Proof by induction of a sequence.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property of a sequence defined inductively, specifically showing that the sequence of rational numbers satisfies the inequality 1 ≤ sn ≤ 2 for all n ≥ 1.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the validity of the inductive step in the proof, questioning the application of inequalities and the assumptions made regarding the sequence's terms.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on correcting the inequalities used in the proof, while others are questioning the implications of the steps taken. There is an ongoing exploration of different approaches to establish the inductive hypothesis.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through potential errors in reasoning and the implications of the inequalities involved in the proof. There are indications of confusion regarding the application of the AM-GM inequality as a possible method to support the proof.

missavvy
Messages
73
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given a sequence of rational numbers, defined inductively as follows:

s1 = 1, sn+1 = sn/2 + 1/sn, n>=1

prove that 1<=sn<=2 forall n>=1

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I've got the solution to this but I don't understand a certain part, I was hoping someone could explain it to me?

So Let P(n) be the statement 1<=sn<=2
P(1) is satisfied.
Suppose P(n) holds.
Then sn+1 = sn/2 + 1/sn >= 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, because sn/2>=1/2 and 1/sn<=1/2

The bold part is what i don't understand. Wouldn't that imply that sn >= 2?
Am I mistaken or is there maybe an error in this solution?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The inequality is written backwards. It should read \frac{1}{s_n} \geq \frac{1}{2}, which of course is what you need to write the >= earlier in that line
 
thanks I thought so... But then this solution continues as follows...

Moreover, Sn+1 = sn/2 + 1/sn <= 2/2 + 1/2 <= 3/2 <= 2

I'm unsure about this, because then wouldn't you need 1/sn <= 1/2 for this step?

____________________


Ok forgetting about that solution, if I were to say:

Sn+1 = Sn/2 + 1/Sn >= 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
and
Sn+1 = sn/2 + 1/Sn <= 1 + 1 = 2

Is this right and proves that P(n+1) holds?
 
Last edited:
You can use AM-GM inequality.
 

Similar threads

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