Mathematical Induction & Sequencing











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $q_1$ be an arbitrary positive real number and define the sequence {$ q_{n};$} by $ q_{n+1};$ = $ q_{n};$ + $frac{1}{q_n}$



Must there be an index k for which $q_k > 5^{50}$?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $q_1$ be an arbitrary positive real number and define the sequence {$ q_{n};$} by $ q_{n+1};$ = $ q_{n};$ + $frac{1}{q_n}$



    Must there be an index k for which $q_k > 5^{50}$?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $q_1$ be an arbitrary positive real number and define the sequence {$ q_{n};$} by $ q_{n+1};$ = $ q_{n};$ + $frac{1}{q_n}$



      Must there be an index k for which $q_k > 5^{50}$?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $q_1$ be an arbitrary positive real number and define the sequence {$ q_{n};$} by $ q_{n+1};$ = $ q_{n};$ + $frac{1}{q_n}$



      Must there be an index k for which $q_k > 5^{50}$?







      sequences-and-series combinatorics






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 23 at 22:32









      Scientifica

      6,27641333




      6,27641333










      asked Apr 2 '17 at 14:24







      user431696





























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          It is easy to show $q_n$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers. Thus if it is bounded, it converges. Let us assume $q_n$ is bounded. If $q_n$ converges, then $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n + frac{1}{q_n}) iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty} (frac{1}{q_n} =0)$ $ iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty}{q_n} = infty$



          But then $q_n$ is not bounded, which is a contradiction.
          Thus $q_n$ is unbounded, and for all M we can find an n for which $q_n >M$






          share|cite|improve this answer






























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Let's assume the sequence were bounded. Since it is a strictly increasing sequence, it follows that is must converge to some finite limit. Let's call that limit $q$. Note that since for $q_nle 1$ we have $q_{n+1} = q_n + 1/q_n > 1/q_n ge 1$, therefore $q>1$.



            Now since $q_n$ converges to $q$, for every $epsilon>0$ there's an $N$ so that $q_n>q-epsilon$ for all $nge N$. Let's specifically take $epsilon=1/q$. Note that $epsilon>0$ because of $q>1$. Then you've got some $N$ so that $q-epsilon<q_N<q$. But then, $q_{N+1}=q_N+1/q_N > q-epsilon +1/q_N = q - 1/q + 1/q_N > q -1/q + 1/q = q$, in contradiction to the assumption that $q$ is an upper bound. Therefore the assumption that the sequence is bounded must be wrong.



            Since the sequence is unbounded and strictly monotonous growing, it will grow above any bound, including the bound $5^{50}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • $1/q$ isn't better?
              – Rafa Budría
              Apr 2 '17 at 15:25










            • @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
              – celtschk
              Apr 2 '17 at 15:28










            • I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
              – Rafa Budría
              Apr 2 '17 at 15:29










            • @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
              – celtschk
              Apr 2 '17 at 15:30


















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Since $q_1$ is positive and greater $0$ and $frac{1}{q_1}$ is positive and greater $0$, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be positive as well. Furthermore since $frac{1}{q_1}$ is greater 0, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be greater than $q_1$ and by induction this means that the sequence is strictly increasing.



            If the sequence were bounded, that would mean it would converge to a certain value. If that were the case, the difference between two consecutive numbers in the sequence would need to tend to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=0$. Substituting $q_{n+1}=q_n+frac{1}{q_n}$, we get $0=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n+frac{1}{q_n}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})$, yet $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})=0Leftrightarrow limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}q_n=infty$, which would contradicts the series being bounded.



            Therefore the series is not bounded and will eventually reach any arbitrarily large number.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
              – Rafa Budría
              Apr 2 '17 at 14:34













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2214550%2fmathematical-induction-sequencing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown
























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            3
            down vote













            It is easy to show $q_n$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers. Thus if it is bounded, it converges. Let us assume $q_n$ is bounded. If $q_n$ converges, then $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n + frac{1}{q_n}) iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty} (frac{1}{q_n} =0)$ $ iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty}{q_n} = infty$



            But then $q_n$ is not bounded, which is a contradiction.
            Thus $q_n$ is unbounded, and for all M we can find an n for which $q_n >M$






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              3
              down vote













              It is easy to show $q_n$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers. Thus if it is bounded, it converges. Let us assume $q_n$ is bounded. If $q_n$ converges, then $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n + frac{1}{q_n}) iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty} (frac{1}{q_n} =0)$ $ iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty}{q_n} = infty$



              But then $q_n$ is not bounded, which is a contradiction.
              Thus $q_n$ is unbounded, and for all M we can find an n for which $q_n >M$






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                3
                down vote










                up vote
                3
                down vote









                It is easy to show $q_n$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers. Thus if it is bounded, it converges. Let us assume $q_n$ is bounded. If $q_n$ converges, then $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n + frac{1}{q_n}) iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty} (frac{1}{q_n} =0)$ $ iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty}{q_n} = infty$



