Proposition $P(n)$
The statement to prove is for all integers .
About 743 wordsAbout 9 min
2025-08-10
Proposition $P(n)$
The statement to prove is P(n):n!≤(n−1)n for all integers n≥3.
Inductive Proof
Base Case: P(3) For n=3, we check if 3!≤(3−1)3.
Inductive Hypothesis Assume that P(k) is true for some arbitrary integer k≥3. That is, we assume: k!≤(k−1)k.
Inductive Step: Proving P(k+1) We want to prove that (k+1)!≤kk+1. Let's start with the left-hand side of the inequality for P(k+1):
(k+1)!=(k+1)×k!
Using our Inductive Hypothesis (k!≤(k−1)k), we can substitute to get:
(k+1)!≤(k+1)×(k−1)k
Now, we need to show that this result is less than or equal to the right-hand side of P(k+1), which is kk+1. We must prove:
(k+1)(k−1)k≤kk+1
Let's divide both sides by kk. This is allowed as k≥3.
(k+1)kk(k−1)k≤k
(k+1)(kk−1)k≤k
(k+1)(1−k1)k≤k
From Bernoulli's inequality or the binomial expansion, we know that for k≥1, (1−k1)k<e1. Also, (1−k1)k is an increasing function. Its value at k=3 is (2/3)3=8/27≈0.296. Another known inequality is that for x>1, (1−1/x)x<1/e<1/2. For k≥3, we have:
(k+1)(1−k1)k<ek+1
To complete the proof, we would need to show ek+1≤k, which means k+1≤ek, or 1≤(e−1)k. Since e−1≈1.718 and k≥3, this inequality holds. Thus, P(k+1) is true.
Conclusion The base case is true, and the inductive step has been proven. By the Principle of Mathematical Induction, n!≤(n−1)n for all n≥3.
Assumption on n
Let's first test for which values of n the inequality n!≤(n−2)n might hold.
It appears we need to make the assumption that n≥5. A similar inductive proof could be attempted with n=5 as the base case, but the algebraic manipulation in the inductive step would be more challenging.
How far can this be pushed?
This question is about finding a tighter upper bound for n! in the form f(n)n. A very important result in mathematics that gives an approximation for the factorial function is Stirling's Approximation:
n!≈2πn(en)n
From this approximation, we can see that n! grows roughly on the order of (en)n. This suggests that the best integer-based function f(n) would be related to en. Since e≈2.718, we can see why (n−2)n is a reasonable bound (for n≥5), and (n−3)n would likely fail, as f(n)=n−3 would be a much smaller base than n/e.
Therefore, the best upper bound of the form f(n)n would involve a function f(n) that is close to en.
87c17-web-deploy(Auto): Update base URL for web-pages branchon Copyright Ownership:WARREN Y.F. LONG
License under:Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0)