1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
The sequence of positive numbers ##u_1,u_2,u_3...## is such that ##u_1<4## and ##u_{n+1}= \frac{5u_n+4}{u_n+2} ##
i. By considering ##4-u_{n+1} ##, prove by induction that ##u_1<4## for ##n\geq 1## Mod note: The above is incorrect. In a later post the OP revised this to

3. The attempt at a solution
I have never been introduced to these types of backward induction so I am not aware of the statements I have to make and prove. I do get the general idea that it's like finding the limit of ##4-u_{n+1} ## as ##u_n \rightarrow 4## and then say that since as the upper limit of the function is 0, then it must be smaller than 0. So it would be very helpful if I am given an outline on how to solve this.

I used the phrase "backward induction" in the sense that for a general induction problem we try to show that if a statement ##P(n)## can be converted into a ##P(n+1)## statement using allowed operations then the statement is true. Here we are supposed to use the concept in a reverse.

Now to your suggestion,
$$\ 4-u_{2}=4-u_{2} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}=4- \frac{5u_1+4}{u_1+2} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}=4-\frac{5+\frac{4}{u_1}}{1+\frac{2}{u_1}} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}>4-\frac{5+1}{1+1/2} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}>4-\frac{6}{3/2} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}>0 $$
$$\ 4>u_{2} $$
Is this correct? If yes what I have to do next?
And one more thing, Can I just use the given statement ##u_1<4## as my base case?

How do you "use the concept in reverse"? The description you gave, ##P(n)\Longrightarrow P(n+1)## is The principle of induction (in ##\mathbb N## at least).

Well in most questions we try to convert the statement ##P(n) ## into ##P(n+1)## but here aren't we trying to convert ##P(n+1)## into ##P(n)##? If no, then probably my analogy is incorrect. Please guide me how to solve the remaining part.

Edit: nvm
You are used to induction working in the normal way, if it holds for ##n##, then show it holds for ##n+1## and done. You can define induction however you like, though. You may induce for all even or odd numbers. You may induce "backwards" [though that's not really correct way to say it.]

What confused me is this bit: Show that for all ##n\geq 1## ##u_1<4##?? How exactly does ##u_1 ## quantify with respect to ##n##?

Oh sorry that was a mistake.
The question is:
i. By considering##4−u_{n+1}##, prove by induction that ##u_n<4## for all ##n\geq1## Mod note: I have revised post #1 with this correction.

A series is an infinite sum. You are talking about a sequence. It's important to make the distinction or you will confuse people.

The way I see it, your objective is to show by induction that for all ##n\in\mathbb{N}## ## u_n<4## and the base case is assumed to be solved according to your first post. Assume now that for some ##n>1 ## ##u_n<4## holds, then if you show ##4-u_{n+1}>0 ##, you will have proven the result.

Combine the two terms on the right hand side into one rational expression, using a common denominator. You can then show that ##\ u_2<4\ ## and that ##\ u_2>u_1\ ##, assuming that ##\ u_1>0\ ##.

Earlier you said, "While that is true, you have not demonstrated this.." Can you tell me what do you mean by this? How am I supposed to demonstrate that? The question already says that ##u_1<4## so can I not just continue by saying "Assuming inductive hypothesis to be true" and then divide by ##4## instead of ##u_1##

$$\ 4-u_{2}=4-\frac{5u_1+4}{u_1+2} $$
$$\ 4-u_{2}=\frac{4-u_1}{u_1+2} $$
Considering ##u_n>0## then

Now what I have to do?

Edit:
By the way, the question I typed is a little bit wrong
Instead of proving ##u_1<4##, I have to prove ##u_n<4##
Apologies.

The ##5## in the numerator was incorrectly written. Changed it to the correct ##4##

In any event for the special case, you could do something like this. Assume for a contradiction that ##4-u_2\leq 0 ##, then
[tex]
4-u_2 = \frac{4-u_1}{2+u_1} = 1-\frac{2-2u_1}{2+u_1}\leq 0
[/tex]
but then ##u_1\leq 0 ## which would contradict one of your assumptions in your first post. The general case follows similarly.

I have not studied principles for contradictions in depth so I am confused here. You assume ##4-u_2\leq 0 ##, a contradictory statement to be true. So any conclusions derived using this contradiction must be incorrect. So why are we treating the incorrect result to be a contradiction when it is itself an indirect proof that ##4-u_1\geq0##

I have converted ##4-u_n>0 ## into ##\frac{24}{u_n+2}-u_{n+1}>0##
I am not really sure what to do now. I know I can't use ##u_n=4## since that will make the left term smaller and the inequality might not hold true.

When we have to prove ##A\Longrightarrow B ##, one possibility is to assume for a contradiction ##B## does not hold and consider ##A\land\neg B ##. If it yields a contradictory result, it means the assumption that ##\neg B ## must be incorrect. Due to the excluded third principle, it can then only be that ## B## is true. The contradictions you could arrive at could be ##A\land \neg B\Longrightarrow \neg A ##, which is clearly a contradiction. You could also contradict one of your assumptions or some base axioms.I will walk through the example in case of ##n=2##.

Let ##4-u_1>0 ##. We want to show that
[tex]
4-u_1>0\Longrightarrow 4-u_2 = \frac{4-u_1}{2+u_1}>0
[/tex]
Let's assume for a contradiction that ##\frac{4-u_1}{2+u_1}\leq 0 ##. Then ##u_1\leq 0 ##, which contradicts the fact that all elements in the sequence are positive numbers.

The validity of the statement is obvious, though and this sort of proof is overkill.