I am working on the problem in the attached image regarding induction based on the inequality

2^n \geq n + 1

I am confused how to do this by proving that if it is assumed to be true for ## n = k ##, then how it is true for ##n = k + 1##. The way I see it, you would just do ## 2^{k+1} \geq (k+1) + 1##. The answer is ##2(k+1) \geq k + 2##, but I do not understand it.
 

Attachments

  • induction.jpg
    induction.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 434
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello, for inline latex ##\#\### before and after the expression.
'You would just do' : not exactly, it is what you have to prove assuming ##2^k \geq k+1## holds.
 
Hint:
Let ##a,b,c,d## be four positive numbers such that ##a\gt b## and ##c\gt d##, then we have: $$ac\gt bd.$$ For your particular example you have ##2^{k}\geqslant k+1## and you need to find a relation ##c\gt d## such that when you apply the above rule you get $$2^{k+1}\geqslant (k+1)+1.$$ Can you find such relation and prove it?
 
So are you saying in this case for ##a > b##, then ## a = 2^k## and ##b = k+1##. Then I need a ##c## and ##d##. Well, I think ## c## would be equal to ##2##, but I need something such that ##d*(k+1) = k + 2##.

Hence
d = k+2/k+1

Then it follows
ac \geq bd

Thus,
2(2^k) \geq (k+1)(k+2/{k+1})
2^{k+1} \geq k+2
 
Last edited:
You got it right for ##c##, can you now solve the equation ##d(k+1)=k+2## for ##d##?
 
I got it now, but how the heck would I ever know to do that? I would have never guessed that would be the way to prove it. How is it logical to approach the problem in that manner? Also, how do I get the k+1 to be on the bottom of the fraction?
 
Response to your edited post:

You now found the relation ##c\gt d## to go from ##2^k\geqslant k+1## to ##2^{k+1}\geqslant k+2##. But you still need to prove that relation, do you know how to proceed?

I got it now, but how the heck would I ever know to do that? I would have never guessed that would be the way to prove it. How is it logical to approach the problem in that manner? Also, how do I get the k+1 to be on the bottom of the fraction?

You got ##k+1## in the bottom of the fraction by solving for ##d##: $$d(k+1)=k+2\implies\require{cancel}d\cancel{(k+1)}\dfrac{1}{\cancel{k+1}}=(k+2)\dfrac1{k+1}\implies d=\dfrac{k+2}{k+1}.$$ The approach to this problem boils down to figuring out a way to go from ##2^k\geqslant k+1## into ##2^{k+1}\geqslant k+2##. It's basically just what AlephZero did but written in a more detailed manner.
 
Maylis said:
I would have never guessed that would be the way to prove it.

Neither would I :smile:

On the other hand, if you assume ##2^k \ge k + 1## and you want to show that ##2^{k+1} \ge (k+1) + 1##, then

## 2^{k+1} = 2(2^k) \ge 2(k+1) =2k +2 \ge k + 2## when ##k \ge 0##.
 
Yes, for ##c > d##, you get ##2 \geq k+2/k+1 ##, which by algebraic manipulation is ## 2(k+1) \geq k+2##. How do I get the fraction to look like yours, with the fraction being on the bottom? As well as the slash going through indicating canceling a term.
 
  • #10
Maylis said:
Yes, for ##c > d##, you get ##2 \geq k+2/k+1 ##, which by algebraic manipulation is ## 2(k+1) \geq k+2##. How do I get the fraction to look like yours, with the fraction being on the bottom? As well as the slash going through indicating canceling a term.

For the fraction use \frac{}{} for example \frac{x+2}{x+1} will produce ##\frac{x+2}{x+1}##. For the slash you first have to write \require{cancel} then to use the \cancel{} command where you put what you want to slash inside the brackets, therefore \require{cancel}\cancel{x+1} will produce ##\require{cancel}\cancel{x+1}##.
 
  • #11
HakimPhilo said:
It's basically just what AlephZero did but written in a more detailed manner.

I wouldn't call it "detailed". I would describe it a very confusing explanation which isn't very helpful for understanding the simple induction step.
 
  • #12
LCKurtz said:
I wouldn't call it "detailed". I would describe it a very confusing explanation which isn't very helpful for understanding the simple induction step.

I could have proceeded as AlephZero (which is what I originally did but then got a warning with my post being deleted) but the OP specifically mentions that he didn't know where the need for ##2(k+1) \geqslant k + 2## came from.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top