Prove by mathematical induction Σ(1/[(2k-1)(2k+1)]=n/(2n+1)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the statement Σ(1/[(2k-1)(2k+1)]) = n/(2n+1) using mathematical induction. Participants emphasize the importance of showing work throughout the proof process, particularly verifying the base case and formulating the induction hypothesis. The base case is demonstrated for n=1, confirming the equality holds true. The next step involves adding a term to the left-hand side to extend the proof to n+1 and simplifying the right-hand side to match the required form. Completing this process will finalize the proof by induction.
simcan18
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm in need of assistance for the following attachement.

View attachment 8456
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-05 at 9.11.34 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-05 at 9.11.34 AM.png
    4.1 KB · Views: 150
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I know this is a cliche, but you should really show your work (also in http://mathhelpboards.com/pre-calculus-21/prove-induction-25021.html), not just because it makes others happy, but mostly because it is not useful, nor fun, to be spoon-fed an induction proof.

You are probably aware of the general structure of this proof technique, but in what is perhaps its most elementary form it looks like this. You want to prove a statement for all $n \ge n_0$ where $n_0$ is an integer:

step 0. You verify the base case, i.e. you verify the statement holds for $n = n_0$. Often, but not always, $n_0 = 0$ or $n_0 = 1$.
step 1. You verify: If the statement holds for all $n = n_0,\ldots,m$ where $m \ge n_0$ is a certain integer, then the statement also holds for $n = m + 1$.

Step 0 cannot be omitted, although it is often tempting to do so.

Now, in these two threads, why don't you start by verifying step 0. If that checks out, then formulate the induction hypotheses. (This hypothesis is the part between if and then in step 1.) Finally, take all the time that is required to perform the induction step and do not give up on it too easily.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, but I'm unsure of how to get started with the problem as I don't understand which is the reason for no work being shown.
 
So, do I start like this
n=1
1 / (2x1-1) x(2x1+1) = 1/ 2(1) + 1 = 1/3, so both equations are true for n=1, as it is 1/3
 
Okay, once you've shown the base case is true, you want to decide what your inductive step is going to be, given the hypothesis \(P_n\):

$$\sum_{k=1}^n\left(\frac{1}{(2k-1)(2k+1)}\right)=\frac{n}{2n+1}$$

I see that in order for the sum on the LHS to go up to \(n+1\), we need to add:

$$\frac{1}{(2(n+1)-1)(2(n+1)+1)}=\frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}$$

And this gives us:

$$\sum_{k=1}^n\left(\frac{1}{(2k-1)(2k+1)}\right)+\frac{1}{(2(n+1)-1)(2(n+1)+1)}=\frac{n}{2n+1}+\frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}$$

Or:

$$\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}\left(\frac{1}{(2k-1)(2k+1)}\right)=\frac{n}{2n+1}+\frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}$$

Can you show that the RHS is:

$$\frac{n+1}{2(n+1)+1}$$ ?

If you can, then you will have derived \(P_{n+1}\) from \(P_n\) thereby completing the proof by induction. :)
 
Ok. I'll work on this some more to see if I can get it.

Thanks
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top