The first one was answered on a thread here:These are beyond me, anyone else?
I had a go at an induction inequality.
I haven't quite finished with the statements but I am basing my method on the Kinney-Lewis method. ( I know there are many methods by which you could do these questions).
Not sure if I have the last step right but my thinking is if k^2+3k, if k greater than or equal to 4, the statement is true.
On track up to this part, your proof of this is not valid
That's true. How about this then:On track up to this part, your proof of this is not valid
Just because does not mean (which is what you do when you divide the inequalities (k+2) > 3 and (k+1) > 2)
For instance, and but
Could you explain your part (iii)?http://puu.sh/kVD1b/237ba30933.JPG
You got any of that binomials?
The addition here is the wrong way around
[/tex]
Its the first time I have seen an Induction question done where you have substituted 2 constants in.
It wouldn't receive full marks unless you prove that last line as it isn't an immediate result
From part 2 we know that 1/n! < 1/e^n but this only occurs at n is bigger or equal to 6.Could you explain your part (iii)?
As kawaiipotato has proven, one needs to only prove:
As kawaiipotato has proven, one needs to only prove:
We can re-arrange it and cancel out the denominators, to proving:
It's just a rearrangement of the preceding line.Why is the 2nd line '>2'.