Prove this fibonacci sequence w/o binet formula

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter skate_nerd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Sequence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the Fibonacci sequence identity \(u_{m+n}=u_{m-1}u_n+u_mu_{n+1}\) without utilizing the Binet formula. Participants suggest using mathematical induction as a viable approach, particularly focusing on the base case and the inductive step for \(n\). The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding Fibonacci properties and recursive definitions to construct the proof effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fibonacci sequence properties
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction techniques
  • Knowledge of recursive definitions in mathematics
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fibonacci numbers and their recursive definitions
  • Learn how to apply mathematical induction in proofs
  • Explore alternative proofs of Fibonacci identities without the Binet formula
  • Investigate combinatorial interpretations of Fibonacci numbers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students studying number theory, and anyone interested in combinatorial proofs related to Fibonacci sequences.

skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I have a problem and honestly have no idea even where to start. I've been staring at it and thinking about it for over 24 hours...
Let \(u_n\) denote the \(n^{th}\) Fibonacci number. Without using the Binet formula for \(u_n\), prove the following for all natural numbers \(m\) and \(n\) with \(m\geq{2}\):
$$u_{m+n}=u_{m-1}u_n+u_mu_{n+1}$$

I have gone through a couple proofs regarding the Fibonacci numbers in this class before, but never one with two unknowns, and also never one where we weren't able to use the Binet formula. Without the Binet formula, what do I have to work off of? Do I need to write the derivation for the Binet formula within this whole proof?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try induction on $n$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K