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.
Math & English enrichment at SchoolPlus-Online
HoodaMath: games and movies
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: what CTK is about 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:
1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100 < 1/10

A product of fractions 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n is on the left-hand side of several inequalities: one with a beautiful proof, one that strengthens the former but is virtually impossible to prove, and a third, even stronger, with an elementary proof.

Try your hand with the simplest variation:

(1) 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100 < 1/10.

Solution

Copyright © 1996-2009 Alexander Bogomolny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Denote the left-hand side of the inequality A:

  A = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100.

And introduce its nemesis B:

  B = 2/3·4/5·6/7· ... ·98/99.

Factor by factor, the fractions in B exceed those in A:

  2/3 > 1/2, 4/5 > 3/4, ..., 98/99 > 97/98, 1 > 99/100.

From this it follows that A < B. Note that, due to the choice of B, in the product AB most of the terms cancel out: AB = 1/100. From here,

  A2 < AB < 1/100,

which, with one additional step, proves (1).

This proof suggests that (1) is in fact just a special case of a more general inequality

(2) 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n < 1/(2n),

whose proof is a slight modification of the above with A and B defined as

  A(n) = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n,
B(n) = 2/3·4/5·6/7· ... ·(2n-2)/(2n-1).

As we shall see shortly, (1) and (2) are quite weak: A(n) has a much better bound, viz.

(3) A(n) < 1/(3n+1).

(3) supplies an edifying curiosity. By itself, it is easily proven by mathematical induction. However, its weakened version

(3') A(n) < 1/(3n),

as far as I know, does not submit to an inductive proof. Try it, by all means. (3) and (3') are often quoted as a pair of problems of which the harder one has a simpler proof.

Meanwhile here's a proof for (3).

Copyright © 1996-2009 Alexander Bogomolny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To remind,

  A(n) = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n

and we wish to prove (3): A(n) < 1/(3n+1). For n = 1, we have

  A(1) = 1/2 = 1/(3·1+1).

But already for n = 2,

  A(2) = 1/2·3/4 = 3/8 < 1/7 = 1/(3·2+1),

because upon squaring 9/64 < 1/7, for 7·9 = 63 < 64. Thus let's proceed with the inductive step and assume that (3) holds for n = k:

(4) A(k) < 1/(3k+1).

We are going to prove that, for n = k+1, (3) also holds

(5) A(k+1) < 1/(3(k+1)+1) = 1/(3k+4).

Since A(k+1) = A(k)·(2k+1)/(2k+2), (4) implies

(6) A(k+1) < (2k+1)/(2k+2)·1/(3k+1).

Now square the right hand side in (6):

(7)
[(2k+1)/(2k+2)·1/(3k+1)]2= (2k+1)2 / ((2k+2)2(3k+1))
 = (2k+1)2 / (12k3 + 28k2 + 20k + 4)
 = (2k+1)2 / [(12k3 + 28k2 + 19k + 4) + k]
 = (2k+1)2 / [(2k+1)2(3k+4) + k]
 < (2k+1)2 / [(2k+1)2(3k+4)]
 = 1 / (3k+4),

which is exactly the right-hand side of (5) and proves (6).

(There is another example where mathematical induction applies easily to a stronger inequality and does not seem to work for a weaker one.)

References

  1. D.Fomin,S.Genkin,I.Itenberg, Mathematical Circles (Russian Experience), AMS, 1996, p. 90
  2. S. Savchev, T. Andreescu, Mathematical Miniatures, MAA, 2003, p. 51
  3. D. O. Shklyarsky, N. N. Chentsov, I. M. Yaglom, Selected Problems and Theorems of Elementary Mathematics, v 1, Moscow, 1959. (In Russian)

Copyright © 1996-2009 Alexander Bogomolny

33061157Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK