Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let the sequence $s_n$ be defined by $s_1$ = 1, $s_{n+1}$ = $\frac{1}{4} (2s_n + 5)$ for n $\in $ $\mathbb{N}$. The following is my proof and below it, my concerns.
(1) We will prove $s_n$ is increasing by induction.
That is $s_n \leq s_{n+1}$ for all n $\in \mathbb{N}$.
Since $$s_1 = 1 < s_2 = \frac{1}{4}(2(1)+5) = \frac{7}{4}$$
Now assume $s_k$ $\leq $ $s_{k+1}$
Then $$s_{k+2} = \frac{1}{4} (2s_{k+1} + 5) \geq \frac{1}{4} (2s_k +5) = s_{k+1}$$
Therefore, $s_n$ is a monotone sequence because it is increasing.

(2a) We will prove $s_n$ is bounded above.
That is, find $M \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $s_n \leq M$ for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
Now, we try to prove $20$ is an upper bound.
Since $s_1 = 1 < 20$
Suppose $s_k < 20$, then $$s_{k+1} = \frac{1}{4}(2s_k + 5) < \frac{1}{4}(2(20) + 5) = \frac{45}{4} < 20. $$ Hence, $s_n < 20$ for every n $\in \mathbb{N}$.
Therefore, $s_n$ is bounded above.

(2b) We will prove $s_n$ is bounded below.
That is, find $M \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $s_n \geq M$ for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
Now, we try to prove $0$ is a lower bound.
Since $s_1 = 1 > 0$
Suppose $s_k > 0$, then $$s_{k+1} = \frac{1}{4}(2s_k + 5) > \frac{1}{4}(2(0) + 5) = \frac{5}{4} > 0. $$
Hence, $s_n > 0$ for every n $\in \mathbb{N}$.
Therefore, $s_n$ is bounded below.
Therefore $s_n$ is bounded.

I want to confirm I did my Induction correctly. However, my main concern is in 2b.

share|cite|improve this question
I think this looks right. For (1), I think you meant to reverse the inequality sign, and the second instance of $s_{k+2}$ should be $s_{k+1}$. Also, I think (1) and (2a) imply (2b) immediately without induction, if $s_1=1$ and $(s_n)$ is increasing, then surely it will never dip down to $0$, else it would decrease at some point. – yunone Apr 2 '11 at 2:17
In (1) there is a small typo, I believe, you meant s_{k+1} when you put s_{k+2}=... – WWright Apr 2 '11 at 2:21
Awesome! Thanks, I would have never saw those errors. – enlgmatlc Apr 2 '11 at 2:21
Looks much better, also, +1 for showing a good amount of work before posting. – yunone Apr 2 '11 at 2:26
@enlgmatlc: Punctuation goes outside in-line formulas, but inside display formulas. So $formula$., but $$formula.$$ – Arturo Magidin Apr 11 '11 at 3:01
up vote 2 down vote accepted

There are a couple of typos in your proof of (1). What you intended to write is $$s_{k+2}=\frac{1}{4}(2s_{k+1}+5) > \frac{1}{4}(2s_{k}+5)=s_{k+1}$$

There are also a couple of places where $\le$ is used, where it would be better to use $<$.

As to the sequence being bounded below, there is really nothing to do. You have proved that the sequence is increasing. It starts at 1, so 1 is a lower bound.

share|cite|improve this answer
Wish I would have thought of that before writing it all out, :( Oh well, I'll know better next time I write a similar proof. Thanks for the input! – enlgmatlc Apr 2 '11 at 2:27

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.