Proof via mathematical induction

In summary, we are trying to prove that for any natural number n, (8n - 7n - 1) is divisible by 49. We start by showing that the base case is satisfied when n = 1. Then, we use the inductive assumption that 49 is divisible by (8k - 7k - 1) for n = k, to try and show that 49 is also divisible by (8k+1 - 7k - 8). We can rewrite (8k+1 - 7k - 8) as (8*8k - 7k - 1), but it is unclear where to go from there. We also note that in order to
  • #1
UOAMCBURGER
31
1

Homework Statement


Use mathematical induction to prove that (8n − 7n − 1) is divisible by 49 for any n ∈ N.

Correction by mentor for better readability: ##49\,|\,(8^n-7n-1)##

The Attempt at a Solution


We can see that the base case is satisfied here:
n = 1,
8^1-7*1-1 = 0 and 49 | 0 is true since 49 | 0 => 49*a = 0 where a is an integer, here a = 0.
therefore base case is proven
Inductive assumption is : Assume true : 49 | (8k -7k - 1) for n=k
Now have to show that 49 | (8k+1 - 7k - 8)

So we can see that 8k+1 - 7k - 8 = 8*8k -7k -1, but I am unsure of where to go from here.
Any help will be appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
UOAMCBURGER said:

Homework Statement


Use mathematical induction to prove that (8n − 7n − 1) is divisible by 49 for any n ∈ N.[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


We can see that the base case is satisfied here:
n = 1,
8^1-7*1-1 = 0 and 49 | 0 is true since 49 | 0 => 49*a = 0 where a is an integer, here a = 0.
therefore base case is proven
Inductive assumption is : Assume true : 49 | (8k -7k - 1) for n=k
Now have to show that 49 | (8k+1 - 7k - 8)

So we can see that 8k+1 - 7k - 8 = 8*8k -7k -1, but I am unsure of where to go from here.
Any help will be appreciated.
Is it ##8\,|\,(8n-7n-1)## or ##8\,|\,(8^n-7n-1)\,##? But in either case you have to increment both occurrences of ##n\,.## It's often useful to start at the end and transform ##(8(n+1)-7(n+1)-1)## or ##(8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1)## depending on which version is the one claimed.
 
  • #3
fresh_42 said:
Is it ##8\,|\,(8n-7n-1)## or ##8\,|\,(8^n-7n-1)\,##? But in either case you have to increment both occurrences of ##n\,.## It's often useful to start at the end and transform ##(8(n+1)-7(n+1)-1)## or ##(8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1)## depending on which version is the one claimed.
whoops it is 8n not 8n
 
  • #4
UOAMCBURGER said:
whoops it is 8n not 8n
also sort of a side note, i know if we can get the LHS:
(8(n+1)−7(n+1)−1) to be of the form 49*(...) which is obviously just a multiple of 49 then it is shown to be divisible by 49, but does this apply for the factors of 49 also? i.e., if I can get that LHS into the form 7*(...) where it is some multiple of 7 and 7 is a factor of 49 is that enough to prove that it can be divisible by 49 or does that principle only apply to the form a(..b..) where a | b and we can get b into a multiple of a form.
 
  • #5
UOAMCBURGER said:
also sort of a side note, i know if we can get the LHS:
(8(n+1)−7(n+1)−1) to be of the form 49*(...) which is obviously just a multiple of 49 then it is shown to be divisible by 49, but does this apply for the factors of 49 also? i.e., if I can get that LHS into the form 7*(...) where it is some multiple of 7 and 7 is a factor of 49 is that enough to prove that it can be divisible by 49 or does that principle only apply to the form a(..b..) where a | b and we can get b into a multiple of a form.
If you have a number ##N## which is divisible by ##7##, then ##N=7r## for some integer. However, you still need ##7\,|\,r\,.##

Edit: ##\operatorname{gcd}(7,7)=7## so you really need that ##49## is a divisor. If you have two different primes ##p## and ##q##, then it is sufficient to show ##p\,|\,N## and ##q\,|\,N## to conclude ##(p\cdot q)\,|\,N\,.##As a sidenote: You want to have a look on https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/ which makes formulas a lot better to read.

Let me summarize: We want to show ##49 = 7^2 \,|\, (8^n+7n-1)## for all ##n\in \mathbb{N}##.
It clearly holds for ##n=1## and we assume that ##49 = 7^2 \,|\, (8^n+7n-1)##. Maybe we will need that it holds for all numbers up to ##n##, that depends on the proof. Both can be assumed as introduction hypothesis. Now we have to show that
$$
49 = 7^2\,|\, (8^{n+1}+7({n+1})-1)
$$
Is this correct? It seems to be wrong, if I check ##n=2##.

As said, start at the end and see where it goes. We have ##8^{n+1}+7{n+1}-1=8\cdot 8^n +7n +6## and this has to be brought into a form, to which the induction hypothesis can be applied.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
If you have a number ##N## which is divisible by ##7##, then ##N=7r## for some integer. However, you still need ##7\,|\,r\,.##

As a sidenote: You want to have a look on https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/ which makes formulas a lot better to read.

