Prove This Sequence Is Bounded Below by 0 Using Induction

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the sequence defined by xn = 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/n - ln(n) is bounded below by 0 using induction. The user successfully establishes that x(1) > 0 and assumes it holds for n=k, but struggles to show that x(k+1) remains positive. They attempt to apply given inequalities but find contradictions leading to negative results. Suggestions are made to leverage the inequality ln(n+1) < ln(n) + 1/n to help demonstrate that the sequence is indeed bounded below by 0. The conversation highlights the challenges of applying mathematical induction and inequalities in this context.
shephard23
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Forgive my lack of LaTeX, not learned how to use it yet. Anyway, the problem is:

Use the inequalities

1/(n+1) < ln(n+1) - ln(n) < 1/n

to show that the sequence {xn} from n=1 to infinity defined by xn = 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/n - ln(n) is strictly decreasing and bounded below by 0.

I've proved that it's strictly decreasing, stuck on the bounded below by 0 part.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



We've been given a hint to use induction to show that xn > 0 for all natural numbers n so I'm going with that.

x(1) = 1 - ln(1) = 1 - 0 = 1 > 0. So it's true for n=1.

Assume it's true for n=k so x(k) = 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/k - ln(k) > 0. I've tried rearranging this to 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/k > ln(k) for use in the next step.

Now consider x(k+1) = 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/k + 1/(k+1) - ln(k+1). I've to show this is greater than 0 if x(k) is greater than 0. The problem is that whenever I use the inequalities above I end up with x(k+1) is greater than something less than 0, for example:

1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/k + 1/(k+1) - ln(k+1)

> ln(k) + 1/(k+1) - ln(k+1) [using x(k)>0]

> 1(k+1) - 1/k [Using the inequality on the right above].

This is less than 0 so proves nothing, and most of my answers are coming out in this because I'm using similar methods. I thought I had to use the fact that x(k)>0 to show x(k+1)>0 so I've been trying it with no luck. Any advice at all?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This 1/(n+1) < log(n+1) - log(n) < 1/n inequality cannot possibly be correct .

Because from this you can deduce that
log(n+1) > log(n) + 1/(n+1)I tried log(100) - log (99) =0.004364

1/100 = .01

Already the inequality fails.
 
My apologies, when we use log in our course it means the natural log. Sorry, I've been using it for so long it just became second nature. log in the above problem is the natural log, ln.
 
I've managed to work out that x(k+1) > ln(k) - ln(k+1) + 1/k > 0 from the inequality on the right. Does anyone have any suggestions on getting

x(k+1) = 1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/k + 1/(k+1) > ln(k) - ln(k+1) + 1/k?

I'm having the same trouble as before.
 
You will need to show

log(n)<1+1/2+1/3+...+1/n

Let's use the inequality log(n+1)<log(n)+1/n.

We obtain

log(n)<log(n-1)+1/(n-1)<log(n-2)+1/(n-2)+1/(n-1)<...

I think you'll get there this way...
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
976
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K