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

Is there another way to determine monotonicity besides $U_{n+1} - U_n$?

share|cite|improve this question
U_{n+1} / U_n. More generally, you can compose U_n with any increasing function (this preserves monotonicity), then test the monotonicity of the new sequence. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 30 '10 at 19:01
(I'm in a silly mood, sorry) I find most sequences very dull, so for me the test would be $P(U_n$ is monotonous $) = 1$ almost always. – Loop Space Oct 30 '10 at 19:03
Andrew is funny, but I'd lower the probability to $1-\epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is exceedingly tiny. In any event, it's "monotonicity". – J. M. Oct 30 '10 at 22:54
Thanks hehe :P Duly edited – Qosmo Oct 30 '10 at 23:56
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I'll write something so this question doesn't remain unanswered.

Sometimes it can be quite difficult to prove that a sequence is increasing. For example, Smetaniuk gave a proof that the number of Latin squares $L_n$ (Sloane's A002860) is increasing (actually, he proved $L_{n+1} \geq (n+1)!L_n$), which is one of the best results around regarding the mysterious $L_n$.

Smetaniuk, Bohdan A new construction of Latin squares. II. The number of Latin squares is strictly increasing. Ars Combin. 14 (1982), 131–145.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.