MHB Proof by Induction Help: Solving Recursive & Closed Formulas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cribs1420
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the equivalence of a recursive formula, defined as bk = 3bk-1 + 2 for k ≥ 2 with b1 = 2, and its closed formula bn = 3n - 1 using mathematical induction. Participants emphasize the importance of clearly defining the property P(n) to be proven for all n ≥ 1, starting with the base case P(1) and proceeding to the induction step where P(k) implies P(k+1). The correct approach involves explicitly stating both the induction hypothesis and the desired conclusion for P(k+1) to derive the proof effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction principles
  • Familiarity with recursive formulas and closed forms
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation
  • Ability to formulate and express mathematical properties clearly
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Practice solving recursive relations and deriving closed forms
  • Learn how to explicitly state and prove properties in mathematical proofs
  • Explore examples of induction proofs in combinatorics and number theory
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on proofs, recursive functions, and algebraic structures. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to strengthen their understanding of mathematical induction and its applications in proving formula equivalences.

Cribs1420
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am having a heck of a time with this proof. I am given both the recursive and closed formula and am supposed to prove that they are equivalent using induction.

This is what I am given:
bk = 3bk-1+2 for k <2 and b1=2

the closed formula is bn= 3n-1Trying to solve it this is as far as I have gotten...

3m-1 = 3(3(m-1)-1)) +2

I am not sure if this is the correct approach because I am unable to solve it out. Any suggestions on what I should be doing? Thanks a bunch!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure $k \le 2?$ The recurrence relation is solved for the higher term, but if $k \le 2,$ then you'd have to go backwards - quite unusual in recurrence relations.
 
Assuming it's $k\ge 2$, let's go through the whole procedure for proofs by induction.

First, identify a property $P(n)$ concerning which you need to prove "$P(n)$ for all $n\ge1$". Second, write the base case $P(1)$ explicitly (i.e., without using the symbol $P$) and prove it. Third, in the induction step you need to prove that $P(k)$ implies $P(k+1)$ for all $k\ge1$. Towards this proof, you fix an arbitrary $k\ge1$ and assume $P(k)$: this is the induction hypothesis (IH). Write $P(k)$ explicitly and label it as IH. From this hypothesis, you need to prove $P(k+1)$. Write $P(k+1)$ explicitly and indicate that it is what you need to prove (as opposed to the IH, which is assumed). Finally, try deriving the explicit form of $P(k+1)$ from the explicit form of $P(k)$.

If after doing this you have questions, then post the intermediate results of your work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
829
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K