/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12208050
It's also the usual first induction problem in your HS book/uni intro course, at least judging by what I have seen.

>>12208072
If you would actually follow the steps you claimed to know, you would first say it is true for 0 because the sum of the first 0 naturals is 0, and on the other side of the sign you would have 0/2 = 0. Then you would assume it holds for some k and do [math]\sum\limits_{i=0}^{k+1} i = \sum\limits_{i=0}^k i + (k+1) = \frac{k(k+1)}{2} + k+1 = \cdots = \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}[/math], where the skipped part is what you did but backwards. Your thing doesn't prove the claim because it is not related to anything. You are not connecting [math]\frac{n(n+1)}{2}[/math] to the sum in any way, only showing that you can write the leftmost term like you have on the far right. Write more!

>>11616796
>So do you suggest to skip to the next section instead of doing the hard problems?
Not necessarily skip, but more like reading the next chapter for the first time and then returning to those if you feel like it. The main theory is what you should focus on, not the problems themselves!

>>11616850
Don't bully!