                But then $q_n$ is not bounded, which is a contradiction.
                Thus $q_n$ is unbounded, and for all M we can find an n for which $q_n >M$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                It is easy to show $q_n$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers. Thus if it is bounded, it converges. Let us assume $q_n$ is bounded. If $q_n$ converges, then $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}) =lim_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n + frac{1}{q_n}) iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty} (frac{1}{q_n} =0)$ $ iff lim_{nrightarrowinfty}{q_n} = infty$



                But then $q_n$ is not bounded, which is a contradiction.
                Thus $q_n$ is unbounded, and for all M we can find an n for which $q_n >M$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Apr 2 '17 at 15:25

























                answered Apr 2 '17 at 15:12









                Daphna Keidar

                1896




                1896






















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Let's assume the sequence were bounded. Since it is a strictly increasing sequence, it follows that is must converge to some finite limit. Let's call that limit $q$. Note that since for $q_nle 1$ we have $q_{n+1} = q_n + 1/q_n > 1/q_n ge 1$, therefore $q>1$.



                    Now since $q_n$ converges to $q$, for every $epsilon>0$ there's an $N$ so that $q_n>q-epsilon$ for all $nge N$. Let's specifically take $epsilon=1/q$. Note that $epsilon>0$ because of $q>1$. Then you've got some $N$ so that $q-epsilon<q_N<q$. But then, $q_{N+1}=q_N+1/q_N > q-epsilon +1/q_N = q - 1/q + 1/q_N > q -1/q + 1/q = q$, in contradiction to the assumption that $q$ is an upper bound. Therefore the assumption that the sequence is bounded must be wrong.



                    Since the sequence is unbounded and strictly monotonous growing, it will grow above any bound, including the bound $5^{50}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • $1/q$ isn't better?
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:25










                    • @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:28










                    • I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:29










                    • @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:30















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Let's assume the sequence were bounded. Since it is a strictly increasing sequence, it follows that is must converge to some finite limit. Let's call that limit $q$. Note that since for $q_nle 1$ we have $q_{n+1} = q_n + 1/q_n > 1/q_n ge 1$, therefore $q>1$.



                    Now since $q_n$ converges to $q$, for every $epsilon>0$ there's an $N$ so that $q_n>q-epsilon$ for all $nge N$. Let's specifically take $epsilon=1/q$. Note that $epsilon>0$ because of $q>1$. Then you've got some $N$ so that $q-epsilon<q_N<q$. But then, $q_{N+1}=q_N+1/q_N > q-epsilon +1/q_N = q - 1/q + 1/q_N > q -1/q + 1/q = q$, in contradiction to the assumption that $q$ is an upper bound. Therefore the assumption that the sequence is bounded must be wrong.



                    Since the sequence is unbounded and strictly monotonous growing, it will grow above any bound, including the bound $5^{50}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • $1/q$ isn't better?
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:25










                    • @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:28










                    • I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:29










                    • @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:30













                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    Let's assume the sequence were bounded. Since it is a strictly increasing sequence, it follows that is must converge to some finite limit. Let's call that limit $q$. Note that since for $q_nle 1$ we have $q_{n+1} = q_n + 1/q_n > 1/q_n ge 1$, therefore $q>1$.



                    Now since $q_n$ converges to $q$, for every $epsilon>0$ there's an $N$ so that $q_n>q-epsilon$ for all $nge N$. Let's specifically take $epsilon=1/q$. Note that $epsilon>0$ because of $q>1$. Then you've got some $N$ so that $q-epsilon<q_N<q$. But then, $q_{N+1}=q_N+1/q_N > q-epsilon +1/q_N = q - 1/q + 1/q_N > q -1/q + 1/q = q$, in contradiction to the assumption that $q$ is an upper bound. Therefore the assumption that the sequence is bounded must be wrong.



                    Since the sequence is unbounded and strictly monotonous growing, it will grow above any bound, including the bound $5^{50}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    Let's assume the sequence were bounded. Since it is a strictly increasing sequence, it follows that is must converge to some finite limit. Let's call that limit $q$. Note that since for $q_nle 1$ we have $q_{n+1} = q_n + 1/q_n > 1/q_n ge 1$, therefore $q>1$.



                    Now since $q_n$ converges to $q$, for every $epsilon>0$ there's an $N$ so that $q_n>q-epsilon$ for all $nge N$. Let's specifically take $epsilon=1/q$. Note that $epsilon>0$ because of $q>1$. Then you've got some $N$ so that $q-epsilon<q_N<q$. But then, $q_{N+1}=q_N+1/q_N > q-epsilon +1/q_N = q - 1/q + 1/q_N > q -1/q + 1/q = q$, in contradiction to the assumption that $q$ is an upper bound. Therefore the assumption that the sequence is bounded must be wrong.



