Prove by Induction: $w_k = w_{k-2} + k$

In summary, the given proof by induction shows that the equation $$w_k = w_{k−2} + k$$ has an explicit formula of $$w_n =\begin{cases}\frac{(n+1)^2}{4}, & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\\frac n2(\frac n2 + 1), & \text{if $n$ is even}\end{cases}$$ for all integers $$k \ge 3, w_1 = 1,w_2 = 2$$. The proof covers all cases by handling the induction base (two values) and then proving for both odd and even numbers. Therefore, the explicit formula is valid for all integers
  • #1
Arew
7
0

Homework Statement


Prove by induction $$w_k = w_{k−2} + k$$, for all integers $$k \ge 3, w_1 = 1,w_2 = 2$$ has an explicit formula
$$ w_n =\begin{cases}
\frac{(n+1)^2}{4}, & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\
\frac n2(\frac n2 + 1), & \text{if $n$ is even}
\end{cases}$$


Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Inductive step for when n is odd:

Suppose $$w_k = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4}$$ if k is odd. Then by definition of w, we have $$w_{k + 2} = w_k + k + 2 = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4} + k + 2 = \frac {k^2 + 2k + 1}{4} + k + 2= \frac {k^2 + 6k + 8}{4} = \frac {(k +3)^2}{4} $$ if k + 2 is odd.

Is it important that we prove $$w_{k + 1} = \frac{(k+2)^2}{4}$$ if k+ 1 is odd or is the proof for $$w_{k + 2} = \frac{(k+3)^2}{4}$$ if k + 2 is enough?

If none of the above makes sense, can I please get help getting started with the inductive step.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Arew said:

Homework Statement


Prove by induction $$w_k = w_{k−2} + k$$, for all integers $$k \ge 3, w_1 = 1,w_2 = 2$$ has an explicit formula
$$ w_n =\begin{cases}
\frac{(n+1)^2}{4}, & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\
\frac n2(\frac n2 + 1), & \text{if $n$ is even}
\end{cases}$$


Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Inductive step for when n is odd:

Suppose $$w_k = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4}$$ if k is odd. Then by definition of w, we have $$w_{k + 2} = w_k + k + 2 = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4} + k + 2 = \frac {k^2 + 2k + 1}{4} + k + 2= \frac {k^2 + 6k + 8}{4} = \frac {(k +3)^2}{4} $$

It's fine to here. That's the odd numbers sorted out. Now, what about the even numbers?
 
  • #3
Arew said:

Homework Statement


Prove by induction $$w_k = w_{k−2} + k$$, for all integers $$k \ge 3, w_1 = 1,w_2 = 2$$ has an explicit formula
$$ w_n =\begin{cases}
\frac{(n+1)^2}{4}, & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\
\frac n2(\frac n2 + 1), & \text{if $n$ is even}
\end{cases}$$


Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Inductive step for when n is odd:

Suppose $$w_k = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4}$$ if k is odd. Then by definition of w, we have $$w_{k + 2} = w_k + k + 2 = \frac{(k+1)^2}{4} + k + 2 = \frac {k^2 + 2k + 1}{4} + k + 2= \frac {k^2 + 6k + 8}{4} = \frac {(k +3)^2}{4} $$ if k + 2 is odd.

Is it important that we prove $$w_{k + 1} = \frac{(k+2)^2}{4}$$ if k+ 1 is odd or is the proof for $$w_{k + 2} = \frac{(k+3)^2}{4}$$ if k + 2 is enough?

If none of the above makes sense, can I please get help getting started with the inductive step.
And the induction base? You have to verify this, too. It is really important and not just something annoying.
And what if k is even?
(Remark: there is a typo.)
 
  • #4
PeroK said:
It's fine to here. That's the odd numbers sorted out. Now, what about the even numbers?

fresh_42 said:
And the induction base? You have to verify this, too. It is really important and not just something annoying.
And what if k is even?
(Remark: there is a typo.)

Thanks for the comments. Do we have to handle $$w_{k+1}$$ at all?
 
  • #5
Arew said:
Thanks for the comments. Do we have to handle $$w_{k+1}$$ at all?
Why would you?
 
  • #6
PeroK said:
Why would you?

I was worried we proved w_k for every other integer k. I see why that's wrong. Thanks.
 
  • #7
Arew said:
I was worried we proved w_k for every other integer k. I see why that's wrong. Thanks.
With the induction base (two values), the odd numbers, which are covered by ##k \rightarrow k+2##, only the even are missing. What other numbers can you think of?
 
  • #8
fresh_42 said:
With the induction base (two values), the odd numbers, which are covered by ##k \rightarrow k+2##, only the even are missing. What other numbers can you think of?

Can't think of anything else :) Thanks.
 

FAQ: Prove by Induction: $w_k = w_{k-2} + k$

What is the concept of "prove by induction"?

"Prove by induction" is a mathematical method used to prove a statement for all natural numbers. It involves showing that the statement holds true for the first natural number, and then showing that if the statement is true for any given natural number, it must also be true for the next natural number. This method is commonly used to prove properties of sequences, such as the equation $w_k = w_{k-2} + k$.

What is the purpose of using "prove by induction"?

The purpose of using "prove by induction" is to show that a statement is true for all natural numbers, without having to prove it individually for each natural number. This method is particularly useful for proving properties of sequences and series, as it allows for a more efficient and elegant proof.

How is "prove by induction" different from other proof methods?

"Prove by induction" is different from other proof methods because it relies on the principle of mathematical induction, which states that if a statement is true for the first natural number and for any given natural number, it must also be true for the next natural number. This allows for a more compact and efficient proof, compared to other methods such as direct proof or proof by contradiction.

Can "prove by induction" be used for all types of statements?

No, "prove by induction" can only be used for statements that can be expressed in terms of natural numbers. It cannot be used for statements involving real or complex numbers, for example. Additionally, the statement must be able to be broken down into a sequence or series in order for "prove by induction" to be applicable.

How is the equation $w_k = w_{k-2} + k$ proved by induction?

In order to prove the equation $w_k = w_{k-2} + k$ by induction, we must first show that it holds true for the first natural number, which is usually 1. Next, we assume that the equation is true for any given natural number, denoted as $k$. Using this assumption, we then show that the equation must also be true for the next natural number, $k+1$. This completes the induction step. Finally, we can conclude that the equation is true for all natural numbers, by the principle of mathematical induction.

Similar threads

Back
Top