PLEASE! IM BEGGING!! HELP ME!! PLEASE!! *TEARS*
Can someone please help me with this? I post it earlier but the answer wasnt what my teacher wanted. Can someone help me I will post in attachment.

- anonymous

- schrodinger

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

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.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- perl

we want to prove that the formula
3 + 5 + 7 + ... + 2n+1 = n(n+1) is true for positive integers n=1,2,3,...
the problem is, there are an infinite number of statements to check, and we will never get done, one for each number n.
so we use mathematical induction

- anonymous

Im following

Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

- perl

I am going to rewrite this as a proposition P(n)
Let P(n) be the statement 3 + 5 + 7 + ... + 2n+1 = n(n+1)

- anonymous

okay

- perl

mathematical induction says :
If you have a statement that is true for some number, for example n=1
(this is called the basis case)
and furthermore that it can be proven if P(k) is true, then P(k+1) is true.
then it must be the case that P(n) is true for all n greater than your basis

- perl

this is the principle of mathematical induction.
I didnt actually do your example yet, this just preliminary

- anonymous

I know, thank you, good notes

- perl

so for instance if your basis case P(1), and assuming you showed P(k)->P(k+1)
then you have P(2) because P(1) is true and P(1) ->P(2) is true
then it must be true P(2) is true , etc

- perl

ok thats just the logic behind it.
so in our example P(n) : 3 + 5 + 7 + ... + 2n+1 = n(n+1)
is P(1) true?

- perl

notice on the left side, you are summing a sequence of odd numbers 3,5,7,...The formula for the sequence of odd numbers is 2n+1 ,

- perl

so we can rewrite the statement P(n)

- anonymous

ok im starting to understand

- perl

|dw:1366641535256:dw|

- perl

so we have here a left side and a right side of the statement we are trying to prove

- perl

P(1) : |dw:1366641602052:dw|

- perl

now the left side is just another way of saying, plug in 1 into the formula 2k+1 , no big deal.

- anonymous

I thought p(1) was 1(1+2)

- perl

we want to prove
[2(1) +1] + [2(2) + 1] + [2(3)+1] + ... [2(n)+1] = n(n+1)

- anonymous

oh

- perl

ok let me start over, we want to prove this statement is true for all n.
[2(1) +1] + [2(2) + 1] + [2(3)+1] + ... [2(n)+1] = n(n+1)
do you agree?

- anonymous

yes

- perl

because 3 = 2(1) + 1
5 = 2 (2) + 1
7 = 2(3) + 1

- perl

|dw:1366641946782:dw|

- perl

let's look at the case n=2 |dw:1366642018761:dw|

- perl

|dw:1366642104889:dw|

- perl

case n=1
2(1) + 1 = 1 (1+1)
case n=2
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] = 2 (2+1)
case n=3
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] + [ 2(3) + 1] = 3 (3+1)
do you start to see a pattern?

- anonymous

yes, but which number is k because in my problem k isnt named

- perl

we want to prove all these statements are true without actually have to check each one by hand or calculator
[2(1) + 1] = 1 (1+1)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] = 2 (2+1)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] + [ 2(3) + 1] = 3 (3+1)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] + [ 2(3) + 1] +[2(4) + 1] = 4 (4+1)
.
.
.
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(n)+ 1 ] = n ( n + 1)

- perl

the way to prove all of the statements, first show it is true for the first one
[2(1) + 1] = 1 (1+1) , does the left side equal right side (yes it does).
thats the basis case

- perl

oh dear i didnt copy correctly

- perl

Correction
we want to prove all these statements are true for any number n without actually have to check each one by hand or calculator
[2(1) + 1] = 1 (1+2)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] = 2 (2+2)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] + [ 2(3) + 1] = 3 (3+2)
[ 2(1) + 1 ] + [2 (2) + 1 ] + [ 2(3) + 1] +[2(4) + 1] = 4 (4+2)
.
.
.
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(n)+ 1 ] = n ( n + 2)

- perl

Proof: first show it is true for the first case
[2(1) + 1] = 1 (1+2) ( Check to see if the left side equals right side (yes it does).
This is called the basis case.

- anonymous

3=3

- perl

next step, (called the inductive step)
show that if the statement is true for n=k, then it will be true for n=k+1

- perl

so we prove that if this is true :
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k)+ 1 ] = k ( k + 2)
Then this must be true
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k+1)+ 1 ] = (k+1) [ (k+1) + 2]

- perl

i didnt do the proof yet , just showing you what we want to prove.
we are proving what is called a 'conditional' statement.
an 'if-then' statement

- perl

with me so far?

- perl

so we are given the 'if' part of the condition, also called the inductive hypothesis.
so we assume that it is true that
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k)+ 1 ] = k ( k + 2)
now how can we go from this statement to
this statement
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k+1)+ 1 ] = (k+1) [ (k+1) + 2]

- anonymous

yeah

- perl

using only algebra, basically

- perl

so how about we look at the conclusion for a minute

- perl

ok, let me do it another way, we can go back to this way later, it might be a little advanced

- perl

ok still with me?

- anonymous

yea Im following

- perl

we assume that
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k)+ 1 ] = k ( k + 2) is true

- perl

from this hypothesis we want to deduce the conclusion
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k+1)+ 1 ] = (k+1) [ (k+1) + 2]

- perl

proof:
given
[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k)+ 1 ] = k ( k + 2)
add [2(k+1) + 1 ] to both sides of equation

- perl

|dw:1366643507200:dw|

- perl

so we are just using algebra here

- anonymous

ok

- perl

you can add the same number to both sides of an equation, thats a legal algebraic move
dfsd

- perl

ok im back , :)

- anonymous

ok

- perl

so we added [2(k+1) + 1 ] to both sides of the hypothesis , which was given

- anonymous

hello?

- perl

yes did you add it?

- perl

|dw:1366644222445:dw|

- perl

now the left side is what we want in our conclusion, and we can simplify the right side

- anonymous

okay

- anonymous

Im here but for some reason I keep losing connection

- perl

me too

- perl

i was lagged

- anonymous

me too

- perl

ok did you add both sides

- anonymous

I tried but my teacher said we already solved for what was needed.

- perl

[2(1) + 1 ] + [2(2)+1 ] + . . . + [ 2(k)+ 1 ] = k ( k + 2)
+[2(k+1) +1 ] + [2(k+1)+1]
---------------------------------------------------------
[2(1)+1] +[2(2)+1] +... +[2(k)+1] +[2(k+1)+1] = k(k+2) + [2(k+1)+1

Looking for something else?

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