In Problem 1, should it be possible to show the bound with 2\Phi k instead of just \Phi k? Using the approach in the hint give only the bound of which the proof was sketched in the May 14 lecture.

The correct bound is 2\Phi k, and the hint will give this bound if done properly. The proof presented in lecture had a subtle flaw (which is why we couldn’t find the other factor of 2). Don’t make the same mistake I did! ðŸ™‚

In Problem 1, should it be possible to show the bound with 2\Phi k instead of just \Phi k? Using the approach in the hint give only the bound of which the proof was sketched in the May 14 lecture.

The correct bound is 2\Phi k, and the hint will give this bound if done properly. The proof presented in lecture had a subtle flaw (which is why we couldn’t find the other factor of 2). Don’t make the same mistake I did! ðŸ™‚