Prove 2^n > 1/2(n+1)² is true help

  • Thread starter Thread starter L²Cc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality \(2^n > \frac{1}{2}(n+1)^2\) for natural numbers, particularly focusing on the use of mathematical induction. Participants express confusion regarding the application of induction in this context, as it does not appear to involve a sequence.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants attempt to verify the inequality for specific values of \(n\) and discuss the steps involved in proving it via induction. Questions arise about the validity of multiplying both sides of the inequality and the logic behind using induction in this case.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the induction process. Some express uncertainty about the steps taken, while others provide insights into the principles of mathematical induction. No consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of a sequence in the problem, which contributes to their confusion about applying induction. There are also references to previous experiences with mathematical induction questions and the perceived lack of responses in similar discussions.

L²Cc
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
i have understood step one (the easiest, hehehe)
If n=4, then LHS (left hand side) = 16
RHS (right hand side) = 12.5
16>12.5
Hence P4 is true...
but then when it comes to step 2, I am confused, I am used to proving sequences by mathematical induction, and, here, there doesn't seem to be a sequence in the first place...!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
L²Cc said:
i have understood step one (the easiest, hehehe)
If n=4, then LHS (left hand side) = 16
RHS (right hand side) = 12.5
16>12.5
Hence P4 is true...
but then when it comes to step 2, I am confused, I am used to proving sequences by mathematical induction, and, here, there doesn't seem to be a sequence in the first place...!

[tex]2^n > \frac{1}{2}(n+1)^2[/tex]

For n = 1, you have 2 > 2. :smile:
 
radou said:
[tex]2^n > \frac{1}{2}(n+1)^2[/tex]

For n = 1, you have 2 > 2. :smile:

Sorry, n>3
 
L²Cc said:
Sorry, n>3

Ok, not sure about this one, but, as you already showed, it is true for n = 4. Further on, we assume it is true for some k:
[tex]2^k > \frac{1}{2}(k+1)^2[/tex] ...(1)

We have to proove that it is true for k + 1:
[tex]2^{k+1} > \frac{1}{2}(k+2)^2 = \frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2[/tex]

So, we can multiply both sides of (1) with 2 to obtain:
[tex]2^k \cdot 2 > \frac{1}{2}(k+1)^2\cdot 2 \Rightarrow[/tex]
[tex]2^{k+1} > (k+1)^2 = k^2+2k+2[/tex], which implies
[tex]2^{k+1}>\frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2[/tex].
 
hmm, why are you multiplying both sides by two?
 
L²Cc said:
hmm, why are you multiplying both sides by two?

To obtain [tex]2^{k+1}[/tex] on the left side. Anyway, as I said, I'm not a hundred percent sure about this one, so maybe better wait for someone else to comment. :biggrin:
 
hmm...if you add 2 on one side, you have to add it on the other...all right ill wait, although i don't think anyone will comment, I've been posting mathematical induction questions, and it's quite rare when people do actually answer...
 
L²Cc said:
hmm...if you add 2 on one side, you have to add it on the other...all right ill wait, although i don't think anyone will comment, I've been posting mathematical induction questions, and it's quite rare when people do actually answer...

What do you mean by 'add 2 on one side'? Each side was multiplied with 2.
 
sorry i meant multiply!
when we let k=k+1, isn't that only applicable for a sequence, here we're dealing with something completely different, there's no sequence...we just have to prove it...im really confused!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
L²Cc said:
sorry i meant multiply!
when we let k=k+1, isn't that only applicable for a sequence, here we're dealing with something completely different, there's no sequence...we just have to prove it...im really confused!

Well, you shouldn't think of any sequences. It's the principle of mathematical induction. We assumed that the statement was true for some natural number k, and we prooved that it is true for k+1. Therefore, we conclude that the statement is true for every natural number n > 3.
 
  • #11
ok i see what you are coming at, but i don't know whether the multiplication part is correct, although at the end Pn happens to be true (if we are to use your method: 2^k+1>1/2([k+1]+1)). Usually, in mathematical induction, you add 2^k+1 to the RHS because you are proving that the sum is applicable for the k+1th term...multiplying two to either sides does not seem logical? (that's only my point of view).
 
  • #12
L²Cc said:
... Usually, in mathematical induction, you add 2^k+1 to the RHS because you are proving that the sum is applicable for the k+1th term...multiplying two to either sides does not seem logical? (that's only my point of view).

There is no 'logic' in that sense here. You're talking about forms of induction proofs which apply for sequences, sums, etc. Maybe you need more examples - for instance, look at example 3 in this link: http://library.thinkquest.org/10030/11matind.htm".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
yeah that's helpful although they go into too much detail! your's makes sense, thanks radou! take care.
 
  • #14
radou said:
We have to proove that it is true for k + 1:
[tex]2^{k+1} > \frac{1}{2}(k+2)^2 = \frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2[/tex]

So, we can multiply both sides of (1) with 2 to obtain:
[tex]2^k \cdot 2 > \frac{1}{2}(k+1)^2\cdot 2 \Rightarrow[/tex]
[tex]2^{k+1} > (k+1)^2 = k^2+2k+2[/tex], which implies
[tex]2^{k+1}>\frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2[/tex].
how does 2^{k+1} > (k+1)^2 = k^2+2k+2 imply this 2^{k+1}>\frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2 ? I think you skipped a step?
 
  • #15
L²Cc said:
how does 2^{k+1} > (k+1)^2 = k^2+2k+2 imply this 2^{k+1}>\frac{k^2}{2}+ 2k + 2 ? I think you skipped a step?

I didn't. [tex]k^2+2k+2 > \frac{k^2}{2}+2k+2[/tex]. If you have a relation b1 > b2, then the relation a > b1 implies a > b2, too.
 
  • #16
all right, sorry for the late reply. once again, thank you radou!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K