I'd have said it was pretty obvious he didn't.(Original post by Simplicity)
Obviously, he knows the principle of it.
Aren't you the person who keeps going on about how no one should have to practise maths? [/*****y](Original post by Simplicity)
But, then you have to build up intuition by working it out yourself.

generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 21
 24072009 13:20

Revision help in partnership with Birmingham City University

Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 22
 24072009 13:49
(Original post by generalebriety)
I'd have said it was pretty obvious he didn't.
(Original post by generalebriety)
Aren't you the person who keeps going on about how no one should have to practise maths? [/*****y]
P.S. Although, its pretty hard when you don't have big hints for stuff. 
mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 23
 24072009 21:44
So by multiplying both sides by (1+x) we have k+1 on both sides, yes?
So
wouldn't (1+x)^k be a binomial expansion, but how to expand? 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 24
 24072009 21:51
I think you're misunderstanding quite how induction works... 
mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 25
 24072009 22:03
That is exactly the problem here, I don't quite understand induction. I know that if something works for all real integers then we should be able to prove that by replacing k by k+1, right? My other problem is that I don't know what the end result should look like. I mean, what's above in my previous post, is that correct?
I'm going to go think about it more and will be back tomorrow. Night homeboys.Last edited by mcp2; 24072009 at 22:14. 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 26
 24072009 22:35
(Original post by mcp2)
That is exactly the problem here, I don't quite understand induction. I know that if something works for all real integers then we should be able to prove that by replacing k by k+1, right? My other problem is that I don't know what the end result should look like. I mean, what's above in my previous post, is that correct?
I'm going to go think about it more and will be back tomorrow. Night homeboys.
So let's start off. We've proven that your inequality is true for n = 1. Now we assume it's true for n = k, and try to prove from there that it's true for n = k+1. The statement for n = k is "(1 + x)^k >= 1 + kx", which we assume true. We want to prove "(1 + x)^(k+1) >= 1 + (k+1)x" from there, and the obvious way to do it is to take (1 + x)^k = 1 + kx and then multiply both sides by (1 + x).Last edited by generalebriety; 24072009 at 22:37. 
mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 27
 25072009 11:16
I see. Seeing as how at this level I am already given the proof for n=k so the next logical step would be to prove it true for n=k+1 either by addition or multiplication or replacement, etc, yes?
Does it matter if the final form of the proof doesn't look anything like the original? 
 Follow
 28
 25072009 11:39
(Original post by mcp2)
I see. Seeing as how at this level I am already given the proof for n=k so the next logical step would be to prove it true for n=k+1 either by addition or multiplication or replacement, etc, yes?
Does it matter if the final form of the proof doesn't look anything like the original?(Original post by mcp2)
That is exactly the problem here, I don't quite understand induction. I know that if something works for all real integers then we should be able to prove that by replacing k by k+1, right? My other problem is that I don't know what the end result should look like. I mean, what's above in my previous post, is that correct?
I'm going to go think about it more and will be back tomorrow. Night homeboys.
The idea is to show that if
is true, then
is also true. The thing you're being asked to do is show a logical implication: if A is true then B is true.
If we can do this, and we know that it is true for k=1, can you see why that would imply that it is also true for k=2 and k=3 etc. for all integer k's?
Try substituting in k=1. Just plugging in, it's clear that if
is true we also now know that
or, in other words, that
So it's also true for k=2. That means we can substitute in k=2 into the first equation again, and that shows that it is true for k=3. How? Well, if
is true, then
is true.
Substituting k=3 implies k=4 and so on.
This is exactly why GE suggested you multiply by . Because
So by multiplying by we can get the left hand side of the equation from an expression with k to an expression with k+1. This is how we show the logical implication. By manipulating and playing around with the original expression until we reach what we want.
Continuing the inductive argument,
If we multiply the whole inequality by , firstly it remains an inequality, which is important, because we want our end result to still be an inequality. Secondly, we've got from our expression with k to an expression with (k+1) which is what we were trying to do.
So
Now is a square, and is therefore always positive. So if we add something positive onto a quantity, it will only increase, so:
then clearly
When I originally read your post, I almost got the impression that you had the process and the end result mixed up. The process is going from k to k+1, and the end result is the thing with k+1. It should look exactly the same, but with k+1's in the place of k's.
If you want another classic example, ladders are one, dominoes are another.
You want to prove that, for all integers , if you set up a chain of n dominoes, all n dominoes fall down.
You assume that this is true for some number k, i.e. if you set up a chain of k dominoes, all k will fall down. Now this obviously includes the kth domino, so if you add another domino onto the end, a k+1th domino, because you know the kth domino will topple, and because you've set up the k+1th domino in such a way that toppling one will topple the other, you can conclude that a chain of k+1 dominoes will also necessarily result in k+1 dominoes falling down.
This is showing the implication. Showing A leads to B. Showing that if the statement is true for k, it is also true for k+1.
But you still have no concrete evidence. You only know that if you can set up a number of dominoes so that they all fall, then if you add one onto the chain, they will still all fall.
So you set up one domino, and watch it fall. You've just shown that your hypothesis is true for n=1. This is the base case. This allows you to use your implication to prove your hypothesis for all natural numbers. You know that if you add another domino to your single domino, both will fall. And adding another will result in all three falling. Since this extends through all the natural numbers, you've proved what you wanted to.
I hope this helps.Last edited by Elongar; 25072009 at 11:42. 
ImperceptibleNinja
 Follow
 1 follower
 13 badges
 Send a private message to ImperceptibleNinja
Offline13ReputationRep: Follow
 29
 25072009 11:56
(Original post by mcp2)
That is exactly the problem here, I don't quite understand induction. I know that if something works for all real integers then we should be able to prove that by replacing k by k+1, right? My other problem is that I don't know what the end result should look like. I mean, what's above in my previous post, is that correct?
I'm going to go think about it more and will be back tomorrow. Night homeboys. 
mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 30
 25072009 14:57
Yes it did help and I've started the examples in my book but still nothing is coming out as it should, induction, the bane of my life. I'm still in need of reading.

generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 31
 25072009 14:57
(Original post by mcp2)
I see. Seeing as how at this level I am already given the proof for n=k so the next logical step would be to prove it true for n=k+1 either by addition or multiplication or replacement, etc, yes?
Does it matter if the final form of the proof doesn't look anything like the original?
Perhaps induction is a harder concept than I think to get your head around. But the ladder analogy given earlier in the thread is a good one. You know two sentences to be true: "I can get onto the 1st rung", and "if I can get onto the kth rung, then I can get onto the (k+1)th rung". Do you accept that this means you can climb onto the nth rung, for any n? Or Elongar's domino analogy  if "I can knock over the first domino" and "if the kth domino falls, the (k+1)th domino will fall", do you accept that you can make n dominoes fall down for any n?
The important thing to remember here is that n is a variable, and is used to point to a positive integer; k is fixed. We know by assumption (we don't prove it) that a certain statement (formula, inequality...) is true for n = k, and (if you like) n = k1, k2, ..., 2, 1. We don't know that it's true for n = k+1 (it might not be!), because k is fixed, and not variable. We want to prove from what we already know that it's true for n = k+1.
Read Elongar's post with this in mind, and tell us if there's anything you're still struggling with. 
ImperceptibleNinja
 Follow
 1 follower
 13 badges
 Send a private message to ImperceptibleNinja
Offline13ReputationRep: Follow
 32
 25072009 17:30
This might sounds a bit consescending (sorry ), but if you're not doing this already, writing everything down and following everything in clear, defined stages might help you get into the swing of it. Sometimes taking an overly methodical approach can help you find your way through something without trying to remember everything at once.
If you are still confused by the core idea, try clearing your mind of all the preconceptions you have so far, and try reading through a very clear explanation or example very carefully, checking that you understand what each bit means, and then how it all fits together. The dominoes analogy is nice at helping understand the overall picture.
I am not sure if it is wise to restate this in a different way, but it might help. If you don't like this way of looking at it, then forget all about it It might just be that you need to find the a way of thinking about things that suits you best.
Suppose you have some equation that might or might not hold for all natural numbers .
(So you could take to indicate any of the statements that have been involved in the various examples  Elongar's example is probably a good starting point. But think of less specifically for now, if you want.)
Would you agree that if,
(i) is true
and
(ii) for all
then has to hold for all natural ?
In terms of dominoes, this is equivalent to
(i')We can make domino fall
and
(ii')if the domino falls, then the domino falls.
and like generalebriety said, this means that all the dominoes will eventually fall down. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 33
 25072009 17:39
Ladder analogy is poor.
Just think like this show
n=1 is correct or n=a.
Start from n=k, do some manipulation and ta dah k+1 replaces k.
P.S. Lack of reasoning skills or maybe not familar with the techniques like algebraic manipulation is the only reason for not getting induction. 
mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 34
 25072009 19:13
Guys I think you'll be happy to hear that I understand induction now, lols. I also want to say that I was trying induction on summation of series when I had skipped that chapter (silly me). I'm sure my logic isn't poor.
So my new problem ist he second line of this, where did n(n+1) go?

Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 35
 25072009 19:20
(Original post by mcp2)
Guys I think you'll be happy to hear that I understand induction now, lols. I also want to say that I was trying induction on summation of series when I had skipped that chapter (silly me). I'm sure my logic isn't poor.
So my new problem ist he second line of this, where did n(n+1) go?

mcp2
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to mcp2
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 36
 25072009 20:19
Ah OK thanks.

Oh I Really Don't Care
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to Oh I Really Don't Care
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 37
 26072009 01:13
 1
 2
Related discussions
 Sainsbury's thread Mk IV
 Strangest things a teacher's said to YOU? Version 2.0
 *MEGATHREAD*  Work Experience and Voluntary Work ...
 TSR Pakistani Society  MK XI
 Multilingual and Polyglot Wannabe Thread MK II
 TSR Pakistani Society  MK X
 Too ugly to get a girlfriend, don't know what to do, need advice ...
 A Levels or BTEC ???
 Queen Margaret?
 Last Person To Post Here Wins (Part 28)
Related university courses

Mathematics
University of Birmingham

Financial Mathematics
University of Hertfordshire

Mathematics and Physics
University of Dundee

Mathematics for Finance and Management
University of Portsmouth

Mathematics
University of Winchester

Mathematics
University of Oxford

Mathematics (Including Year Abroad)
University of Essex

Mathematics and Statistics (including placement year)
University of Essex

Mathematics with Foundation
Durham University

Pure Mathematics (Fast Track)
University of St Andrews
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel