Challenging (?) Proof Question (1 Viewer)

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
Prove that if but , then for all .

I am curious as to how Extension 2 students would approach this as a proof problem, and wondering if there are other approaches beyond the two that occur to me. :)
 

fan96

617 pages
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
519
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2024
Is the condition really necessary?

The only case of this I can see is , so it would be simpler to leave it unmentioned.
 

ultra908

Active Member
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
112
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
u can prove by strong induction, n=0 is obvs true, given n=1, then is integer
 
Last edited:

fan96

617 pages
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
519
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2024
If one wanted to actually find examples of , here is an approach that works for .

I'll use the hyperbolic function and its inverse, which aren't in the MX2 syllabus but their definitions are quite simple to understand:

and

Now, let

,

be a real function where .

If is even, then .
If is odd, then .
That is, the parity of is the parity of .

So without loss of generality, assume and make the substitution .

If for some , then

, so





Since ,

.

We require , which should be expected, as for all positive .

The original proposition



is equivalent (I believe) to

.

We also find an interesting identity:



for all .

EDIT: It's worth noting that this shows that if , then .
If then .
The gap between the second and third perfect square is , and this gap will only increase as you go further out.
So . Subbing in these values confirms that .
 
Last edited:

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
Is the condition really necessary?

The only case of this I can see is , so it would be simpler to leave it unmentioned.
There is one other possibility, , so I take your point that requiring isn't really necessary... but it does open the opportunity to expand the proof question to ask for all possible solutions if M is an integer, including a proof that there are no other possibilities with .

On reflection, the result is also true if the restriction on n is simply
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
I agree that the induction approach noted by ultra908 is the obvious / standard approach. The approach from fan96 is not one I had considered, but it's also beyond the MX2 syllabus. Are there any other approaches anyone would consider?
 

5uMath

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
67
Gender
Male
HSC
2023
Prove that if but , then for all .

I am curious as to how Extension 2 students would approach this as a proof problem, and wondering if there are other approaches beyond the two that occur to me. :)
You could go into complex numbers and use Taylor series expressions for real and imaginary part, then you could prove local finite integer ABSOLUTE convergence from a point, calling z_n = M^n + M^(-n) and by proving that |Re(z_n)| and |Im(z_n)| ==> |z_n| converges. Type of approach from complex analysis.
 

HeroWise

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
353
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
Does my Binomial expansion not work, cus that and Induction is the only way My small brain can think off. was thinking of complex numbers too since its in that form but yeah haha
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
Does my Binomial expansion not work, cus that and Induction is the only way My small brain can think off. was thinking of complex numbers too since its in that form but yeah haha
Yes, it will work, but it is effectively a strong induction proof:




Now, applying the symmetry property that





Now, the last term in this series of sums depends on whether is odd or even, so it is best rewritten as:







Whether is odd or even, we can see that can be rewritten as , which must be an integer, and a series of terms each which has a binomial coefficient (an integer) and an expression for some integer . Thus, so long as is an integer and we do strong induction (where we assume that the result is true for all and then prove it follows that it must be true for ), we can get the required result for all
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
I was thinking about a proof like this: The quadratic equation with roots at is

, which expands and rearranges to give

It follows that

We then prove that , with or without using induction,

because that gives must be an integer.
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,483
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
I was thinking about a proof like this: The quadratic equation with roots at is

, which expands and rearranges to give

It follows that

We then prove that , with or without using induction,

because that gives must be an integer.
This is completely valid but technically requires induction to complete the argument for all naturals.
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,363
This is completely valid but technically requires induction to complete the argument for all naturals.
The logic is inductive, I agree, though it doesn't actually need to be presented as an induction proof.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top