MedVision ad

induction (1 Viewer)

bobohappy

New Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
hi there,

any help on the questions attached would be greatly appreciated,



thank you!
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
1. By inspection: RHS = 2^n * 3^n * 4^n * ... * (n+1)^n
LHS = 2^n * 3^(n-1) * 4^(n-1) * 5^(n-2) * 6^(n-2) * ... * (2n-1) * 2n
= 2^n * [3^(n-1) * 2n] * [4^(n-1) * (2n-1)] * [5^(n-1) * (2n-2)^2] * [4^(n-1) * (2n-3)^2] * ...
Arranged this way you cna see that each part of the LHS is no less that the right hand side and atleast one of them is greater (n >=2), so LHS> RHS

2. Expanding the left hand side will give you 2^n terms (1 + x1 + x2 + ... + xn + x1x2 + x1x3 + ... + x1xn + x2x3 + x2x4 + ... + x2xn + .... + x1x2x3...xn), the product of these terms is equal to
(x1*x2*x3*...*xn)^(2^(n-1)) = 1 then apply the AM-Gm inequality (prove it if you need to you only need it for the case where the number of terms is a power of 2)

3. think you mean 0 <= xk < 1 instead of 0<= xk < 0. This should be a simple induction. remember that the LHS is always between 0 and 1.


4. You sure you got the sign the correct way round? for x > 0
let f(x) = (1 + x + x^2 + ... + x^ n )/ (1 + x + x^2 + ... + x^(n+1) )
= 1 + [ x^n / (1 + x + x^2 + ... + x^(n+1))]
= 1 + 1/[1/x + 1/x^2 + 1/x^3 + ... + 1/x^n]

now it is pretty clear that 1/x, 1/x^2, ... 1/x^n all decrease as x increases and they are all positive , their sum also decreases hence f(x) is an increasing function. It follows that

(1+ a + a^2 + ... + a^(n+1))/(1+ a + a^2 + ... + a^(n)) > (1+ b + b^2 + ... + b^(n+1)) / (1+ b + b^2 + ... + b^(n))
 
Last edited:

addikaye03

The A-Team
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,267
Location
Albury-Wodonga, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
2. For we have , therefore . Assume true up to . For , group and into one, so we can apply the induction hypothesis:

.

Unfortunately, is not guaranteed. So we need an idea. Well, since , there must be some and some . Redo all of the above with instead of . We reach that last desirable inequality, equivalent to , which now is true.

This solution is courtesy of members on AoPS and is what i thought clearly not my solution
 
Last edited:

addikaye03

The A-Team
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,267
Location
Albury-Wodonga, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
3.Our base case is which is just which is true.

ok so suppose that it is true for n=a-1. Now we want to prove that the statement is true for n=a.

So we have our a numbers
and it is true that by our induction hypothesis. We want to prove that

Notice that both sides (especially the LHS) are less than or equal to 1. This is true for the LHS because each product is positive and less than or equal to 1.
Therefore,
adding our two inequalities (1) and (2) gives the desired result.

equality is achieved when n or n-1 of the are equal to 0.
This can be seen from setting both (1) and (2) as equalities.

This solution is courtesy of members on AoPS and is what i thought clearly not my solution
 
Last edited:

addikaye03

The A-Team
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,267
Location
Albury-Wodonga, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
4.
Equality occurs when . Otherwise, note that

so without loss of generality we can assume that . We cross multiply to get

When we have

We can prove that by induction on , noting that



If , then by the lemma,



so the desired inequality follows from induction.

Got a feeling induction wasn't intended for any of these Q btw

EDIT: Geometric Series and all the (x-1) cancel out would be the normal approach no?
This solution is courtesy of members on AoPS and is what i thought clearly not my solution
 
Last edited:

addikaye03

The A-Team
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,267
Location
Albury-Wodonga, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Yo dawg, we heard you liked plagarism, so we put a plagiarised post in your plagiarisedpost, so you can plagiarise while you plagiarise:

Art of Problem Solving Forum
Art of Problem Solving Forum
Art of Problem Solving Forum
Art of Problem Solving Forum
umm.. i thought it was pretty clear that i asked them on AoPS. Consider the latex is from there, and has AoPS coding throughout the entire thing.

Post edited to make it clear. Was merely trying to help the OP, since there were no solutions for sometime
 
Last edited:
K

khorne

Guest
You didn't cite it, and then copied affinity into another thread, making you twice the berk.
 

Aerath

Retired
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
10,169
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Um, am I the only one who doesn't get what the fuck those AoPS people are saying?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top