                    Since the sequence is unbounded and strictly monotonous growing, it will grow above any bound, including the bound $5^{50}$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Apr 2 '17 at 15:30

























                    answered Apr 2 '17 at 15:21









                    celtschk

                    29.7k75599




                    29.7k75599












                    • $1/q$ isn't better?
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:25










                    • @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:28










                    • I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:29










                    • @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:30


















                    • $1/q$ isn't better?
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:25










                    • @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:28










                    • I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:29










                    • @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                      – celtschk
                      Apr 2 '17 at 15:30
















                    $1/q$ isn't better?
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:25




                    $1/q$ isn't better?
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:25












                    @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                    – celtschk
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:28




                    @RafaBudría: Yes; I originally named the limit $a$ and then renamed it to $q$, but then erroneously continued to use $a$ in the text added after doing the change.
                    – celtschk
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:28












                    I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:29




                    I supposed that. Still remain some a's :)
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:29












                    @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                    – celtschk
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:30




                    @RafaBudría: I hope now I missed no further one; thank you.
                    – celtschk
                    Apr 2 '17 at 15:30










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Since $q_1$ is positive and greater $0$ and $frac{1}{q_1}$ is positive and greater $0$, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be positive as well. Furthermore since $frac{1}{q_1}$ is greater 0, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be greater than $q_1$ and by induction this means that the sequence is strictly increasing.



                    If the sequence were bounded, that would mean it would converge to a certain value. If that were the case, the difference between two consecutive numbers in the sequence would need to tend to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=0$. Substituting $q_{n+1}=q_n+frac{1}{q_n}$, we get $0=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n+frac{1}{q_n}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})$, yet $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})=0Leftrightarrow limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}q_n=infty$, which would contradicts the series being bounded.



                    Therefore the series is not bounded and will eventually reach any arbitrarily large number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer



















                    • 1




                      Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 14:34

















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Since $q_1$ is positive and greater $0$ and $frac{1}{q_1}$ is positive and greater $0$, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be positive as well. Furthermore since $frac{1}{q_1}$ is greater 0, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be greater than $q_1$ and by induction this means that the sequence is strictly increasing.



                    If the sequence were bounded, that would mean it would converge to a certain value. If that were the case, the difference between two consecutive numbers in the sequence would need to tend to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=0$. Substituting $q_{n+1}=q_n+frac{1}{q_n}$, we get $0=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n+frac{1}{q_n}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})$, yet $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})=0Leftrightarrow limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}q_n=infty$, which would contradicts the series being bounded.



                    Therefore the series is not bounded and will eventually reach any arbitrarily large number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer



















                    • 1




                      Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 14:34















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    Since $q_1$ is positive and greater $0$ and $frac{1}{q_1}$ is positive and greater $0$, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be positive as well. Furthermore since $frac{1}{q_1}$ is greater 0, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be greater than $q_1$ and by induction this means that the sequence is strictly increasing.



                    If the sequence were bounded, that would mean it would converge to a certain value. If that were the case, the difference between two consecutive numbers in the sequence would need to tend to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=0$. Substituting $q_{n+1}=q_n+frac{1}{q_n}$, we get $0=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n+frac{1}{q_n}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})$, yet $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})=0Leftrightarrow limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}q_n=infty$, which would contradicts the series being bounded.



                    Therefore the series is not bounded and will eventually reach any arbitrarily large number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    Since $q_1$ is positive and greater $0$ and $frac{1}{q_1}$ is positive and greater $0$, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be positive as well. Furthermore since $frac{1}{q_1}$ is greater 0, $q_2=q_1+frac{1}{q_1}$ will be greater than $q_1$ and by induction this means that the sequence is strictly increasing.



                    If the sequence were bounded, that would mean it would converge to a certain value. If that were the case, the difference between two consecutive numbers in the sequence would need to tend to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=0$. Substituting $q_{n+1}=q_n+frac{1}{q_n}$, we get $0=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_{n+1}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(q_n+frac{1}{q_n}-q_n)=limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})$, yet $limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}(frac{1}{q_n})=0Leftrightarrow limlimits_{nrightarrowinfty}q_n=infty$, which would contradicts the series being bounded.



                    Therefore the series is not bounded and will eventually reach any arbitrarily large number.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Apr 2 '17 at 15:35

























                    answered Apr 2 '17 at 14:29









                    Thorgott

                    544314




                    544314








                    • 1




                      Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 14:34
















                    • 1




                      Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                      – Rafa Budría
                      Apr 2 '17 at 14:34










                    1




                    1




                    Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 14:34






                    Doesn't follow. You proved it's increasing, not that it's unbounded. I think in fact it's unbounded, but proof is needed.
                    – Rafa Budría
                    Apr 2 '17 at 14:34




















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2214550%2fmathematical-induction-sequencing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen