Proving 2^n > n^3 for n >= 10 using induction

In summary: You do. You've shown it for the base case, and for any arbitrary k, and from that you can deduce it for any k ≥ 10.
  • #1
snapgilmore
2
0

Homework Statement



Prove that 2^n > n^3 for every integer n >= 10

Homework Equations



a) Prove for 10,
b) assume for k
c) inductive step for k+1

The Attempt at a Solution



a)
2^10 = 1024
10^3 = 1000
1024>1000

b)Assume
2^k > k^3

c) 2^(k+1) > (k+1)^3
(2)(2^k) > (k+1)^3
(2^k) > ((k+1)^3)/2

and from here I'm having trouble solving for k >= 10.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
snapgilmore said:

Homework Statement



Prove that 2^n > n^3 for every integer n >= 10

Homework Equations



a) Prove for 10,
b) assume for k
c) inductive step for k+1

The Attempt at a Solution



a)
2^10 = 1024
10^3 = 1000
1024>1000

b)Assume
2^k > k^3

c) 2^(k+1) > (k+1)^3
The inequality above is what you need to show. You can't just assert it.
snapgilmore said:
(2)(2^k) > (k+1)^3
(2^k) > ((k+1)^3)/2
Your work should look like this:
2k+1 = 2 * 2k > 2 * k3 ...

You then need to show that 2k3 > (k + 1)3, at least for k ≥ 10.

It suffices to show that 2k3/(k + 1)3 > 1, which can be done using calculus.
snapgilmore said:
and from here I'm having trouble solving for k >= 10.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Can you elaborate on how its enough to show (2k^3)/(k+1)^3 >1 ? I thought you needed to end up at k >=10?
 
  • #4
snapgilmore said:
Can you elaborate on how its enough to show (2k^3)/(k+1)^3 >1 ? I thought you needed to end up at k >=10?
You showed that the inequality holds for n = 10.

Then you show that if the inequality holds for n = k, where k is any number greater than or equal to 10, then the inequality holds for n = k+1 .

By doing this, you show that if it's true for n=10, then it's true for n=11 .
If it's true for n=11, then it's true for n=12 .

If it's true for n=12, then it's true for n=13 .

If it's true for n=13, then it's true for n=14 .

If it's true for n=14, then it's true for n=15 .

...​
So assume that 2k > k3, for some integer k ≥ 10 .

From that show that 2k+1 > (k+1)3 .
 
  • #5
snapgilmore said:
Can you elaborate on how its enough to show (2k^3)/(k+1)^3 >1 ?
(2k3)/(k+1)3 >1 is equivalent to 2k3 > (k + 1)3.
snapgilmore said:
I thought you needed to end up at k >=10?
 

FAQ: Proving 2^n > n^3 for n >= 10 using induction

What is an induction proof?

An induction proof is a mathematical method used to prove a statement or theorem for all natural numbers. It involves showing that the statement is true for the first natural number and then showing that if it is true for any given natural number, it must also be true for the next natural number.

How does an induction proof work?

In an induction proof, the base case is established by showing that the statement is true for the first natural number. Then, the induction hypothesis is assumed to be true for any arbitrary natural number. Finally, using the induction hypothesis, the statement is proven to be true for the next natural number. This process is repeated until it can be shown that the statement is true for all natural numbers.

What is the difference between strong and weak induction?

Strong induction is a variation of induction where instead of assuming the induction hypothesis for only one previous natural number, it is assumed for all natural numbers up to the current one. This allows for a wider range of statements to be proven. Weak induction, on the other hand, only assumes the induction hypothesis for the previous natural number.

Can any statement be proven using induction?

No, not all statements can be proven using induction. Induction is only applicable for statements involving natural numbers, and the statement must have a clear base case and a clear method for proving the induction step.

Are there any limitations to using induction as a proof method?

While induction is a powerful proof method, it does have some limitations. It can only be used for statements involving natural numbers, and it cannot be used for statements that involve real numbers or continuous values. Additionally, it may not be the most efficient proof method for certain statements, and other proof techniques may be more suitable.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
955
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
889
Back
Top