Thanks for this video, it really helped me learn how to better phrase some things when teaching mathematical induction, Your videos are super well done, and really stress the important points of each topic, I appreciate your awesome positive energy!
Great video :) Here is a funny trivia: in my country |N include 0, and if we want to exclude 0 from any group of number we add a*, so all natural numbers would be |N*, that means it is also easy to define the domain of 1/x which is |R* The example is great to explain induction but we can go further, it is easy to prove that n = 1, it is done in the video for n
About your algebra video series You can mention about similar matrices,Cayley Hamilton theorem, and maybe Jordan form after you finish with eigenvalues you can record something about rotations , reflections , orthogonalization
The idea here is that you are making an even STRONGER condition, and saying that if that condition is true, the other one also has to be true You want to show: k+1
I solved the induction step like this: Considering that there exists a natural number K such that K ≤ 2^(K - 1), then K + 1 ≤ 2^(K - 1) + 1. Naturally, 2^(K - 1) + 1 ≤ 2^(K - 1) + K. But by the initial hypothesis we know that 2^(K - 1) + K ≤ 2^(K - 1) + 2^(K - 1) = 2^K; therefore, K + 1 ≤ 2^K
Why induction works ? In my opinion it is based on structure of natural number each subset of natural numbers has minimal value each natural number has successor
It’s like a domino effect. You’ve shown that if it works for some natural number k, it will work for k+1. This in turn means that it will work for k+2 etc… (and so it will work for all natural numbers >= k ) but you’ve shown it works for 1. Thus it must work for 2, then 3, then every natural number after
if n ≤ 2^(n - 1) 2^((n + 1) - 1) = 2^((n - 1) + 1) = 2 x 2^(n - 1) ≥ 2 x n but 2 x n = 2n > n + 1 (because 2n - (n + 1) = n + 1 > 0) So we have established if n ≤ 2^(n - 1) 2^((n + 1) - 1) ≥ n + 1
Is math the most trustworthy science? Wel since it's based on certain axioms, as long as we can't prove that those axioms are true we can't really know if math is 100% trustworthy. But then again most of our systems that we have are at a certain level based on axiom(s).
You need to state what is accurate or inaccurate. Your comment s not helping me learn anything from you. I'd appreciate if you post something helpful 🙂
By who? Induction is not "weaker" than other forms of proof. It's just as mathematically valid as other methods, if it gave less of a correct result it wouldn't ever be used
@@DBstudios98 All proofs give correct result hence the name. But there are types of proofs with their methods. As per experts, induction is weakest yet most interesting. And as per them, proof by brute force would require all exhaustive cases checked hence large complexity. Like if chess would ever be solved, it would require brute force algorithm. Even for quantum computers, solving chess would take lot of time.
The passion this man has is unrivalled, amazing to watch!
This man is👍👍👍👍
I love the diversity of the questions u cover, from simple high school to undergraduate to Olympiad material. Keep going, and never stop learning!
A world full of teachers like you would solve a lot of problems, not only mathematical problems!
This man is better than any class teacher and private tutor.
Totally agree
I really love this man he is the best maths tutor I have ever seen
Guys remember to like the video, that’s the least we can do to thank him
Your voice ❗️it literary compels me not only to learn but to understand idk how describe it but tysm for choosing to do this
One of the best videos explaining this topic
Thanks for this video, it really helped me learn how to better phrase some things when teaching mathematical induction, Your videos are super well done, and really stress the important points of each topic, I appreciate your awesome positive energy!
Glad it helped!
Thank you for you message. I appreciate it too
I always wondered why they add "+ 1" to k and now I completely understand. *Subscribed*
Great video :)
Here is a funny trivia: in my country |N include 0, and if we want to exclude 0 from any group of number we add a*, so all natural numbers would be |N*, that means it is also easy to define the domain of 1/x which is |R*
The example is great to explain induction but we can go further, it is easy to prove that n = 1, it is done in the video
for n
Nice observation. I'll take note
The Best explanation there exist❤
very nice video !!!
Woe😊😊 now I have got A good ter❤ keep it up sir
Thank you for your guidance and support. Your dedication inspires me to learn and grow.
Sincerely, [Thomas]"
Damn...I was sooo confused but my doubts are now cleared!!...Mathematical proofs can be a unforgiving but thanks to you all's well!!!
Never disappoints.
