Proof by induction, ##(n)^{2} \le (2n)##.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving by induction that \((n!)^{2} \le (2n)!\). Participants are exploring the validity of this inequality and the steps involved in the proof process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the base case for \(n=1\) and the inductive step assuming \((k!)^{2} \le (2k)!\) holds. There are questions about how to proceed from \((k+1)^{2}k!^{2} \le (k+1)^{2}(2k)!\) to show it is less than \((2(k+1))!\). Some suggest considering direct proofs as an alternative approach.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the inductive proof, with some participants providing insights on manipulating factorials and questioning the necessity of induction. Guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between the factorial expressions, but no consensus has been reached on the final steps of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the assumption that induction is a preferred method for this proof, although some express that a direct proof may be simpler. There is also a focus on ensuring the inequalities hold true for all natural numbers.

mikeyBoy83

Homework Statement


I need to prove by induction that ##(n!)^{2} \le (2n)!##. I'm pretty sure about my preliminary work, but I just need some suggestions for the end.

Homework Equations


It is well known from a theorem that if ##a \le b## and ##c \ge 0##, then ##ca \le cb##.

The Attempt at a Solution


ATTEMPT AT PROOF: For ##n=1##, we can see that ##(1!)^{2} \le (2\cdot 1)!## holds. Now, assume that ##(k!)^{2} \le (2k)!## holds for ##k \in N##. Then it must be shown that ##n=k+1## holds. For that,

##[(k+1)!]^{2} = (k+1)^{2}k!^{2}## and by assumption ##(k!)^{2} \le (2k)!## implies with the theorem above that

##(k+1)^{2}k!^{2} \le (k+1)^{2}(2k)!##

And this is the point at which I don't know how to proceed. I need to conclude that this is in fact less than ##[2(k+1)]!##, but I am unsure how to do that. I would appreciate any direction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mikeyBoy83 said:

Homework Statement


I need to prove by induction that ##(n!)^{2} \le (2n)!##. I'm pretty sure about my preliminary work, but I just need some suggestions for the end.

Homework Equations


It is well known from a theorem that if ##a \le b## and ##c \ge 0##, then ##ca \le cb##.

The Attempt at a Solution


ATTEMPT AT PROOF: For ##n=1##, we can see that ##(1!)^{2} \le (2\cdot 1)!## holds. Now, assume that ##(k!)^{2} \le (2k)!## holds for ##k \in N##. Then it must be shown that ##n=k+1## holds. For that,

##[(k+1)!]^{2} = (k+1)^{2}k!^{2}## and by assumption ##(k!)^{2} \le (2k)!## implies with the theorem above that

##(k+1)^{2}k!^{2} \le (k+1)^{2}(2k)!##

And this is the point at which I don't know how to proceed. I need to conclude that this is in fact less than ##[2(k+1)]!##, but I am unsure how to do that. I would appreciate any direction.
Are you absolutely required to use induction? I ask, because a direct proof (avoiding induction) is almost trivial.
 
What is ##(2k)!/(2(k+1))!## ?
 
Orodruin said:
What is ##(2k)!/(2(k+1))!## ?

I assume you mean to use ##(2(k+1))!/(2(k+1))!## in which case the expression ##\frac{(2k)!}{(2(k+1))!}## is equivalent to ##\frac{1}{2(k+1)(2k+1)}##, and so this reduces my inequality to

##(k+1)^{2}(k!)^{2} \le \frac{k+1}{2(2k+1)}\cdot (2(k+1))! \le (2(k+1))!## since ##\frac{k+1}{2(2k+1)} < 1## for any ##k\in N##. Is that what you had in mind?
 
Ray Vickson said:
Are you absolutely required to use induction? I ask, because a direct proof (avoiding induction) is almost trivial.
I would prefer to use induction simply for the sake of practice. It is not required.
 
mikeyBoy83 said:
Is that what you had in mind?
Yes.
 
mikeyBoy83 said:
##(k+1)^{2}k!^{2} \le (k+1)^{2}(2k)!##

And this is the point at which I don't know how to proceed. I need to conclude that this is in fact less than ##[2(k+1)]!##, but I am unsure how to do that. I would appreciate any direction.

If you expand the factorials, I think you'll see it fairly obvious.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mikeyBoy83
PeroK said:
If you expand the factorials, I think you'll see it fairly obvious.

Yes. You are right, thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K