amistre64
  • amistre64
So what would be wrong with this proof by induction?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
amistre64
  • amistre64
I got marked off for some reason
amistre64
  • amistre64
what i wrote down on the homework was more like: \[2^n < n! ~;~n\ge4\] basis step: \[2^4 < 4!\]\[16 < 24~;true\] assume \[2^k < k! ~;~k\ge4\] prove: \[2^{k+1} < (k+1)!\]\[2*2^k < k!*(k+1)\]since: \[2 < \{5,6,7,8...\}\hspace{15em}QED\]or \[2^k < k!\frac{(k+1)}{2}\hspace{16em}QED\]
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
I don't see anything blatantly wrong with it... I came up with a slightly different argument

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

amistre64
  • amistre64
It hard to determine when proofing means, "reinvent the wheel", or "use common knowledge". But i got marked off 1.5 pts on a 2pt problem
myininaya
  • myininaya
What does 2<{5,6,7,8...} mean?
myininaya
  • myininaya
Oh. You mean 2 is less than any element in that set.
amistre64
  • amistre64
right
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
\[2^k4\) not sure if your prof would have liked that any better, I'm not so great at induction...
amistre64
  • amistre64
thats a fine rendition; my prof would rather have us get it into a form similar to the assumption to compare with tho
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
well I guess you could proceed to multiply both sides by k! again but that seems a bit redundant
myininaya
  • myininaya
Turing I like that you recalled that k+1>2 since k>=4 So \[2^{k+1}=2^k \times 2
myininaya
  • myininaya
This proves the thingy
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
yes, much more succinct myin :)
myininaya
  • myininaya
You can say that middle part was by induction when I used 2^k
myininaya
  • myininaya
Or turing I and turing or interchangeable I guess
myininaya
  • myininaya
are*
amistre64
  • amistre64
i managed to eke out a 12/10 on the homework nonetheless :)
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
then quit yer whining :P
phi
  • phi
You proof starts off with what looks like an assumption that the n+1 case is true, and concludes that 2^k < k! * (k+1)/2 this is true, but you want to prove the case for 2^(k+1) In other words: assume 2^k < k! 2* 2^k < 2* k! (multiply both sides by 2 does not change the relation) 2^(k+1) < 2*k! with 2< (k+1) true for all k>1 2*k! < (k+1)*k! 2*k! < (k+1)! and we have 2^(k+1) < 2*k! < (k+1)! and conclude 2^(k+1) < (k+1)!
amistre64
  • amistre64
by modifying: 2^(k+1) < (k+1)! into a form that can be compared against, 2^k < k! we can deduce the truth value. By modifying it into: 2^k < k! * (k+1)/2 Since (k+1)/2 is a positive value that increases k!; and since 2^k doesnt increase at all; then by basic mathing (or logic) skills; an increase in something that is already bigger will remain bigger.
amistre64
  • amistre64
at least that has been all the examples that the teacher has done on the board for us
phi
  • phi
I think it is the difference between if/then and if and only if? Your conclusion is definitely true, and almost obviously implies "the other direction" but it is not explicitly proving the case.
phi
  • phi
in other words you end up with 2^k < k! * (k+1)/2 but the inductive hypothesis is 2^k< k! so proving 2^k < k! * (k+1)/2 is not very interesting.
amistre64
  • amistre64
i agree that its not that interesting :) what of my first idea for the proof; that: 2 < {5,6,7,8,...} ?
phi
  • phi
that is true. But the best way is to assume the inductive hypothesis for k, and show that it implies the truth of the k+1 case
amistre64
  • amistre64
i was finally able to parse thru your proofing. I like it.
amistre64
  • amistre64
im still unsure as to how mine fails; but thats more a testimony to my ignorance than anyting else :)
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
just out of curiosity since I still have trouble with induction at times, what do you make of my attempt @phi ? (I omitted the first step obviously)
phi
  • phi
You are assuming 2^(k+1) < (k+1)!, manipulating this to the form 2^k < k! (k+1)/2, and so proving that if the first is true, the latter is true. This is backwards.
amistre64
  • amistre64
ah, so I should try to work the 2^k < k! up to it, instead of backtracking back down
phi
  • phi
ah, so I should try to work the 2^k < k! up to it, instead of backtracking back down yes.
phi
  • phi
@TuringTest when you write the second statement \[2^{k+1}=2\cdot2^k<(k+1)k!\] that is what you are to show. I think I would start with your first statment, and then write down you last statement, and work upwards to the conclusion.
myininaya
  • myininaya
but 2<(k+1) since k>=4 and 2
myininaya
  • myininaya
oops 2^k
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
I see what you are saying @phi, but though it may not be the most kosher way to do it I don't think that it invalidates the proof
phi
  • phi
But the way you wrote it, you are assuming each step going down implies the truth of going back up (which it is), but the reader is left to figure that out. And it is possible that one of these steps was not reversible. In such a case you may not notice....
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
fair point...
phi
  • phi
And if you write it in the order suggested, it is clear what is being assumed ( 2^k < k! and 2< k+1), and the conclusion follows from simple steps.... very convincing, and it leaves no doubts.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.