Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Shopping at the store helps maintain the site. Thank you.
Learning Math Online
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards
Interactive Activities

CTK Exchange
CTK Wiki Math
CTK Insights - a blog
Math Help

III Millennium Olympiad

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Stories for Young
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
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Games to relax

Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto  |  Bookstore  |  Contents  |  Amazon store  |  Term index  |  What changed?  |  Contact  |  Recommend
RSS Feed: Recent changes at CTK

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 © 1996-2009 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 © 1996-2009 Alexander Bogomolny

34221532Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK