Solving Math Induction Problem from Apostol's Calculus vol1 pg35/36

In summary: Dick:So P(n+1) is just another way of saying (-1)^{n+1}n^2?That's right, it's just a rearrangement of the terms.
  • #1
enian
23
0
This problem is from Apostol's Caclulus book vol 1 page 35 or 36 #2

Show that
1 - 4 = -(1 + 2)
1 - 4 + 9 = 1 + 2 + 3
1 - 4 + 9 - 16 = -(1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
is true by mathematical in duction

I get to this step but have problem figuring out how to finish it off

-1^(n+1) * n^2 = -1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2)

I then do the plugging in bit and end up with

-1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2) + (-1^(n+2) * (n+1)^2) << the next term (n+1)

I have tried to work this out a few times but I can't seem to get a stable answer, any helps? Maybe I've forgotten some simple algebra tricks. The answer I think should look like

-1^(n+2) * ((n+1)(n+2)/2)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Steady on, fella.

-1^(n+1) * n^2 = -1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2)

is clearly not a good thing to write. If you were just given that you can solve for n, so that isn't what you're supposed to write.

This is induction. So we're going to show that P(n) implies P(n+1), right? What is P(n)? What things are involved in it, and how can we relate P(n) to P(n-1)?
 
  • #3
If I was just given that I can solve for N? What do you mean?

That's the pattern that I pulled from the set of equations..
1 - 4 = -(1 + 2)
1 - 4 + 9 = 1 + 2 + 3
1 - 4 + 9 - 16 = -(1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
is true by mathematical induction

So I got this mess
1 - 4 + 9 - 16 + ... + -1^(n+1) * n^2 = -1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2)

I add the next term to the other side in an attempt to show that P(n+1) is ... something, valid? I have no idea.. I just know it's supposed to look like -1^(n+2)*((n+1)(n+2)/2), which i'll call F()

-1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2) + (-1^(n+2) * (n+1)^2) is where I'm stuck, trying to factor/expand/add/whatever I just end up with a mess that looks similar to F()

Mathematical Induction is so confusing. I don't know why I'm not getting it. I have read every stinking article I can find on this. Do I not just add the next term in line to both sides and solve so it looks like f(n+1) ??
 
  • #4
Carefully take the difference between the (n+1)th form on the left side and the nth form on the left side and ditto on the right side. On the left you'll get a sign times (n+1)^2. On the right you will get the same sign times (n+2)(n+1)/2+(n+1)n/2. You were already halfway there before you got angry. If you can show they are the same then you win. That's stinking mathematical induction, and it wasn't that bad, now was it? The problem that you had -1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2) + (-1^(n+2) * (n+1)^2) and you should have had the difference -1^(n+1) * (n(n+1)/2) - (-1^(n+2) * (n+1)^2). Do you see why?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
INduction is simple. I want to prove that

1-4+9+...+(-1)^{n+1}n^2

equals something, which we'll call P(n). P(n) is also equal to

P(n-1)+ (-1)^{n+1}n^2

and by induction we have a formula for P(n-1), so use it amd rearrange.
 
  • #6
Dick:
I don't see why I would subtract the last term -(-1^n+2...) Because if you distribute the negative sign you're left with 1^n+2 which would always be positive, even if the number before it were positive, which contradicts the changing sign on the even/odd of the general equation. So no, I don't see why. :(

Maybe this is just too over my head.

Matt Grime: Why do you use P(n-1)? Simpler math? Since it will cancel out the -1^[n+1] in front of the terms? Or is there something I'm missing between using P(n-1) or P(n+1)
 
  • #7
enian said:
Matt Grime: Why do you use P(n-1)?
Because that is what induction is. You have something to prove, something for each natural number, say. So to show it is true for some n, you write the statement for n in terms of (some of the) statements for 1,2,..,n-1 which you assume to be true. This allows you to deduce the result you want is true.

Then it only remains to show it is true for the first case.

That is induction. Every induction argument is based upon that premise. The first thing you have to think about in induction is 'OK, how can I relate the statement for the n'th thing to the statements for the previous ones...'

I may have misunderstood you: if your question was 'why did you use n-1 to show n, rather than n to show n+1' I hope you understand that there is no difference. OK, some times things are easier to manipulate if you do this, but here it is no difference. It is just an algebraic manipulation you have to perform.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Ok, let's show that P(n)-->P(n+1). Which is basically reduced to the formula

[tex]1-4+9-16+...+(-1)^{n+1}n^2 +(-1)^{n+2} (n+1)^2 =(-1)^{n+1}\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+(-1)^{n+2} (n+1)^2 [/tex]

So do the calculation of the RHS. I'll give you 2 hints:
*Factor the (n+1).
* at some point you'd have to factor a "-1".
 
  • #9
thanks dexter. That's the step where I got lost.
https://www.physicsforums.com/latex_images/14/1413195-0.png

The first thing I do is put the second term on the right hand side of the equation, over 2, to get a common denominator so I can add them together. I'm left with..

-1^[n+1]*n(n+1) - 1^[n+2]*2(n^2+2n+2), all over 2

This is the part I have trouble.
Can -1^[n+2] be multiplied by 2^1? So I would get -2^(n+2)?
I'm not sure if the [n+2] exponent can be combined with a 1 exponent, similar to trying to add 2x+2. Am I right with that thinking?

Also, is it possible to factor a -1^[n+1] from a equation such as...
-1^[n+1] + -1^[n+2] ? So that it would look like..
-1^[n+1](1 + (1/(1^n+1)))

The main thing that trips me up here is the exponents.

What do you use to make the nice equations (the graphical ones as opposd to my text ones) dexter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
My 2 penn'orth: get your brackets in the right place. If you keep making mistakes like that then you'll never get to the maths.

enian said:
tCan -1^[n+2] be multiplied by 2^1?

2^1 is just 2, of course you can multiply a number, (-1)^{n+2} (which is 1 if n is even and -1 if n is odd, and notice the brackets!), by 2.
So I would get -2^(n+2)?

of course not. Firstly, this number is now always negative, and goes like -2,-4,-8,-16,..
I'm not sure if the [n+2] exponent can be combined with a 1 exponent,

you can only add exponents if the things that are being exponentiated are equal. -1 does not equal 2.
-1^[n+1] + -1^[n+2] ? So that it would look like..
-1^[n+1](1 + (1/(1^n+1)))

I'm going to say it again: bracket things properly. Forget it's -1, you're asking to simplify x^{n+1} + x^{n+2}, which is just x^{n+1}(1+x), though I don't think that is quite what you should be asking to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
[tex](-1)^{n+1}\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+(-1)^{n+2} (n+1)^2 [/tex]

That equals

[tex](-1)^{n+2}(n+1)( -\frac{n}{2}+n+1)[/tex]

right?
 
  • #12
The main thing that I missed on this problem was the fact I could break down an exponent into two separate parts via x^(a+b)=x^a*x^b
Thanks for the assistance.
 

FAQ: Solving Math Induction Problem from Apostol's Calculus vol1 pg35/36

1. How do I approach a math induction problem?

The first step in solving a math induction problem is to understand the statement that needs to be proven. Then, you can start by proving the base case, which usually involves substituting the initial value into the statement. Next, assume the statement holds for some integer k and use it to prove that it also holds for k+1. Finally, conclude that the statement is true for all positive integers by using mathematical induction.

2. What are the common mistakes to avoid when solving a math induction problem?

One common mistake is to assume that the statement is true for all positive integers without properly proving the base case. Another mistake is to use circular logic, where the statement to be proven is used in the proof itself. Additionally, not clearly stating the induction hypothesis or not following the correct structure of the proof can also lead to errors.

3. How do I know when to use mathematical induction?

Mathematical induction is used when the statement to be proven involves positive integers and can be broken down into smaller cases, starting from the base case. It is also useful when trying to prove statements about sequences or patterns.

4. Can I use mathematical induction to prove statements about real numbers?

No, mathematical induction can only be used for statements involving positive integers. To prove statements about real numbers, other methods such as direct proof or proof by contradiction may be used.

5. How can I check if my proof by mathematical induction is correct?

To check the validity of a proof by mathematical induction, you can follow the three steps: 1) Check that the base case is correctly proven, 2) Verify that the induction hypothesis is clearly stated and used correctly in the inductive step, and 3) Check that the inductive step leads to the conclusion that the statement holds for all positive integers. It is also recommended to review and check for any errors or mistakes made during the proof.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
539
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top