Mathematics Sign up Log in

Questions Tags Users Badges Ask

Prove that n for all natural numbers n . [duplicate]

n
17 < 2

inequality
induction

This question already has answers here:

Proof by induction - Being stuck before being able to prove anything!
(3 answers)

Closed 3 years ago.

Prove that n < 2

n

for all natural numbers n .

I tried this with induction:

Inequality clearly holds when n = 1 .

k
Supposing that when n = k k < 2, .

Considering k + 1 < 2
k
+ 1 , but where do I go from here?

Any other methods maybe?

Share
Follow

IKXZNJ
asked
319 ● 1 ● 2 ● 6 Jul 22 '13 at 18:30

Start wearing purple

edited
51.7k ● 12 ● 152 ● 212 Jul 22 '13 at 21:09

1 no instead of 2k + 1 ,write 2k+1

– dato datuashvili
Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

Note, your answer was almost complete. Just note that 2k ≥ 1 and therefore
k+1 k k k
2 = 2 + 2 ≥ 2 + 1 > k + 1

– Thomas Andrews
Jul 22 '13 at 19:23

Add a comment

12 Answers order by
votes

Counting argument:
28
Let S be a set with n elements. There are 2n subsets of S . There are n singleton subsets of S .
There is at least one non-singleton subset of S , the empty subset.
Share
Follow

Thomas Andrews
answered
158k ● 17 ● 185 ● 355 Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

i'm sorry, but doesn't that beg the question, i.e. why each set has 2n subsets? so you have to complete this proof (it is
clear of course how to do so, I just wanted to add this for the sake of completeness)...
– W_D
Jul 22 '13 at 18:48

5 Sure, if you don't know what 2n counts, then you can't use this proof. But this proof doesn't "beg the question" because I
don't assume what is to be proven, I assume some other theorem. :) @AlexWhite
– Thomas Andrews
Jul 22 '13 at 18:51

Add a comment

Proof by induction.
23
Let n ∈ N .

n
Step 1.: Let n = 1 ⇒ n < 2 holds, since 1 < 2 .

Step 2.: Assume n < 2

n
holds where n = k and k ≥ 1 .

n
Step 3.: Prove n < 2 holds for n = k + 1 and k ≥ 1 to complete the proof.

k < 2
k
, using step 2.

k
2 × k < 2 × 2

k+1
2k < 2 (1)

On the other hand, k > 1 ⇒ k + 1 < k + k = 2k . Hence k + 1 < 2k (2)

By merging results (1) and (2).

k+1
k + 1 < 2k < 2

k+1
k + 1 < 2

n
Hence, n < 2 holds for all n ∈ N

Share
Follow

user71352
answered
12.3k ● 2 ● 16 ● 28 Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

Thomas Andrews
edited
158k ● 17 ● 185 ● 355 Jul 24 '13 at 18:40

you can actually start at n = 0 , depending on the OPs definition of natural numbers, but then this proof won't work since
2n ≥ n + 1 is not true for n = 0 . It's more general to go from 2 > 1 + n.
n+1 n n n
= 2 + 2 ≥ 1 + 2

– Thomas Andrews
Jul 22 '13 at 19:21

 That is true but when OP mentioned his/her attempt he/she started his/her induction at n = 1 . So he/she has assumed a
definition that does not include 0 . Or perhaps neglected to mention his/her n = 0 case.
– user71352
Jul 22 '13 at 19:27

Add a comment

n
n
n n
18 Note that 2 = (1 + 1) = 1 + ∑( ) holds for all n ∈ N .
k
k=1

n
> ( ) = n
1

Share
Follow

Samrat Mukhopadhyay
answered
15.9k ● 27 ● 51 Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

♦
Pedro Tamaroff

114k ● 15 ● 192 ● 349

edited
Jul 22 '13 at 18:37

Since no-one's posted it yet:

17
This is of course a special case of Cantor's theorem: for any cardinal number n , n < 2
n
, and so in
particular it's true for all finite cardinals (aka naturals).

Share
Follow

Chris Eagle
answered
31.5k ● 2 ● 82 ● 104 Jul 22 '13 at 19:35

The only issue with this approach is that to match what the OP meant by 2 , you need to prove that
n

n
|2 | = | 2 × 2 × ⋯ × 2 |.

n times

– dfeuer
Jul 23 '13 at 0:27

Add a comment

You can also prove this using the derivative. Since n < 2
n
for n = 1 , and moreover:
8
n
1 < log 2 ⋅ 2

For all n ,
> 1 ∈ R n < 2
n
for the same.

