MHB Proving the Recursion Formula for $(x_n)$ Using Strong Induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter KOO
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the recursion formula for the sequence $(x_n)$ defined by $x_1 = 3$, $x_2 = 7$, and $x_{n+1} = 5x_n - 6x_{n-1}$. The goal is to demonstrate that $x_n = 2^n + 3^{n-1}$ for all natural numbers $n$. Initial checks for $n = 1$ and $n = 2$ confirm the formula holds true. The proof proceeds by assuming the formula is valid for $k$ and then calculating $x_{k+1}$ using the recursion relation. The discussion also notes that while induction is required, there may be simpler methods to derive the closed form.
KOO
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Let $(x_n)$ be a sequence given by the following recursion formula:

$$x_1 = 3, x_2 = 7,\text{ and }x_{n+1} = 5x_n - 6x_{n-1}$$

Prove that for all $n\in\Bbb N$, $x_n = 2^n + 3^{n-1}$.

Attempt:

For $n = 1$, we have $2^1 + 3^0 = 3 = x_1$ TRUE
For $n = 2$, we have $2^2 + 3^1 = 7 = x_2$ TRUE

Assume $x_k = 2^k + 3^{k-1}$ for some $k\in\Bbb N$.

Now, for $n = k+1$:

$$\begin{align*}
x_{k+1} &= 5x_k - 6x_{k-1}\\
&= 5\left(2^k + 3^{k-1}\right) - 6\left(2^{k-1} + 3^{k-2}\right)
\end{align*}$$

What Next?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you required to use induction, or did you choose to do so, because there is a much simpler way to derive the closed form for the recursion.
 
MarkFL said:
Are you required to use induction, or did you choose to do so, because there is a much simpler way to derive the closed form for the recursion.

We are required to use induction.
 
Okay as your next step, I would distribute on the right side, keeping in mind that $6=2\cdot3$.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top