Proving Induction for 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + ... + \frac{1}{2^{n}}

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gooolati
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a formula by induction for the series 1 + \(\frac{1}{2}\) + \(\frac{1}{4}\) + ... + \(\frac{1}{2^{n}}\), specifically aiming to establish that it equals \(2 - \frac{1}{2^{n}}\) for all integers \(n\). Participants are exploring the implications of starting the induction at different values of \(n\), particularly whether to include \(n=0\) in the natural numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of starting the induction at \(n=0\) versus \(n=1\), with some questioning the definition of natural numbers. There are attempts to clarify the base case for the induction and the implications of including \(0\) in the set of natural numbers.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the induction process and clarifying the starting point for the proof. There is acknowledgment of differing conventions regarding the inclusion of \(0\) in the natural numbers, and some participants express gratitude for the explanations provided.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the definition of natural numbers and whether \(0\) should be included, which affects how the induction proof is framed. Some participants suggest that starting at \(n=0\) may be more comprehensive for the proof.

Gooolati
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove By Induction that for all n:

1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + ... + \frac{1}{2^{n}} = 2 - \frac{1}{2^{n}}




The Attempt at a Solution



I don't understand why 1 doesn't work :(

Is it a typo?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This relation starts at n=0, so your induction will need to start at 0

n=0; 1/20 = 2 - 1/10 = 1
n=1; 1/20 + 1/21 = 2 - 1/11 = 3/2
 
1 does work...your series is given by the formula sum(0,n) 1/2^n [the sum from 0 to n, if that notation is unusual]. So if you have from 0 to 1, you should have two terms:

1/2^0 + 1/2^1 = 3/2
Also, that works for 2-1/2^n=2-1/2= 3/2

So then you should assume that sum is equal to 2-1/2^n and then show that it also works for 2-1/2^(n+1).
 
I thought the natural numbers didn't include 0 though?
 
Induction can start on any integer. For a lot of relations it just so happens to hold for only the naturals. If you want you can start it on 1, but it makes more sense to prove the relation for the largest set possible. For your base case of n=1 you should get 3/2, I edited my post to show this. You could also start your base case on 23 and prove it for all natural numbers 23 and larger, but that seems sort of silly – why not show the relation for as many numbers as possible?
 
Gooolati said:
I thought the natural numbers didn't include 0 though?
They didn't originally, but mathematicians in this century prefer to include 0.
 
Gotcha!
And thank you so much for the explanation! Helps a ton!
 
No prob. Just an FYI for you, some people count 0 as in the naturals, so don’t be shocked if you see it in the future!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K