An Inequality: 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100 < 1/10
A product of fractions 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n is on the left-hand side of several inequalities: one with a beautiful proof, one that strengthens the former but is virtually impossible to prove, and a third, even stronger, with an elementary proof.
Try your hand with the simplest variation:
| (1) |
1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100 < 1/10.
|
Solution
Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny
Denote the left-hand side of the inequality A:
| |
A = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100.
|
And introduce its nemesis B:
| |
B = 2/3·4/5·6/7· ... ·98/99.
|
Factor by factor, the fractions in B exceed those in A:
| |
2/3 > 1/2, 4/5 > 3/4, ..., 98/99 > 97/98, 1 > 99/100.
|
From this it follows that A < B. Note that, due to the choice of B, in the product AB most of the terms cancel out: AB = 1/100. From here,
which, with one additional step, proves (1).
This proof suggests that (1) is in fact just a special case of a more general inequality
| (2) |
1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n < 1/ (2n),
|
whose proof is a slight modification of the above with A and B defined as
| |
A(n) = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n,
B(n) = 2/3·4/5·6/7· ... ·(2n-2)/(2n-1).
|
As we shall see shortly, (1) and (2) are quite weak: A(n) has a much better bound, viz.
| (3) |
A(n) < 1/ (3n+1).
|
(3) supplies an edifying curiosity. By itself, it is easily proven by mathematical induction. However, its weakened version
| (3') |
A(n) < 1/ (3n),
|
as far as I know, does not submit to an inductive proof. Try it, by all means. (3) and (3') are often quoted as a pair of problems of which the harder one has a simpler proof.
Meanwhile here's a proof for (3).
Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny
To remind,
| |
A(n) = 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·(2n-1)/2n
|
and we wish to prove (3): A(n) < 1/ (3n+1). For n = 1, we have
| |
A(1) = 1/2 = 1/ (3·1+1).
|
But already for n = 2,
| |
A(2) = 1/2·3/4 = 3/8 < 1/ 7 = 1/ (3·2+1),
|
because upon squaring 9/64 < 1/7, for 7·9 = 63 < 64. Thus let's proceed with the inductive step and assume that (3) holds for n = k:
| (4) |
A(k) < 1/ (3k+1).
|
We are going to prove that, for n = k+1, (3) also holds
| (5) |
A(k+1) < 1/ (3(k+1)+1) = 1/ (3k+4).
|
Since A(k+1) = A(k)·(2k+1)/(2k+2), (4) implies
| (6) |
A(k+1) < (2k+1)/(2k+2)·1/ (3k+1).
|
Now square the right hand side in (6):
| (7) |
|
| [(2k+1)/(2k+2)·1/ (3k+1)]2 | = (2k+1)2 / ((2k+2)2(3k+1)) |
| | = (2k+1)2 / (12k3 + 28k2 + 20k + 4) |
| | = (2k+1)2 / [(12k3 + 28k2 + 19k + 4) + k] |
| | = (2k+1)2 / [(2k+1)2(3k+4) + k] |
| | < (2k+1)2 / [(2k+1)2(3k+4)] |
| | = 1 / (3k+4), |
|
which is exactly the right-hand side of (5) and proves (6).
(There is another example where mathematical induction applies easily to a stronger inequality and does not seem to work for a weaker one.)
References
- D.Fomin,S.Genkin,I.Itenberg, Mathematical Circles (Russian Experience), AMS, 1996, p. 90
- S. Savchev, T. Andreescu, Mathematical Miniatures, MAA, 2003, p. 51
- D. O. Shklyarsky, N. N. Chentsov, I. M. Yaglom, Selected Problems and Theorems of Elementary Mathematics, v 1, Moscow, 1959. (In Russian)
Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny
|