Proving the Sum of a Sequence Equals n Using Induction

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joypav
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the sum of a sequence equals n using mathematical induction. Participants explore various approaches to the proof, including considerations of base cases and induction steps, while expressing preferences for specific methods over others.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using induction but struggles with the induction step, considering cases where elements of the sequence are both less than and greater than 1.
  • Another participant clarifies that they do not want to use the Arithmetic-Geometric Mean (AGM) method for the proof.
  • One participant proposes using the logarithmic inequality $\log x \le x - 1$ to establish that the product of the sequence is less than or equal to 1, which they believe could aid in the proof.
  • A participant mentions that their professor provided a different solution, which also used induction but was simpler, involving the same considerations of values greater and less than one.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing preferences for methods of proof, with no consensus on a single approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the most effective proof strategy.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical properties and inequalities without fully resolving the implications of these in the context of the proof. There are also mentions of different solutions that may depend on individual interpretations of the problem.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in mathematical induction, sequence summation, and alternative proof strategies may find this discussion relevant.

joypav
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
23kx5aq.jpg


Okay, so I need to prove this. I thought I would be using induction, right?

First we can consider the base case, which is simple.

Next we have to do the induction step.

I think we consider one case where each a=1. Then we have 1<=1.

Then consider that they are not all 1. I can't remember what trick to use. Is it that there must exist at least one a such that a<1? Because if they're all larger than 1 then the sum can't be n. And then there must also exist an a>1? Because if they're all less than 1 then the sum can't be n.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, just to clear it up, I don't want to use AGM to prove it. The point is to prove this without AGM.
 
Hi joypav,

Using the fact that $\log x \le x - 1$ for all $x > 0$, you can prove directly that $\log(a_1\cdots a_n) \le 0$, which is equivalent to $a_1\cdots a_n \le 1$.
 
Euge said:
Hi joypav,

Using the fact that $\log x \le x - 1$ for all $x > 0$, you can prove directly that $\log(a_1\cdots a_n) \le 0$, which is equivalent to $a_1\cdots a_n \le 1$.

My professor actually provided me with a much different solution. This one is simpler though! Thanks
 
Out of curiosity, what was the solution your professor provided?
 
Euge said:
Out of curiosity, what was the solution your professor provided?

It was a proof by induction.
The typical basis step.
Then the induction step by considering that there must be at least one value greater than one and at least one value less than one.

If you're interested I can type it out.
 
There's no need. I was just curious what he did.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
434
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K