1

I am attaching my workings which should make this clearer but the crux of this is that I have just proven by induction that the sum of the first n squares is: $\dfrac{n(n + 1)(2n + 1)}{6}$

The issue is that I did this by proving the base case $n = 1$, assuming it is true for arbitrary $n \leq k$ and then showing true for $k + 1$ and breaking down both sides of an equation to:

$$\dfrac{2k^3 + 9k^2 + 13k + 6}{6}$$

This took some time, including finding and correcting a mistake, and when I checked my answer at the back of the book it was proven in two lines as seen here:

By induction. True for $n=1$. If $n>1$, then $$1^2+2^2+\dots+n^2=\left(1^2+2^2+\dots+(n-1)^2\right)+n^2=\\ \frac{(n-1)n(2n-1)}6+n^2=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}6$$

Induction is something I understand with the ladder analogy, first prove the first step $n = 1$ is there, then assume an arbitrary step $k$ is there and prove the step after it $k + 1$ is there. If we can do that, we can set that random step to the first step, and use what we have proven with $k + 1$ to traverse the entire ladder. My understanding comes from what I read in Discrete Maths - Elementary and Beyond, and a video from Khan Academy and theTrevTutor.

I get that the author uses $n$ instead of $k$ but I do not understand how in that solution where $\frac{(n-1)n(2n-1)}6$ comes from and how it is used. Referencing the ladder analogy, I thought that perhaps the solution uses the step previous to $k$, $k - 1$, instead of the step after $k + 1$ but I cannot seem to work that out.

This kind of solution was provided for another problem I solved with more lines before this also, so I would love to understand what I am missing so I can apply it myself from now on. Can someone please explain this to me plainly?

This is my work:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/0qj9D.jpg

https://i.stack.imgur.com/ORwJ8.jpg

  • 1
    There's a typo in the proof in the book. A term $n^2$ is omitted on the left-hand side. – saulspatz Oct 03 '20 at 18:38
  • 1
  • Proving the case $k+1$ from $k$ for $k \ge 1$ is equivalent to proving the case $k$ from $k-1$ for $k > 1$. 2. This textbook omitted all the algebraic manipulations. 3. You would have a better time if you factorized $(k+1)$ in your induction proof.
  • – player3236 Oct 03 '20 at 18:40
  • It is unclear to me that you are missing anything. The author simply went from $(n-1)$ to $n$, rather than going from $n$ to $(n+1)$, or going from $k$ to $(k+1)$. Beyond that, the author simply omitted several steps, taking the literary license of filling in the blanks is left as an exercise for the reader. Your query strongly suggests that your analysis/intuition is spot-on. I have trouble examining your work because of the way that you presented it. If you really want to verify each line, please convert your work to mathJax, via https://math.stackexchange.com/help/notation. – user2661923 Oct 03 '20 at 18:43