Thursday, 13 April 2017

elementary number theory - Prove forallninmathbbN, 6vert(n3n). (strong induction)




Pretty straight forward idea to be proven here, but trying to grasp the fundamentals of what one would consider "strong induction". Please see my proof below, my questions are: is this a valid proof? Is this stylistically appropriate for a proof via strong induction?



EDIT: Sorry as it was not clear in my original question, but this post was more so to assist in grasping fundamentals of Strong Induction. Although thanks for pointing out the simplistic method of realizing that (n3n) is simply the product of three consecutive integers and is thus divisible by a factor of 2 and 3.



Q: Prove nN, 6|(n3n).



Proof. We will prove this via mathematical induction.



Base Case. Let n=1 and observe that 6|0 is true. Let n=2 and observe that 6|6 is true. Finally, let n=3 and observe that 6|24 is true. Thus for nN where 1n3 our proposition holds.




Inductive Step. Assume our proposition is true for n=j where 1jk and k3. Since 6|(k3k) we know k3k=6l for some lZ.



Then



(k2)3(k2)=k36k2+12k8k+2=(k3k)6k2+12k6=6l6k2+12k6=6(lk2+2k1).




Thus mZ,(k2)3(k2)=6m6|(k2)3(k2). It follows by mathematical induction that nN, 6|(n3n).


Answer



I'm not sure that I understand your inductive step. You say that for all j such that 1jk,6|j3j and k3. Then you should now show that this property holds for k+1, that is, 6|(k+1)3+k+1. Instead, it looks like you show me that 6|(k2)3(k2).



Instead, consider that (k+1)3(k+1)=k3+3k2+2k and (k1)3(k1)=k33k2+2k. Compare the two.



Note that while this isn't the induction you're used to (sometimes called weak induction, or the first principle of induction), this "strong" induction isn't much stronger. The proof only needs the case that k1 has the desired property to show that k+1 has the property as well. The idea of strong induction is that you would use the fact that all j from 1 to k use the desired property.



A good example would be the proof of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic; to show that every number greater than 1 has a prime factorization, we first say that 2 is prime (the base case). Now let k>2, and say that for all j such that 2jk, j has a prime factorization. If k+1 is prime, it is its own prime factorization. If not, it has a prime factor less than it, say p. Then k+1p has a prime factorization by the strong induction hypothesis, so k+1 does as well. Here, the entire assumption for all j is needed, because you don't know exactly what k+1p is, just that it's less than k+1.



No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...