Let me summarize: We want to show ##49 = 7^2 \,|\, (8^n+7n-1)## for all ##n\in \mathbb{N}##.
It clearly holds for ##n=1## and we assume that ##49 = 7^2 \,|\, (8^n+7n-1)##. Maybe we will need that it holds for all numbers up to ##n##, that depends on the proof. Both can be assumed as introduction hypothesis. Now we have to show that
$$
49 = 7^2\,|\, (8^{n+1}+7({n+1})-1)
$$
Is this correct? It seems to be wrong, if I check ##n=2##.

As said, start at the end and see where it goes. We have ##8^{n+1}+7{n+1}-1=8\cdot 8^n +7n +6## and this has to be brought into a form, to which the induction hypothesis can be applied.
Sorry, not sure when the 8n-7*n became + 7*n but what we have to show is: 49 = 72 | (8n+1 - 7*n -1), hence n=2 clearly holds since 49 is divisible by itself.
 
  • #7
UOAMCBURGER said:
Sorry, not sure when the 8n-7*n became + 7*n but what we have to show is: 49 = 72 | (8n+1 - 7*n -1), hence n=2 clearly holds since 49 is divisible by itself.
Just add ## before and after your formulas and it will be a lot clearer.
##n=1:\quad 8^{n+1}-7n-1=64-7-1=56##
##n=2:\quad 8^{n+1}-7n-1=512-14-1=497##
There must be something wrong.

I guess it is ##8^n-7n-1## or ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1##

Hint: Use ##8^n-1=(8-1)\cdot (8^{n-1}+8^{n-2}+\ldots +8^2+8^1+1)##
 
Last edited:
  • #8
UOAMCBURGER said:
Sorry, not sure when the 8n-7*n became + 7*n but what we have to show is: 49 = 72 | (8n+1 - 7*n -1), hence n=2 clearly holds since 49 is divisible by itself.
Furthermore,
fresh_42 said:
Just add ## before and after your formulas and it will be a lot clearer.
##n=1:\quad 8^{n+1}-7n-1=64-7-1=56##
##n=2:\quad 8^{n+1}-7n-1=512-14-1=497##
There must be something wrong.

I guess it is ##8^n-7n-1## or ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1##
ok thanks ill be sure to add them in the future.
Why are you plugging in n=1 and n=2 into what we have to show rather than into the given equation?
We are given the equation with the 8n and then inductive step is assume that is correct for all n in N.
Then given that assumption, we have to prove that ## 49 = 72 | (8n+1 -7(n+1) -1) ## for a proof via mathematical induction.
 
  • #9
also not sure why my ## didn't work
 
  • #10
UOAMCBURGER said:
Furthermore,

ok thanks ill be sure to add them in the future.
Why are you plugging in n=1 and n=2 into what we have to show rather than into the given equation?
Your formula was wrong. If the statement for ##n## is ##49\,|\,(8^n-7n-1)## then the statement for the induction step is ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1##. I just checked for ##n=1,2## with your equation and got something wrong. With those I just mentioned it will work.
We are given the equation with the 8n and then inductive step is assume that is correct for all n in N.
Then given that assumption, we have to prove that ## 49 = 72 | (8n+1 -7(n+1) -1) ## for a proof via mathematical induction.
Yes, but you wrote ##8^{n+1}-7n-1## which is wrong.

Take ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## and see if you can structure it in a way such that ##8^n-7n-1=49a## is applicable. The see if the rest is also divisible by ##49##, i.e. twice by ##7##.
 
  • #11
fresh_42 said:
Your formula was wrong. If the statement for ##n## is ##49\,|\,(8^n-7n-1)## then the statement for the induction step is ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1##. I just checked for ##n=1,2## with your equation and got something wrong. With those I just mentioned it will work.

Yes, but you wrote ##8^{n+1}-7n-1## which is wrong.

Take ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## and see if you can structure it in a way such that ##8^n-7n-1=49a## is applicable. The see if the rest is also divisible by ##49##, i.e. twice by ##7##.
Oh right yeah sorry, I can get to the stage where we get ##49=72|(8*8n-7n-8)## => ##49a=72a=8*8n-7n-8## but unsure of how i can apply the inductive assumption to this?
 
  • #12
Start with ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1=8\cdot 8^n -7n -7 -1 =(7+1)\cdot8^n-7n-1-7 = \ldots## and the induction hypothesis is almost there and for ##7\cdot 8^n## look at my hint in post no.7
 
  • #13
@UOAMCBURGER ,A couple of notes:
1) Please correct the exponent in your post #1 so that others will not get confused.
2) The reason why the LaTex ## didn't work: If the equation has BBcode things like you get from the exponent button above the edit page, LaTex that includes it does not work. After much confusion, I realized what was going on and switched to only using LaTex and never use those buttons.
 
