Prove the identity:

for .

*Proof.*For the case on the left we have,

While, on the right we have,

So, the identity holds in the case . Assume then that it holds for some . Then we have,

Hence, the statement is true for , and so, for all

Skip to content
#
Stumbling Robot

A Fraction of a Dot
#
Use an induction and properties of the product to prove an identity

* Proof. * For the case on the left we have,
###
2 comments

### Point out an error, ask a question, offer an alternative solution (to use Latex type [latexpage] at the top of your comment):

Prove the identity:

for .

While, on the right we have,

So, the identity holds in the case . Assume then that it holds for some . Then we have,

Hence, the statement is true for , and so, for all

This proof is wrong. When you multiply (1+ x^(2*m)).(1 – x^(2*m)) the result should be equals to (1-x^(4m))

No this is correct because it is not (1+x^(2*m)), but rather (1+x^(2^m)).