Share
Follow

nbubis
answered
31.3k ● 7 ● 68 ● 130 Jul 22 '13 at 18:39

2 to be complete don't forget to state that both functions are monotonous positive
– kriss
Jul 23 '13 at 8:56

Add a comment
 Hint:
6
2 n
1+z+z +…+z
n+1
z −1
=
z−1

n n 1
2 = (2 − 1) + 1 = (1 + 2 + 2 +

n−1
… + 2 )(2 − 1) + 1

> (1 + 1 + … + 1) + 1 = n

n−1

Share
Follow

M.H
answered
11k ● 2 ● 23 ● 64 Jul 22 '13 at 18:53

edited
Jul 22 '13 at 18:55

Since you asked, it is not a wrong solution, but the power series formula seems like a big stick to apply here, somehow. It
is like my counting argument in that it references another result, but the counting argument feels like it gives an external
intuition for the result, while this proof just seems to make it more complicated. In particular, any times you use … in an
expression for beginning proof theory, you are hiding an induction. My proof hides induction too, but it is perhaps a more
intuitive case.
– Thomas Andrews
Jul 22 '13 at 19:31

Add a comment

To add yet another answer, let us use AM/GM inequality. For n ≥ 1 one has
5
n 0 1 n−1
2 − 1 2 + 2 + … + 2
=
n n
1
n−1
n
0+1+…+(n−1)
≥ (2 ) = 2 2 ≥ 1,

and therefore 2n − n ≥ 1 .

Share
Follow

Start wearing purple

answered
51.7k ● 12 ● 152 ● 212 Jul 22 '13 at 19:51

If we assume 2k > k
4
k+1 k
2 = 2 ⋅ 2 > 2 ⋅ k which we need to be ≥ k + 1 ⟺ k ≥ 1

Share
Follow
 lab bhattacharjee
answered
1 Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

We need to prove the claim true for n = k + 1 , where k ≥ 1 . That is, we need to prove that
4
k + 1 < 2
k+1
. Observe that:

k
k + 1 < 2 + 1 by the induction hypothesis
k
< 2 + 2

k 1
= 2 + 2
k k
≤ 2 + 2 since 1 ≤ k
k
= 2(2 )

k+1
= 2

as desired.

Share
Follow

Adriano
answered
39.5k ● 3 ● 41 ● 79 Jul 22 '13 at 18:36

Here's your proof:

3

… just kidding of course … kind of.

Well, you can actually easily show that the derivative d x

2 = 2
x
log(2) is greater than 1 for all
dx

x ≥ 1 (the break-even point is somewhere around 0.528766) and since 1 is the derivative of
x 1
f (x) = x of course, we just need to show that 2 > x for x = 1 , i.e. that 2 > 1 and we can
x
deduce that this will always be the case because the gradient is always greater for 2 than for x .
And since it is true for all real numbers ≥ 1 it's of course also true for the natural numbers.
Uncountably infinite overkill if you will but still an easy proof.

You can also go on to prove that 2x > x for all real numbers. For x smaller than the above-
log(log(2))
mentioned break-even point of x = − ≈ 0.528766 the above argument is true just in
log(2)

log(log(2))
reverse. The gradient of x will always be greater than that of 2x . For x = − itself it's a
log(2)
log(log(2))
− 1
matter of a simple calculation to show that 2x > x since 2 log(2)
= ≈ 1.442695 .
log(2)

Again, Wolfram Alpha has a nice visualization for this.

log(log(2))
So tl;dr of this: at no point are the two functions closer than for x = − ≈ 0.528766
log(2)

x
(this means especially that they do not cross) and even there 2 > x .

Share
Follow
 Christian
answered
178 ● 9 Jul 23 '13 at 0:05

edited
May 7 '14 at 17:08

Well 2k + 1 < 2
k+1
for k ≥ 1 so k + 1 < 2
k
+ 1 < 2
k+1
.
2

Share
Follow

Michael Albanese
answered
85k ● 17 ● 157 ● 402 Jul 22 '13 at 18:32

Assume there is n kind of fruit and you can choose one of each; so you have 2n options,
if you can
0 only choose one fruit of all, you will have n option,

In which scenario you have more option?!

Share
Follow

Sadegh
answered
111 ● 3 Jul 23 '13 at 6:03

edited
Jul 23 '13 at 6:11

I don't understand this answer as written, at least the 2 part. For the n part, if you have n different fruits, and you choose
n

exactly one of them, there are n options, I agree. On the other hand, if you have n different fruits, and for each fruit, you
either select it or do not select it, then there are 2n options for the sets of selected fruits. Is that what is meant? This is
similar to Thomas's answer.
– Jonas Meyer
Jul 23 '13 at 7:02

@jonasMeyer Yes, that exactly what I meant,

– Sadegh
Jul 23 '13 at 7:09

Add a comment

meta
chat
tour
help
blog
privacy policy
legal
contact us
cookie settings
full site
2021 Stack Exchange, Inc. user contributions under cc by-sa