About your algebra video series
You can mention about similar matrices,Cayley Hamilton theorem, and maybe Jordan form
after you finish with eigenvalues you can record something about rotations , reflections , orthogonalization
what we have to prove is the same as "2n
Amazing can u set of questions these type in a another video
1:29 This is one of the reasons I like math
For examle when I used to go to school Pluto was consider a planet now it isnt
I agree
I love your videos bro. Thanks.
You're the best!
Wow genial esa pasión que le pone a los videos
If k+1
It wouldn't follow from that, correct.
But:
The fact that k+1
I have the same problem. Surely you can only make the right hand side bigger, not smaller.
The idea here is that you are making an even STRONGER condition, and saying that if that condition is true, the other one also has to be true
You want to show: k+1
Is it that k+1
@@danielschneider9358 you are making the condition WEAKER, not stronger. If you are trying to show that a
I love your content bro
At 11:30 I didn't see the reason for the conclusion that k + 1 = k + 1 and hence make the connection k + 1
How did you know 2k
@@PrimeNewtons you got a point there. What I could have said was that our induction step assumes that the statement k
My faith in math is shaken by proofs such as: The sum of all positive integers is negative one twelfth.
Beautiful ❤️
Great proof.
Do you have any advice for math youtubers who are just starting out ?
It's not difficult, but really cool,
n
For 6
This was cool 😎 thanks
I solved the induction step like this:
Considering that there exists a natural number K such that K ≤ 2^(K - 1), then K + 1 ≤ 2^(K - 1) + 1. Naturally, 2^(K - 1) + 1 ≤ 2^(K - 1) + K. But by the initial hypothesis we know that 2^(K - 1) + K ≤ 2^(K - 1) + 2^(K - 1) = 2^K; therefore, K + 1 ≤ 2^K
i have a question isn't 0 a natural number ? in addition to that p(n=0) is a true statement since 0
0 is not a natural number
0 is not a natural number
Why induction works ?
In my opinion it is based on structure of natural number
each subset of natural numbers has minimal value
each natural number has successor
It’s like a domino effect.
You’ve shown that if it works for some natural number k, it will work for k+1. This in turn means that it will work for k+2 etc… (and so it will work for all natural numbers >= k )
but you’ve shown it works for 1. Thus it must work for 2, then 3, then every natural number after
Yeah I think that’s the well ordering principle
Sorry, i don’t understand why k+1 is < or = a 2k?
Thanks 🙏 I'm just having my exam in the next 24 hrs
Sorry, I think your last step is wrong. You can only make the RHS bigger, not smaller.
Okay
why?
We can use Bernoulli’s inequality
Please come to meridian world school in Texas and teach us pls I beg u my brotha
if n ≤ 2^(n - 1)
2^((n + 1) - 1) = 2^((n - 1) + 1) = 2 x 2^(n - 1) ≥ 2 x n
but 2 x n = 2n > n + 1 (because 2n - (n + 1) = n + 1 > 0)
So we have established
if n ≤ 2^(n - 1)
2^((n + 1) - 1) ≥ n + 1
8:29😁😁
Is math the most trustworthy science? Wel since it's based on certain axioms, as long as we can't prove that those axioms are true we can't really know if math is 100% trustworthy. But then again most of our systems that we have are at a certain level based on axiom(s).
Bro,solve this mathematical induction question 3^n≥n^2,for all natural number,I need this question answers.please!
At 5.15 u proved that 1 and 2 are natural but u did not say anything about 3
The explanation is not logically accurate, so it is difficult for students to understand.
You need to state what is accurate or inaccurate. Your comment s not helping me learn anything from you. I'd appreciate if you post something helpful 🙂
To be honest I never liked proof by induction.
Among all different types of proofs, the proof by induction is said to be the weakest one actually.
By who? Induction is not "weaker" than other forms of proof. It's just as mathematically valid as other methods, if it gave less of a correct result it wouldn't ever be used
@@DBstudios98
All proofs give correct result hence the name.
But there are types of proofs with their methods.
As per experts, induction is weakest yet most interesting. And as per them, proof by brute force would require all exhaustive cases checked hence large complexity. Like if chess would ever be solved, it would require brute force algorithm. Even for quantum computers, solving chess would take lot of time.
There are arguments that are not logically accurate.
please help me solve this Show that
5^n +6^n < 9N for n greater or equals 2.