  • #14
fresh_42 said:
Start with ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1=8\cdot 8^n -7n -7 -1 =(7+1)\cdot8^n-7n-1-7 = \ldots## and the induction hypothesis is almost there and for ##7\cdot 8^n## look at my hint in post no.7
I'm still not sure how i can apply your hint or the inductive assumption, I can get to the step in your post #12 but i don't see how we can express the LHS in terms of a multiple of 7 or would it be 7^2 or does that even matter since you could express 49 as 7a where a = 7 = 72
 
  • #15
fresh_42 said:
Start with ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1=8\cdot 8^n -7n -7 -1 =(7+1)\cdot8^n-7n-1-7 = \ldots## and the induction hypothesis is almost there and for ##7\cdot 8^n## look at my hint in post no.7
Okay so I have solved via another method to what you were hinting at (i think)
By the inductive assumption we get:

49t = (8k-7k-1), therefore 8k = 49t + 7k + 8

Then we obviously have to show that this holds for k+1, so then:

8k+1 - 7(k+1) - 1 = 8*8k - 7k - 8 = 8(49t + 7k + 1) - 7k - 8 = 49(8t) + 56k + 8 -7k -8 = 49(8t+k)

Hence, 49 | (8k+1 - 7(k+1) - 1)
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #16
UOAMCBURGER said:
I'm still not sure how i can apply your hint or the inductive assumption, I can get to the step in your post #12 but i don't see how we can express the LHS in terms of a multiple of 7 or would it be 7^2 or does that even matter since you could express 49 as 7a where a = 7 = 72
It's hard to give even more hints and not to solve the problem. The goal is, we have to prove ##49\,|\,8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## and only know that ##49\,|\,8^{n}-7(n)-1\,.## So in order to apply what we know, we have to transform ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## in a way that this knowledge can be applied. Therfore we calculate
$$
8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1 = 8\cdot 8^n -7n-1-7=(7+1)\cdot 8^n -7n-1-7=(7\cdot 8^n)-(7\cdot 1)+8^n-7n-1=7\cdot (8^n-1) + 49\cdot a
$$
for some ##a\in \mathbb{Z}\,.## What's left to show is ##7\,|\,(8^n-1)\,.##
 
  • #17
fresh_42 said:
It's hard to give even more hints and not to solve the problem. The goal is, we have to prove ##49\,|\,8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## and only know that ##49\,|\,8^{n}-7(n)-1\,.## So in order to apply what we know, we have to transform ##8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1## in a way that this knowledge can be applied. Therfore we calculate
$$
8^{n+1}-7(n+1)-1 = 8\cdot 8^n -7n-1-7=(7+1)\cdot 8^n -7n-1-7=(7\cdot 8^n)-(7\cdot 1)+8^n-7n-1=7\cdot (8^n-1) + 49\cdot a
$$
for some ##a\in \mathbb{Z}\,.## What's left to show is ##7\,|\,(8^n-1)\,.##
^^ solved another way, thanks though.
 
  • #18
UOAMCBURGER said:
Okay so I have solved via another method to what you were hinting at (i think)
By the inductive assumption we get:

49t = (8k-7k-1), therefore 8k = 49t + 7k + 8

Then we obviously have to show that this holds for k+1, so then:

8k+1 - 7(k+1) - 1 = 8*8k - 7k - 8 = 8(49t + 7k + 1) - 7k - 8 = 49(8t) + 56k + 8 -7k -8 = 49(8t+k)

Hence, 49 | (8k+1 - 7(k+1) - 1)
... or so.

As you saw, my way might be a bit more complicate, but as ##(8^n-1)=(8-1)\cdot (8^{n-1}+\ldots +8^0)=7\cdot (\ldots)## the result is the same.
 
  • Like
Likes UOAMCBURGER

FAQ: Proof via mathematical induction

1. What is mathematical induction?

Mathematical induction is a method of proving that a statement is true for all natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...). It is based on the principle that if a statement is true for a specific number (usually 1), and if it is also true for the next number after that, then it is true for all subsequent numbers.

2. How does proof via mathematical induction work?

In order to prove a statement using mathematical induction, we first show that it is true for the first natural number, usually 1. Then, we assume that it is also true for some arbitrary natural number k, and use this assumption to prove that it is also true for the next natural number k+1. This process is repeated for all subsequent natural numbers, proving that the statement is true for all natural numbers.

3. What types of statements can be proven using mathematical induction?

Mathematical induction is typically used to prove statements about natural numbers, such as equations, inequalities, and divisibility properties. It can also be used to prove properties of other mathematical objects that can be represented as natural numbers, such as graphs or sets.

4. Are there any limitations to proof via mathematical induction?

While mathematical induction is a powerful tool for proving statements about natural numbers, it does have its limitations. It cannot be used to prove statements about real numbers or other continuous objects. Additionally, it can only be used to prove statements that are true for all natural numbers, not just a specific subset.

5. Can mathematical induction be used in reverse?

No, mathematical induction cannot be used in reverse. It can only be used to prove that a statement is true for all natural numbers, starting from a specific value and moving forward. It cannot be used to prove that a statement is true for all natural numbers, starting from infinity and moving backwards.

Back
Top