Proof by Mathematical Induction

In summary: Okay, let's break it down step by step. 1. Start with the given expression: 1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)2. Rearrange the terms in the parentheses to group them together: 1+2[(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)]+(k+1+1)3. Use the inductive hypothesis to replace the inner parentheses: 1+2[(k+1)+(k+1)]+(k+1+1)4. Simplify: 1+2(k+1)+2(k+1)+(k+1+1)5. Combine like terms
  • #1
gmmstr827
86
1

Homework Statement



Prove: 1+2(2+3+4+···+n)+(n+1)=(n+1)2-1 for all n within N

Homework Equations



PMI

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried applying PMI starting with the basis step, allowing n=1, assuming the equation would be true. However 1+2(1)+(1+1)=?=(1+1)2-1 yields 5=?=3 which is false. The problem states that all n are within the natural numbers, which should include 1 (but not 0), but the equation suggests that 1 does not work [2(2+3+4+···+n) on the LHS starts with 2 instead of 1]. Is the statement false or can 1 not be used in the basis step for some reason? For n=2, the statement is true, but it should be true for all natural numbers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
gmmstr827 said:

Homework Statement



Prove: 1+2(2+3+4+···+n)+(n+1)=(n+1)2-1 for all n within N


Homework Equations



PMI

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried applying PMI starting with the basis step, allowing n=1, assuming the equation would be true. However 1+2(1)+(1+1)=?=(1+1)2-1 yields 5=?=3 which is false. The problem states that all n are within the natural numbers, which should include 1 (but not 0), but the equation suggests that 1 does not work [2(2+3+4+···+n) on the LHS starts with 2 instead of 1]. Is the statement false or can 1 not be used in the basis step for some reason? For n=2, the statement is true, but it should be true for all natural numbers.
Your base step has to start with n = 2 or larger, since the numbers inside the parentheses on the left side start with 2 and go to n.

So if n = 2, you have 1 + 2(2) + 3 = (2 + 1)2 - 1
On the left, the value is 8, the same as on the right.
 
  • #3
Mark44 said:
Your base step has to start with n = 2 or larger, since the numbers inside the parentheses on the left side start with 2 and go to n.

So if n = 2, you have 1 + 2(2) + 3 = (2 + 1)2 - 1
On the left, the value is 8, the same as on the right.

That's what I was thinking. So since 1 is a natural number, and the problem states that the equation is true for all n in N-the set of natural numbers, should it be seen as 1 not being included in n, and therefore not being in N?
 
  • #4
Just prove that it's true for all natural numbers n, where n >= 2. The problem could have been worded to include this restriction, but that's a relatively minor detail, IMO.
 
  • #5
I can see where the OP is coming from. The problem isn't worded correctly. It should say prove ... for n >= 2, (because what does (2 + ... + n) mean if n = 1?)
 
  • #6
Yes, I agree, the problem should have been worded more clearly. But assuming that the problem really means for n >= 2, can the OP continue from there?
 
  • #7
Mark44 said:
Yes, I agree, the problem should have been worded more clearly. But assuming that the problem really means for n >= 2, can the OP continue from there?

First, by using n=2 for the basis, I confirmed that the equation is true.
Then,
Assume true for n=k
1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)=(k+1)2-1 for all k within N
Show true for n=k+1
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1

I'm trying to contradict this somehow, and went through with it unsuccessfully as follows:
For sake of contradiction:
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1)+(k+1+1)=/=(k+1+1)2-1
Subtract original (without the added 1):
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1)+(k+1+1)-(1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1))=/=(k+1+1)2-1-((k+1)2-1)
Simplify:
2(k+1)+(k+1+1)=/=(k+1+1)2-(k+1)2
2(k+1)+(k+2)=/=(k+2)2-(k+1)2
2(k+1)+(k+2)=/=k2+4k+4-(k2+2k+1)
2k+2+k+2=/=2k+3
3k+4=/=2k+3

Which comes out to be true - I want it to be false for contradiction. In similar problems where instead of the equations being equal to each other, they were ≥ or ≤ to each other, and I would simply switch the direction and take out the "or equals to" line and do the same thing as above, but it would prove to be false, showing contradiction, and proving the original statement as true. Since this one is using an equals sign, is it possible to do it with this method? If I used a less than sign it would come out false, but I don't think that's appropriate, so I'll have to probably find a different method to use.
 
  • #8
gmmstr827 said:
Assume true for n=k
1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)=(k+1)2-1 for all k within N
Show true for n=k+1
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1

I'm trying to contradict this somehow

No no no. Don't do this. You want to show

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1

Make use of the inductive hypothesis, which is:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)=(k+1)2-1

To start off, try manipulating the left side of the equation and arrive at the right side using the IH, so you start with:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)= ...
 
Last edited:
  • #9
gb7nash said:
No no no. Don't do this. You want to show

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1

Make use of the inductive hypothesis, which is:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)=(k+1)2-1

To start off, try manipulating the left side of the equation and arrive at the right side using the IH, so you start with:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)= ...

