Mathematical induction question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves demonstrating an inequality related to the powers of two real numbers, a and b, where 0 < b < a, using mathematical induction. The specific inequality to show is a^n - b^n ≤ na^{n-1}(a-b) for positive integers n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use mathematical induction, verifying the base case and exploring the inductive step. Some participants suggest alternative approaches, including the use of the binomial theorem and polynomial identities. Others question the necessity of induction by examining specific cases for small values of n.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various participants offering insights and alternative methods to approach the problem. Some have provided specific examples and manipulations of the inequality, while others are still exploring the implications of the original proposition.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may not require induction for certain values of n, as they explore direct calculations and simplifications that could lead to the desired inequality.

pc2-brazil
Messages
198
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Suppose a and b are real numbers with 0 < b < a. Show that, if n is a positive integer, then
[tex]a^n - b^n \leq na^{n-1}(a-b)[/tex]

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to show this by induction.
Let P(n) be the proposition that [itex]a^n - b^n \leq na^{n-1}(a-b)[/itex]
I've already verified that P(1) is true, which completes the basis step.
Inductive step:
I must show that, if P(k), then P(k+1).
So, I first assume that this is true for an arbitrary k: [itex]a^k - b^k \leq ka^{k-1}(a-b)[/itex]
Then, I must show that, if P(k) is true, it follows that [itex]a^{k+1} - b^{k+1} \leq (k+1)a^k(a-b)[/itex].
This is where I'm having trouble.
I'm trying to find that [itex]a^{k+1} - b^{k+1}[/itex] is less than or equal to an expression involving [itex]a^k - b^k[/itex], so that I can use the expression for P(k) to derive an inequality for [itex]a^{k+1} - b^{k+1}[/itex].
I've tried several ways, like trying to rewrite [itex]a^{k+1} - b^{k+1}[/itex] as [itex]aa^k - bb^{k}[/itex] and then writing that [itex]aa^k - bb^k \geq aa^k - ab^k = a(a^k - b^k)[/itex] (since a > b), but this doesn't help, because I'm looking for something that [itex]a^{k+1} - b^{k+1}[/itex] is less than or equal to, not greater than or equal to.

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EDIT: nevermind. i though i had it but i did not
 
Last edited:
i had one thought, which may or may not be helpful.

if b < a, then a = b + c for some positive number c.

so then your problem becomes:

[tex](b+c)^n - b^n \leq n(b+c)^{n-1}c[/tex]

now expand the powers of b+c with the binomial formula.
 
It can be instructive to see how the inequality works for the first few values of n. This isn't good enough for a proof, but it may give you some ideas for the proof.

For n=2:
[itex]\displaystyle a^2-b^2\ \ ?\,\leq\,? \ \ 2a^1(a-b)[/itex]

Factor the left side.

[itex]\displaystyle (a-b)(a+b)\ \ ?\,\leq\,? \ \ 2a(a-b)[/itex]

Of course, (a+b) < 2a because a < b .

So, this case doesn't appear to need induction.​

For n=3:
We have a somewhat similar result with the difference of cubes giving a3-b3 = (a-b)(a2+ab+b2). Then the inequality holds if a2+ab+b2 ≤ 3a2, and this is true for a < b. Again, this doesn't require induction.​

For general n:
Did you know that [itex]\displaystyle a^n-b^n=(a-b)(a^{n-1}+a^{n-2}b+a^{n-3}b^{2}+\dots+a^{((n-1)-k)}\,b^{k}+\dots +a^{2}b^{n+3}+a\,b^{n-2}+b^{n-1})\,?[/itex]

Each of the n terms in the last factor is less than or equal to an-1.
For instance: [itex]\displaystyle a^{12}-b^{12}=(a-b)(a^{11}+a^{10}b+a^{9}b^{2}+\dots+a^{5}\,b^{6}+ \dots +a^{2}b^{9}+a\,b^{10}+b^{11})[/itex]​
 
Building on Sammy's post, you might find it easier to put x = b/a, where 0<x<1

Use polynomial long division to see that for positive integral n,

[tex](1-x^n) = (1-x)(1+x+x^2+...x^{n-1})[/tex]

Alternatively you can just multiply the terms on the RHS, cancel out lots of adjacent terms and end up with the LHS. This is one of the polynomial identities which it's really good to know.

Now,

[tex]1+x+x^2+...x^{n-1}[/tex] has n terms, each of which is less than or equal to 1. Hence the whole sum is less than or equal to n.

So,

[tex]a^n - b^n = a^n(1 - x^n) = a^n(1-x)(1+x+x^2+...+x^{n-1}) = a(1-x).a^{n-1}.(1+x+x^2+...+x^{n-1}) = (a-b).a^{n-1}.(1+x+x^2+...+x^{n-1}) \leq (a-b).n.a^{n-1}[/tex]

and you're done.
 
Last edited:
SammyS said:
It can be instructive to see how the inequality works for the first few values of n. This isn't good enough for a proof, but it may give you some ideas for the proof.

For n=2:
[itex]\displaystyle a^2-b^2\ \ ?\,\leq\,? \ \ 2a^1(a-b)[/itex]

Factor the left side.

[itex]\displaystyle (a-b)(a+b)\ \ ?\,\leq\,? \ \ 2a(a-b)[/itex]

Of course, (a+b) < 2a because a < b .

So, this case doesn't appear to need induction.​

For n=3:
We have a somewhat similar result with the difference of cubes giving a3-b3 = (a-b)(a2+ab+b2). Then the inequality holds if a2+ab+b2 ≤ 3a2, and this is true for a < b. Again, this doesn't require induction.​

For general n:
Did you know that [itex]\displaystyle a^n-b^n=(a-b)(a^{n-1}+a^{n-2}b+a^{n-3}b^{2}+\dots+a^{((n-1)-k)}\,b^{k}+\dots +a^{2}b^{n+3}+a\,b^{n-2}+b^{n-1})\,?[/itex]

Each of the n terms in the last factor is less than or equal to an-1.
For instance: [itex]\displaystyle a^{12}-b^{12}=(a-b)(a^{11}+a^{10}b+a^{9}b^{2}+\dots+a^{5}\,b^{6}+ \dots +a^{2}b^{9}+a\,b^{10}+b^{11})[/itex]​
Very interesting idea.
I knew that result for an - bn, but I didn't think of using it.
This leads directly to the desired result, not requiring induction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K