Prove pa Using Mathematical Induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter evil1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the inequality pa: n-2 < (n^2 – 3n)/12 for all integers n greater than 14 using mathematical induction. The base case for n = 14 is verified, showing that 12 < 12.83 holds true. The inductive step involves assuming the hypothesis is true for k and proving it for k+1. The proof begins by simplifying the expression for k+1 and aims to demonstrate that the inequality holds. Participants are seeking guidance on completing the proof, particularly in handling the algebraic manipulation required.
evil1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In fact pa is true for all integers n greater than a particular base value and you should complete the proof given below to use the principle of mathematical induction to prove this.

pa : n-2 < (n^2 – 3n)/12

Base case is n = 14
Because: n-2 < (n^2 – 3n)/12
14-2 < (196-42)/12
12 < 154/12
12 < 12.83

Inductive step
Inductive Hypothesis : Assume pa(k) is true for some k > 10. Thus k-2 <(k^2 – 3k)/12.

We must prove that pa(k+1) is true i.e. that (k+1)-2 < ((k+1)^2 – 3(k+1))/12

Now to prove such an inequality we always start with the more complicated side:
((k+1)^2 – 3(k+1))/12 = (k^2 + 2k +1 – 3k – 3)/12

= (k^2 – 3k)/12 + (2k-2)/12

> ...?... + (2k-2)/12 ……(b) because

> ..?.... because





This is the question i have been given to do although no idea on how to to finish it any ideas anyone ?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=109155#post109155
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K