How are formulas with inductive proofs discovered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formulas Proofs
AI Thread Summary
Formulas often discovered through empirical observation can lead to inductive proofs, even when the formula isn't initially understood. For example, Euler's formula in graph theory, v-e+f=2, is known to be proved only through induction, raising questions about its initial discovery. Patterns can emerge by analyzing data closely, allowing conjectures about formulas like the nth triangular number. Additionally, one can suspect relationships without complete understanding, which may lead to successful inductive proofs despite limited insight. Ultimately, empirical observation and examining the differences between successive values are crucial in formulating and proving mathematical concepts.
Avichal
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
There are certain formulas for which only inductive proofs are known. But since we need to know the formula first to prove it using mathematical induction, how do they get the formula in the first place?
Here is an example: - Euler's formula in graph theory states that v-e+f=2 for all planar graphs. I think only an inductive proof is currently known. So how did he come up with this formula without proving it first?...guessing?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Here is some interesting information (courtesy of micromass):-

www.homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/DCalc.pdf

www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/gfologyLinked2.pdf

I believe the topic of generatingfunctionology answers yours question, though I'm no expert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are different ways.
1. Try to find a formula empirically. For example, if you want to know a formula for the nth triangular number 1+2+3+...+n, you could compute the first 20 and try to find a relationship with n by examining the numbers. You can notice a lot of patterns just be examining data closely.

2. Sometimes you can know a lot about a problem without completely understanding it. In those cases you might have reason to believe something but not be able to prove it. For example, you might suspect that ln(n) - 1 -1/2 -1/3 - ... - 1/n approaches a limit without being able to prove it. Basically, even if you don't understand something very well, you can try to apply induction. You can "get lucky" with induction by proving something that you don't understand that well. The drawback is that such proofs don't always add much to your understanding or suggest new avenues to pursue.

I suspect that empirical observation is the main way that people conjecture formulas before they understand them.
 
Hey Avichal.

One should note the important step in an inductive proof which is the delta between successive values of n.

It obviously depends on the nature of the constraint (summation, multiplication, inequality, etc) but looking at the delta between steps is a good way to proving something or at least getting an idea of whether it potentially could be true (in the context of statements in induction proofs).
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top