Inequality proof w/ induction, 2 unknowns

In summary, the proof by induction is completed by proving that (1+x)^m\ge1+(m+1)x for every real number x>-1 and natural number m.
  • #1
skate_nerd
176
0
I am given a statement to prove: Show (without using the Binomial Theorem) that \((1+x)^n\geq{1+nx}\) for every real number \(x>-1\) and natural numbers \(n\geq{2}\). I am given a hint to fix \(x\) and apply induction on \(n\).
I started by supposing \(x\) is a fixed, real number larger than -1, and then calling the given formula \(P(n)\), and evaluating \(P(n)\) at the base case \(n=2\).
This gives \((1+x)^2\geq{1+2x}\) which can be rewritten as \(1+2x+x^2\geq{1+2x}\).
It is know that for all real \(x\), the statement \(x^2\geq{0}\) is true.

Here is where I get tripped up.
We need to assume that \(m=n\) a.k.a. \(P(m)\) is true for all natural \(m\geq{2}\).
So we have \((1+x)^m\geq{1+mx}\). Now we need to show that \(P(m+1)\) holds to be true. \(P(m+1)\):
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\).
Now here I would usually try to translate the original formula by plugging in what we had originally, but I am pretty iffy on how to do this with an inequality. If anybody could help me construct a new formula that would help me prove that
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\) is true I would be very thankful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
skatenerd said:
I am given a statement to prove: Show (without using the Binomial Theorem) that \((1+x)^n\geq{1+nx}\) for every real number \(x>-1\) and natural numbers \(n\geq{2}\). I am given a hint to fix \(x\) and apply induction on \(n\).
I started by supposing \(x\) is a fixed, real number larger than -1, and then calling the given formula \(P(n)\), and evaluating \(P(n)\) at the base case \(n=2\).
This gives \((1+x)^2\geq{1+2x}\) which can be rewritten as \(1+2x+x^2\geq{1+2x}\).
It is know that for all real \(x\), the statement \(x^2\geq{0}\) is true.

Here is where I get tripped up.
We need to assume that \(m=n\) a.k.a. \(P(m)\) is true for all natural \(m\geq{2}\).
So we have \((1+x)^m\geq{1+mx}\). Now we need to show that \(P(m+1)\) holds to be true. \(P(m+1)\):
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\).
Now here I would usually try to translate the original formula by plugging in what we had originally, but I am pretty iffy on how to do this with an inequality. If anybody could help me construct a new formula that would help me prove that
\((1+x)^{m+1}\geq{1+(m+1)x}\) is true I would be very thankful.

[tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left( 1 + x \right) ^{m + 1} &= \left( 1 + x \right) \left( 1 + x \right) ^m \\ &\geq \left( 1 + x \right) \left( 1 + m\,x \right) \\ &= 1 + \left( m + 1 \right) \, x + m\,x^2 \\ &\geq 1 + \left( m + 1 \right) \, x \end{align*}[/tex]
 
  • #3
Okay, you have shown the base case is true, and so your induction hypothesis $P_m$ is:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^m\ge1+mx\)

I would consider for the inductive step:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}=(1+x)^{m}(1+x-1)=(1+x)^{m}x\)

Can you use the inductive hypothesis to construct from this a weak inequality that you can then add to $P_m$?
 
  • #4
Thanks to both of you for the responses. So I was actually able to figure out and finish the proof going by what Prove It wrote. But to MarkFL, what do you mean by constructing a "weak inequality"? Does that refer to the point where you find an inequality where you have \(mx^2\geq{0}\)?
 
  • #5
What I had in mind is to take the equation:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}=(1+x)^{m}x\)

and then use the induction hypothesis (which we have multiplied by $x$) to write:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m}x\ge(1+mx)x\)

so that we now have:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}-(1+x)^{m}\ge(1+mx)x\)

Adding this to $P_m$, we get:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}\ge 1+mx+(1+mx)x=1+(m+1)x+mx^2\)

Since $mx^2\ge0$, we have:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}\ge1+(m+1)x+mx^2\ge1+(m+1)x\)

And so we may conclude:

\(\displaystyle (1+x)^{m+1}\ge1+(m+1)x\)

Thus, we have derived $P_{m+1}$ from $P_{m}$, thereby completing the proof by induction.
 
  • #6
Ahh I see. Yeah I ended up writing something similar to that, with the same ending. Thanks for the help guys!
 

Related to Inequality proof w/ induction, 2 unknowns

1. How do you prove inequality using induction with 2 unknowns?

The first step in proving an inequality with induction is to establish a base case, which is usually the simplest case. Then, assume the inequality is true for some value n. Next, show that the inequality holds for n+1. Finally, conclude that the inequality is true for all values of n by induction.

2. What are the two unknowns in an inequality proof with induction?

The two unknowns in an inequality proof with induction refer to the values that the inequality is being compared between. For example, if the inequality is x < y, then x and y are the two unknowns.

3. Can you use any two unknowns in an inequality proof with induction?

No, the two unknowns used in an inequality proof with induction must be related in some way. They should have a clear relationship, such as being consecutive numbers or having one value being a multiple of the other.

4. What is the purpose of using induction in an inequality proof?

Induction is a mathematical technique used to prove that a statement is true for all values of a variable. In the case of an inequality proof with induction, it is used to show that the inequality holds for all values of the unknowns.

5. Are there any limitations to using induction in an inequality proof?

Yes, induction can only be used to prove that a statement is true for all natural numbers. It cannot be used for irrational or negative numbers. Additionally, it is important to carefully choose the base case and the induction step to ensure that the proof is valid.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
415
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
916
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
906
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top