Proving 2n > n by Induction: A Simple Homework Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter missavvy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the inequality 2n > n for natural numbers n using mathematical induction. The base case is established with n = 0, confirming that 20 > 0 holds true. The confusion arises during the inductive step, where participants clarify that 2(k+1) should be expressed as 2*2^k rather than 2^k + 1. The key conclusion is that to complete the proof, one must show that if 2k > k holds, then 2k + 1 > k + 1 must also be demonstrated.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction
  • Familiarity with inequalities and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of exponents and their manipulation
  • Ability to work with natural numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Learn how to manipulate inequalities effectively
  • Explore properties of exponents, particularly in proofs
  • Practice additional induction problems to reinforce understanding
USEFUL FOR

Students studying mathematics, particularly those tackling proofs and inequalities, as well as educators looking for clear examples of mathematical induction.

missavvy
Messages
73
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove by induction on n that n belonging to N (set of natural #'s)
2n > n

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So here's my stab at it!

Base case: n = 0 (My prof includes 0 in N)

20 > 0, 1 >0
True. So this works for the base case.

Assume this holds for n. Let n = k+1

2(k+1) > k + 1

Here is where I'm a bit confused..
I'm not sure if it should be:

2(2k) > k + 1
> 2k

OR

2k + 1 > k + 1

And with either one, how do I continue??

Eekkk. any help is appreciated! Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You tell me. Is 2^(k+1) equal to (2^k)+1 or is it 2*(2^k)? You must know something about how exponents work, right?
 
missavvy said:
Base case: n = 0 (My prof includes 0 in N)

20 > 0, 1 >0
True. So this works for the base case.

This is perhaps a bit nitpicky, but you should probably write 20 = 1 > 0.

Assume this holds for n. Let n = k+1

This should be something along the lines of: "Assume this relation holds for the natural number k. If we can show that this implies that the relation holds for the natural number k+1, then we know that it holds for all natural numbers."

Granted, my statement is quite verbose, but it makes it clear in what direction the proof is headed and doesn't leave near as much room for confusion.

2(k+1) > k + 1

Here is where I'm a bit confused..
I'm not sure if it should be:

2(2k) > k + 1
> 2k

OR

2k + 1 > k + 1

And with either one, how do I continue??

Eekkk. any help is appreciated! Thanks.

I think that you've managed to confuse yourself here. By the statement above, you already know that 2k > k. All you now need to show is that 2k+1 > k+1 must be true. To do this, note that 2k+1 = 2*2k > 2k. Now, can you prove that 2k > k+1?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K