Lost on why he used 2.7 rather than 1.7, typo perhaps?

  • Thread starter mr_coffee
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lost
In summary, the proof by strong mathematical induction involves comparing (1.7)^2 and 2.7, which may seem confusing as (1.7) has been used throughout the proof. However, the comparison is necessary as (1.7) is factored out in the expression (1.7)^{k-1} + (1.7)^{k-2} to obtain (1.7)^{k-2}(2.7). This inequality is then used in the proof to make a statement about (1.7)^2 > 2.7.
  • #1
mr_coffee
1,629
1
Hello everyone I'm revewing a proof by strong mathematical induction and it seems to be making sense all the way up to this point:
Since (1.7)^2 = 2.98 > 2.7, we have...

WHy did he compare 1.7^2 > 2.7? we've been using 1.7 the whole time.



http://suprfile.com/src/1/3rop3a0/eee[/URL] copy.jpg[/PLAIN]



Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The 2.7 comes about because he factors out [itex](1.7)^{k-2}[/itex] from the following expression

[tex]
(1.7)^{k-1} + (1.7)^{k-2} = (1.7)^{k-2}\left(1.7 + 1\right) = (1.7)^{k-2}(2.7)
[/tex]

i.e. [itex]1.7 + 1 = 2.7[/itex]. He wants to make this statement about [itex](1.7)^2>2.7[/itex] so he can use it in the proof. Notice that in the penultimate step he uses an inequality (which assumes the above condition).
 
  • #3
Ahh i c it now, thank u for the help!
 

FAQ: Lost on why he used 2.7 rather than 1.7, typo perhaps?

Why did the scientist use 2.7 instead of 1.7?

The scientist most likely used 2.7 based on their experimental design or previous research. They may have found that 2.7 was a more accurate or precise measurement for their particular study.

Is it possible that the use of 2.7 was a typo?

It is possible that 2.7 was a typo, but it is unlikely. Scientists are trained to be meticulous and double check their data and calculations. The use of 2.7 was most likely a deliberate choice.

Is there any significance to the use of 2.7 instead of 1.7?

There may be significance to the use of 2.7 depending on the context of the study. It could be related to a specific hypothesis or theory being tested. However, without more information about the study, it is difficult to determine the exact significance of the use of 2.7.

Could the scientist have made a mistake in using 2.7 instead of 1.7?

While it is possible that the scientist made a mistake, it is unlikely. As mentioned before, scientists are trained to be meticulous and double check their work. It is more likely that they had a valid reason for using 2.7 instead of 1.7.

How does the use of 2.7 affect the overall results of the study?

The use of 2.7 may have a significant impact on the results of the study, depending on the specific research question and methodology. It is important to carefully consider the use of any data or measurements in a scientific study, and the scientist likely had a valid reason for choosing to use 2.7 over 1.7.

Back
Top