Simple proof of inequality by induction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving the inequality \(2n + 1 < 2^n\) for \(n = 3, 4, \ldots\) using mathematical induction. Participants are exploring the structure of the proof and the necessary steps to establish the inequality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the base case and the inductive step, with some attempting to manipulate the expressions to show the inequality holds for \(P(k+1)\). Questions arise about the sufficiency of certain observations and whether additional steps are needed to complete the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with several participants providing insights and alternative approaches. Some suggest that the reasoning is clear enough to conclude the proof, while others express uncertainty about the final steps required to solidify the argument.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information available or the methods permissible in their proofs. The focus is on ensuring the argument is valid for \(n \geq 3\).

naele
Messages
199
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Prove [tex]2n+1< 2^n[/tex] for n=3,4,...

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


[tex] P(3)= 6+1<2^3[/tex]
The base case holds, now assume true for [itex]P(k)[/itex]. Now consider [itex]P(k+1)[/itex]
[tex] 2(k+1) +1 = 2k+3[/tex]
[tex] 2^{k+1} = 2^k \cdot 2[/tex]

So this is where I get stuck, I don't quite know how to finish the proof. As can be seen, the difference between the two sides of the inequality in P(k+1) is that the LHS has 2 added, while the RHS is multiplied by 2. Would it be sufficient to observe that in the base case, adding 2 to the LHS and multiplying the RHS by 2 still maintains the inequality and so necessarily it should hold for any larger n?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
2(k+1) +1 = 2k+3 = (2k+1) + 1
2^{k+1} = 2.2^k

so starting with the case for n
2n+1<2n

add 2 to both sides
2(n+1)+1<2n+2

with one more step to show the case for n+1
 
Well, it should be possible to show that [itex]2^k+2<2^k \cdot 2[/itex] for some k greater than whatever.

[tex]2< 2\cdot 2^k - 2^k[/tex]
[tex]2< (2-1)2^k[/tex]
[tex]2<2^k[/tex]. From here take the log of both sides, and it shows that [tex]2^k +2 < 2^{k+1}[/tex] holds for all k > 1, which is fine because we're only considering from n=3. So since that's the case and [tex]2(n+1)+1 < 2^n +2 < 2^{n+1}[/tex] this should complete the proof?
 
i think that does it, but if you're happy upto
2(n+1)+1<2n+2

then just using, that for n>1
2<2n

should pretty much complete above

ps. i think itspretty much the same reasoning, though just a little clearer in order
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
4K