3
$\begingroup$

Show that $a_1$, $a_2$,...,$a_n$,... form an AP where $a_n$ is defined as below: $a_n = 3+4n$

This is a problem from a grade 10th textbook... I solved the question in a different way from how our teacher did... My question is that was my method wrong? (as my teacher prompted in front of the whole class)

My method:

Let $k$ belong to the set of natural numbers

Then, $a_k = 3+4k$

$a_{k+1} = 3+4(k+1)$

Notice, $a_{k+1} - a_k = 4$

Hence the difference between any two consecutive terms of this progression is constant i.e. 4, and the given equation forms an AP

Teacher's method:

He first got the values of $a_1, a_2$ and $a_3$, then he proceeded to find the differences $a_2 - a_1$, then $a_3 - a_2$, then he showed that the common difference between these two terms is 4, hence he showed that the equation will form an AP for all terms !!??

You can go in-depth and beyond grade 10 level in your answers if it is required because I am always eager to learn!

Edit: Sorry if my MathJax editing is wrong... I am new here :D

Edit 2: I am not saying his method was incorrect... I never wrote that in my question... But him saying that I was wrong is the problematic part... I understand that he was just trying to teach 10th graders about this without being too rigorous...

$\endgroup$
10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You method is correct, and your teacher's one is not. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ Your teacher is not correct, but was likely telling a pedagogical lie appropriate for 10th grade students. Most 10th grade students are not ready for formal proof and so an argument like "and you can see where this is going" suffices. Teachers usually teach with a specific objective in mind. If the objective of the lesson was not "introduce students to formal proof" it's understandable that your teacher may have neglected to give a formal proof. The objective was probably something more like "students will be able to identify arithmetic sequences" for which her method suffices. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ @CharlesHudgins Yes the objective was not introducing to formal proofs, this was from a chapter completely about AP and we haven't done any sort of formal proofs yet, but I believe he had no right to say I was wrong and make everyone in the class laugh at me. He could have acknowledged my solution and explained that this was something we will explore in later classes but for now we will solve using his method for simplicity sake $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ I can't speak to what happened in the class. I can only say that as a math teacher myself sometimes it's necessary (though never without heartache) to "shut down" a higher level student so that lower level students don't get confused, discouraged, etc. The teacher should have followed up with you later to explain that your method is correct but beyond the objective. It's possible (though in my experience unlikely) that you may have had a deeper understanding than the teacher, so that's why the teacher said you were wrong. Also possible you didn't explain yourself correctly. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 14:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One more thing I'll say is that it's common for young mathematicians to become obsessed with rigor. There's something intoxicating about finally being able to prove things you've always just been told. And you start to think that math is all about proving things. But the best mathematicians can do both: prove ideas with extreme rigor and ignore details to see a big picture or discover something new. Which is just to say that you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking unrigorous math is bad math. There's a time and place for relaxed rigor. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 14:55

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Although it is not rigorous, it is common to define a sequence using ellipsis ($\dots$) notation. For example, I've seen many examples where the set of all natural numbers is defined as $\{1,2,3,\dots\}$, or the sequence of primes in ascending order as $2,3,5,\dots$. In these cases, the pattern has always been defined (in the preceding examples: natural numbers and primes. In your case: $a_n=3+4n$), and it is not like they are asking "what comes next in the sequence: $1,2,3,4,...$".

That being said, I think that the teacher is justified in the sense that they are trying to show a pattern clearly. For example, starting at $n=1$, we have $$ 7,11,15,19,.... $$ Then we can see the sequence of differences: $$ 11-7,15-11,19-15,...=4,4,4,.... $$

There is a sense of "this is a learning environment, let's not be too pedantic".

Your method is certainly rigorously correct and (hopefully) the type of math that your teacher is trying to teach. Whether or not they like to take it slow (so much so that going beyond what has been taught is considered wrong) is up to them.

Clearly, you understand the topic well. This may not be the case for the rest of the class, especially if this is a new topic.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

Any type of method is right as long as you are getting the answer right and providing the solution, in this case we notice that we don't have a proper term it is given with definition to the variable n so if we assume $n = 1$ then we should get our first term: $a_n=3+4n$

$a_1 = 3 + 4$

$a_1 = 7$

Similarly $a_2$ will be equal to:

$a_2 = 3 + (4)(2)$

$a_2 = 11$

we got $a_2$ & $a_1$ so we can get d easily which is defined as :

$d = a_2-a_1$

$d = 11 - 7$

$d = 4$

I think you are smart enough to know that any AP can exist in the form of $a, a+d, a+2d, ...., a+(n-1)d$.

substituting the values of $a$ & $d$ we get :

7, 11, 15, 19 .......

This is the required AP.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .