play and relax: games for kids games
  Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

An Inequality:
1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... + n-2 < 2

Prove the following inequality for all integer n greater than 1:

(1) 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... + n-2 < 2

Solution

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This page has been inspired by a post from Torsten Hennig at the Mathforum.)

Mathematical induction is a reasonable method to apply to proving (1) "for all n". As is the case with another example and yet another one, there does not appear to be an obvious way to make induction work for (1).

(1) 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... + n-2 < 2

While it is easy to compare and grow the partial sums on the left, the right hand side is static. We can make it dynamic by strengthening the inequality:

(2) 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... + n-2 < 2 - 1/n.

The latter is easily amenable to an inductive argument. Denote the left-hand side of (2) as A(n). The verification of (2) for n = 2 is immediate. Assume (2) holds for n = k:

  A(k) < 2 - 1/k

For n = k + 1, we have

 
A(k+1)= A(k) + (k + 1)-2
 < (2 - 1/k) + 1/(k + 1)2
 < 2 - 1/k + 1/[k(k + 1)]
 = 2 - 1/k·(1 - 1/(k + 1))
 = 2 - 1/k · k/(k + 1)
 = 2 - 1/(k + 1),

which is exactly (2) for n = k + 1. So (2) holds for all n > 1.

If we pass to the limit as n grows, A(n) will become the infinite sum in the left hand side of (1), the right hand side will become 2. However, the inequlaity will change slightly:

(1') 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... ≤ 2

What do we do with the possibility of "="?

Those who know that Σn-2 = π2 / 6, will realize that A(n) could not be close to 2, because π2 / 6 is less than 1.65, let alone 2. Note that the inductive step only deals with the variable part -1/k. The fixed part, 2, is carried over without change. So, perhaps, we can start with a quantity smaller than 2. We can indeed, for A(2) = 1 + 1/4 = 1.25 < 1.8 - 1/2 say. Thus instead of (1') we can try proving

(1'') 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... ≤ 1.8 (< 2)

It is easy to see that all stages of the inductive proof go through for (1'').

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

29436718Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
try this puzzle ?/?? + ?/?? + ?/? ...
Posted by albert1950
0 messages
07:05 AM, Jul-10-08

Monty Hall Problem
Posted by linkdon
72 messages
06:07 PM, Jul-24-08

Missing information
Posted by roboknight
2 messages
07:32 AM, Jun-22-08

Can You See The Patterns..?
Posted by wustvn
0 messages
10:08 AM, Jul-23-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Central Limit Theorem proof problem
Posted by Manuel
1 messages
01:54 PM, Jul-22-08

You can drill a square hole
Posted by Giorgis
1 messages
10:15 PM, Jul-12-08