Square numbers between n and 2n -- Check my proof please

AI Thread Summary
For any integer greater than 4, there exists at least one perfect square in the interval (n, 2n). The proof initially presented uses induction, showing it holds for n=5 and attempts to extend it to n+1. However, the proof is deemed unnecessarily complicated, as a simpler condition, n > 2√n + 1, suffices. The discussion highlights the need for clearer notation and suggests verifying the statement through examples. Ultimately, the key expression for the proof should be adjusted to ensure clarity and correctness.
Raffaele
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I noticed that for any integer greater than 4 there exists at least one perfect square in the open interval (n, 2n). I think I have proved the statement, but as I am not a professional, I'd like someone to review my proof.

By induction we see that it is true for n=5 because 5<9<10.

Now suppose that it is true for n, and let's prove it for n + 1.
From the inductive hypothesis we know that there is an x such that n<x^2<n+1. This square should work for n + 1 too. Like in the case of n=5 the square 9 works for 6, 7 and 8 too. But not for n=9 or greater. Here we need the next square 16.

So if x^2\ge n+1 we must show that (x+1)^2 is the square we need. In other words we have to verify that
n+1<(x+1)^2<2(n+1)
Notice that for positive n, if x^2\le n+1 then x\le \sqrt{n+1}. As n<x^2 it follows that
n+1<x^2+1<x^2+2x+1=(x+1)^2
We have to show that (x+1)^2<2(n+1)
(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1<\left(n+1\right)+2\sqrt{n+1}+1
\left(n+1\right)+2\sqrt{n+1}+1 < 2(n+1)
n^2-4n-4>0\rightarrow n>2\sqrt 2 + 2\rightarrow n\ge 5
So we proved that for any n\ge 5 there is at least one x such that n< x^2 < 2n.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The statement is true, but the proof looks more complicated than necessary - you don't need mathematical induction. All you need is (similar to what you have) is n\gt 2\sqrt{n} + 1 for n > 4.
 
Looks like Your 4th sentence is false to start with.
##x^2 \geq n+1## ... consider n=8, interval is 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 ... there are two squares in the interval.
7th sentence... try verifying the statement by example... n=5
Then the expression asserts that 6<100<12 ... which is false.

At best you need to tidy up your notation.

By induction, you want to assume: ##\exists x\in\mathbb Z: n <x^2<2n## is true, then prove
##\exists x\in\mathbb Z: n+1 <x^2<2n+2## .
 
No, you want to assume: ##\exists x \in\mathbb Z: n <x^2<2n## is true, then prove ##\exists y \in\mathbb Z: n+1 <y^2<2n+2## . Most of the time you can take y=x and this is trivial, but it doesn't always work.
 
In fact, you can always find ##x## such that:

##\sqrt{n} < x \le \sqrt{n}+1##

This ##x## does the job unless ##6n \ge n^2 + 1##, which only holds for ##n < 6##

Then you can check ##n = 5## manually.
 
Last edited:
My previous note is in error. The key expression should be \lfloor \sqrt{n} \rfloor +1 \lt \lceil \sqrt{2n} \rceil.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top