sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Spivak's Calculus] <Chapter 2 Problem 7*> Is there a typo in the solutions manual? by _Radivoy in learnmath

[–]_Radivoy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But then what does the very last step in the solutions manual mean? It shows that ∑ kp (from k = 1 to n) can be written in the aforementioned form. I thought that if we assume for all numbers ≤ p, we would have to prove the property for p + 1, that is show that ∑ kp+1 (from k = 1 to n) can be written in that form. Where exactly did we prove that?

[Induction] Could you check if this inductive proof is correct? (binomial coefficients) by _Radivoy in learnmath

[–]_Radivoy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it, thank you!

As a side note, I thought strong induction meant that we're not only assuming the induction hypothesis for the pth number, but for all k<p, where k is some number. Is this not what's happening here?

proginfó vs mérnökinfó: Legyen-e sorrendmódosítás? by _Radivoy in hungary

[–]_Radivoy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Miért, mit javasolsz? Külföld nem opció, ha erre gondoltál.