Show by induction that (2n-1) /(2n) <= 1/(3n+1) for all n

In summary, Homework statement:The attempt at a solution is to express a number as the product of two other numbers. However, this is not always true.
  • #1
Perrault
14
0
Show by induction that (2n-1)!/(2n)! <= 1/(3n+1) for all n

Homework Statement



Show by induction that [itex](\frac{1\cdot3\cdot5\cdot\cdot\cdot(2n-1)}{2\cdot4\cdot6\cdot\cdot\cdot2n})^2[/itex] [itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\frac{1}{3n+1}[/itex] for n=1,2,3, ...

The Attempt at a Solution


It might not really be relevant, but I've attached my work. I tried to subprove something by induction to help my principal induction, but I got something that was harder than the original.

P.S. I tried using the Physics forums android app, but I couldn't figure out how to post.
 

Attachments

  • 2013-10-05 14.05.14.jpg
    2013-10-05 14.05.14.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 519
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For n=1,2,3 you have 1/2 <= 1/4, 3/8 <= 1/7 and 5/16 <= 1/10 respectively
are you sure that's the problem you're trying to solve?
 
  • #3
Thanks for your response. By "n=1,2,3,...", the problem statement means the natural numbers. Sorry for the confusion.
Also, induction is mandatory.
 
  • #4
I understand that, but the statement isn't true for all natural numbers since it isn't true for the first at least 10 of them
 
  • #5
Of course, I missed something essential! The whole left side is squared. I edited the original post. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
  • #6
But it still isn't true that ##(3/8)^2 < 1/7 ##
 
  • #7
brmath said:
But it still isn't true that ##(3/8)^2 < 1/7 ##

(3/8)^2 is less than 1/7.
 
  • #8
Yiu'll need to prove that: [tex] \left( \frac{2n+1}{2n+2} \right) ^2 \leq \frac{3n+1}{3n+4} [/tex].

The easiest way to do this is to write out the cross product.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #9
Dick said:
(3/8)^2 is less than 1/7.

Yes, of course; I managed to square 8 and get 16.
 
  • #10
dirk_mec1 said:
Yiu'll need to prove that: [tex] \left( \frac{2n+1}{2n+2} \right) ^2 \leq \frac{3n+1}{3n+4} [/tex].

The easiest way to do this is to write out the cross product.

In case it's not obvious, dirk_mec1's idea it that you can express ##a_{n+1} \le b_{n+1}## as ##a_{n} \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} \le b_{n} \frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}##. You know ##a_n \le b_n## by your induction hypothesis. If the ratios follow the same pattern you are done.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
Indeed, that is exactly my idea and I've written it out to see it leading to succes :).
 
  • #12
Awesome guys, it worked! Thanks!
 

FAQ: Show by induction that (2n-1) /(2n) <= 1/(3n+1) for all n

What is the goal of using induction in this problem?

The goal of using induction in this problem is to prove that the inequality (2n-1)/(2n) ≤ 1/(3n+1) holds for all natural numbers n. This means that we need to show that the statement is true for a base case (usually n=1) and then prove that if the statement is true for some value of n, it is also true for the next value (n+1).

How do you choose the base case in this problem?

In this problem, the base case is n = 1 because it is the smallest natural number. We can easily plug in n = 1 into the inequality and see that it holds (1/2 ≤ 1/4).

What is the inductive hypothesis in this problem?

The inductive hypothesis in this problem is that the inequality (2k-1)/(2k) ≤ 1/(3k+1) holds for some value of k. In other words, we assume that the statement is true for a specific value of n (k) and then use this to prove that it is also true for the next value (k+1).

How do you prove the inductive step?

To prove the inductive step, we need to show that if the statement is true for some value of n (k), it is also true for the next value (k+1). In this problem, we can do this by first assuming that (2k-1)/(2k) ≤ 1/(3k+1) holds. Then, we can manipulate this inequality algebraically to show that (2(k+1)-1)/(2(k+1)) ≤ 1/(3(k+1)+1), which proves the inductive step.

How do you know that the statement is true for all natural numbers?

By using induction, we have shown that the statement is true for the base case (n=1) and that if it is true for some value of n (k), it is also true for the next value (k+1). This means that the statement is true for n=2, then n=3, and so on for all natural numbers. Therefore, we can conclude that the statement is true for all natural numbers n.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top