Would 2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1) = k(k+2)+k+1?
So it would all equal 1+k(k+2)+k+1+k+1+1
=k^2+4k+4

However, I need it to equal k^2+4k+3
Which I can get if I don't add an extra 1. So I use:
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1)=(k+1+1)2-1
instead of
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I don't really follow your logic. Start with:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)

We want to manipulate it and make use of the IH to show that

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1.

I'll get you started:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+2(k+1)+(k+1)+1 (Do you see why this is true?)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k) + (k+1) + 2(k+1) + 1 (rearranging terms)
.
.
.
=(k+1+1)2-1
 
  • #11
The problem is that I have no idea where to find formulas to convert the expression 2(2+3+4+···+k) into a term. I know that I need to end up with k^2+4k+3 in order to show the RHS, but it seems like I'll be getting too many values. I've been looking through my book and trying to research it online but everything I find about the IH either skips that explanation or shows something with a summation which doesn't really explain it either. How do I go about changing it?
It seems like it would have to be k^2+k-2 which is equal to (k+2)(k-1) in order to be added within the remaining 1+k+1+2(k+1)+1 to equal k^2+4k+3 = k^2+4k+4-1=(k+2)^2-1 but how do I get to that?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
gb7nash said:
I don't really follow your logic. Start with:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)

We want to manipulate it and make use of the IH to show that

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)=(k+1+1)2-1.

I'll get you started:

1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+2(k+1)+(k+1)+1 (Do you see why this is true?)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k) + (k+1) + 2(k+1) + 1 (rearranging terms)
.
.
.
=(k+1+1)2-1

gmmstr827 said:
The problem is that I have no idea where to find formulas to convert the expression 2(2+3+4+···+k) into a term.

Use the inductive hypothesis. Don't try to evaluate what 2(2+3+4+···+k) is. Look at what I bolded. What is that equal to due to the IH? (I really can't give you anymore than this or I'm practically handing you the answer. :tongue2:)
 
  • #13
Wait, you just substitute the part of the LHS that existed before adding +1 to both sides for the RHS before adding the +1? If so, this is so much less complicated that I thought. I was under the impression you had to do some kind of summation or use a formula to convert it into the values you need...
 
Last edited:
  • #14
gmmstr827 said:
I was under the impression you had to do some kind of summation or use a formula to convert it into the values you need...

This is why the inductive hypothesis is so powerful. You don't have to sum the terms up. Just use the inductive hypothesis and you can convert the bolded terms to something else. Note that you can do this when performing a simple proof by induction. For this induction proof, we're assuming that the equation works for k (the inductive hypothesis that I listed above). You now want to show that it works for k+1.

So what comes next?

gb7nash said:
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+2(k+1)+(k+1)+1 (Do you see why this is true?)
= 1+2(2+3+4+···+k) + (k+1) + 2(k+1) + 1 (rearranging terms)
= ?
 
  • #15
1+2(2+3+4+···+k+k+1)+(k+1+1)
1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+2(k+1)+(k+1)+1
1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)+2(k+1)+1
Recall: 1+2(2+3+4+···+k)+(k+1)=(k+1)2-1
(k+1)2-1+2k+2+1
k2+2k+1-1+2k+2+1
k2+4k+3
k2+4k+4-1
(k+2)(k+2)-1
(k+2)2-1
LHS=RHS
Therefore, 1+2(2+3+4+···+n)+(n+1)=(n+1)2-1 for all n within N.
 
  • #16
You got it :smile:. Just don't forget to put equal signs between them.
 
  • #17
Yep. I just didn't realize how to change the expression until I looked at examples enough and finally noticed you simply substitute >.< Thanks for your help.
 

1. What is "Proof by Mathematical Induction"?

Proof by Mathematical Induction is a method of mathematical proof used to establish that a statement is true for all natural numbers. It involves three steps: the base case, the induction hypothesis, and the inductive step.

2. How does "Proof by Mathematical Induction" work?

The method of Proof by Mathematical Induction works by first proving that the statement is true for the first natural number, usually 0 or 1. This is known as the base case. Then, assuming that the statement is true for some natural number, known as the induction hypothesis, the inductive step is used to show that the statement is also true for the next natural number. This process is repeated until it is shown that the statement is true for all natural numbers.

3. What is the difference between "Weak" and "Strong" induction?

The difference between Weak and Strong induction lies in the base case. In Weak induction, the base case is used to prove that the statement is true for the next natural number. However, in Strong induction, the base case is used to prove that the statement is true for all natural numbers up to the next natural number. Therefore, Strong induction is a more powerful form of Proof by Mathematical Induction.

4. When should "Proof by Mathematical Induction" be used?

"Proof by Mathematical Induction" should be used when trying to prove a statement that is dependent on natural numbers. It is a useful tool for proving theorems, identities, and other mathematical statements that involve natural numbers.

5. What are the limitations of "Proof by Mathematical Induction"?

One limitation of "Proof by Mathematical Induction" is that it can only be used to prove statements that depend on natural numbers. It cannot be used for real or complex numbers. Additionally, it may not work for statements that involve a finite number of cases, as it only proves the statement for all natural numbers.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
927
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
401
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
495
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
774
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
501
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
941
Back
Top