Recursive sequence problem: proofs by mathematical induction

You need to say something like this:"Assume that ##a_n < 3## is true for n = k. Then, for n = k+1, we have..."Also, the notation is clumsy. It's not clear that you're using "n" and "k" as indices, and the line "We assume n = k is true" doesn't make sense because n is a variable and k is a constant. I would write something like this:"Assume that the proposition ##a_n < 3## is true for n = k. Then, for n = k+1, we have..."And later:"Thus, we have shown by mathematical induction that ##a_n
  • #1
DivGradCurl
372
0
Guys,

I'm trying to prove by induction that the sequence given by
[tex] a_{n+1}=3-\frac{1}{a_n} \qquad a_1=1 [/tex] is increasing and [tex] a_n < 3 \qquad \forall n .[/tex]

Is the following correct? Thank you. :smile:

Task #1.
[tex] n = 1 \Longrightarrow a_2=2>a_1 [/tex] is true.
We assume [tex] n = k [/tex] is true. Then,
[tex] 3-\frac{1}{a_{k+1}} > 3-\frac{1}{a_k} [/tex]
[tex] a_{k+2} > a_{k+1} [/tex] is true for [tex] n=k+1 [/tex].
This shows, by mathematical induction, that
[tex] a_{n+1} > a_{n} \qquad \forall n . [/tex]

Task #2
We already know that
[tex] a_1 < 3 [/tex] is true.
We assume [tex] n=k [/tex] is true. Then,
[tex] a_k < 3 [/tex]
[tex] \frac{1}{a_k} > \frac{1}{3} [/tex]
[tex] -\frac{1}{a_k} < -\frac{1}{3} [/tex]
[tex] 3-\frac{1}{a_k} < 3-\frac{1}{3} [/tex]
[tex] a_{k+1} < \frac{8}{3} < 3 [/tex]
[tex] a_{k+1} < 3 [/tex] is true for [tex] n = k+1 [/tex]. Thus,
[tex] a_{n} < 3 \qquad \forall n . [/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is not written very well and some indices are wrong.
For the first step with ##n=1## we have ##3 > 2 = a_2 = 3- \frac{1}{a_1} > 1 = a_1 > 0##.
Let us next assume we have shown ##3 > a_n > a_{n-1} > 0##.

[Here we have to write the calculation 'backwards'.]
$$
3 > 3- \frac{1}{a_n} = a_{n+1} \stackrel{(1)}{>} 3 - \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} = a_n > 0
$$
where ##(1)## follows from: ##a_n > a_{n-1} \Longrightarrow \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} > \frac{1}{a_n} \Longrightarrow -\frac{1}{a_n} > -\frac{1}{a_{n-1}}##
 
  • #3
In addition to fresh_42's comments, this line:
We assume [itex] n=k [/itex] is true. Then,
[itex] a_k < 3 [/itex]
You don't "assume" that n = k is true -- you assume that the proposition ##a_n < 3## is true for n = k.
 

Related to Recursive sequence problem: proofs by mathematical induction

1. What is a recursive sequence?

A recursive sequence is a sequence of numbers where the next term is defined in terms of previous terms. In other words, each term in the sequence is calculated using a formula that involves the previous terms.

2. What is mathematical induction?

Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof used to prove that a statement is true for all natural numbers. It involves two steps: the base case, where the statement is shown to be true for the first natural number, and the induction step, where it is shown that if the statement is true for one natural number, then it is also true for the next natural number.

3. How is mathematical induction used to prove a recursive sequence?

To prove a recursive sequence using mathematical induction, we first prove that the statement is true for the first term in the sequence (the base case). Then, we assume that the statement is true for the nth term in the sequence. Using this assumption, we then show that the statement is also true for the (n+1)th term in the sequence (the induction step). This proves that the statement is true for all natural numbers and therefore, the recursive sequence is valid.

4. Can mathematical induction be used to prove any statement?

No, mathematical induction can only be used to prove statements that involve natural numbers. It cannot be used for statements that involve real numbers, such as inequalities or equations.

5. Are there any limitations to using mathematical induction to prove a recursive sequence?

Yes, there are some limitations to using mathematical induction to prove a recursive sequence. The formula for the sequence must be clearly defined and the base case must be explicitly stated. Additionally, the induction step must be able to be shown using logical reasoning, and not just by guessing or intuition.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
833
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top