Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

An Inequality:
(1 + 1-3)(1 + 2-3)(1 + 3-3)...(1 + n-3) < 3

Prove the following inequality for all integer n greater than 0:

(1) (1 + 1-3)(1 + 2-3)(1 + 3-3)...(1 + n-3) < 3

Solution

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mathematical induction is a reasonable method to apply to proving (1) "for all n". As is the case with another example, there does not appear to be an obvious way to make induction work for (1).

(1) (1 + 1-3)(1 + 2-3)(1 + 3-3)...(1 + n-3) < 3

However, a strengthened inequality

(2) (1 + 1-3)(1 + 2-3)(1 + 3-3)...(1 + n-3) < 3 - 1/n

is easily amenable to an inductive argument. Denote the left-hand side of (2) as A(n). The verification of (2) for n = 1 is immediate. Assume (2) holds for n = k:

  A(k) < 3 - 1/k

For n = k+1, we have

 
A(k+1)= A(k)(1 + (k+1)-3)
 < (3 - 1/k)(1 + 1/(k+1)3)
 = 3 - 1/k + 3/(k+1)3 - 1/[k(k+1)3]
 = 3 - ((k+1)3 - 3k + 1)/[k(k+1)3].

Our goal of proving (2) for n = k+1 will be achieved provided

  ((k+1)3 - 3k + 1)/[k(k+1)3] > 1/(k+1).

The latter simplifies to

  k3 + 3k2 + 2 > k(k + 1)2,

and further to

(3) k2 - k + 2 > 0.

Since P(x) = x2 - x + 2 has no real roots and P(0) = 2 > 0, P(x) > 0, for all real x, i.e., (3) holds and, with it, (2) for n = k+1. The induction is complete.

We thus obtain an example of two problems - one weaker, the other stronger - of which the weaker problem is more difficult to prove than the stronger one. This fits into the observation that more general problem are often easier than their specific instances.

References

  1. T. Andreescu, B. Enescu, Mathematical Olympiad Treasures, Birkhäuser, 2004

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28737554Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

drawing puzzle
Posted by martin gran
31 messages
06:53 PM, May-09-08

conway's game of life
Posted by frequency
0 messages
11:52 PM, May-12-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Deriving functions based on diffe ...
Posted by ke_45
1 messages
12:47 PM, May-10-08

Josephus Flavius (correction)
Posted by David Turner
1 messages
09:42 AM, May-14-08