Does Mathematical Induction Hold for Infinite Sums?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wany
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of mathematical induction to infinite sums, specifically whether a property proven for finite sums can be extended to an infinite sum. Participants explore the implications of induction and its limitations when considering infinite cases.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if a property P, proven for sums from 1 to n, can be extended to the sum from 1 to infinity, expressing uncertainty about its validity.
  • Another participant asserts that induction applies only to natural numbers and does not extend to infinite cases, using the example of the sum of natural numbers being infinite to illustrate this point.
  • A different participant discusses the concept of induction over natural numbers, suggesting that it inherently includes the idea of an infinite set, but emphasizes that this is often treated as an axiom rather than a provable statement.
  • One participant reiterates the initial question about extending property P to infinity, indicating a belief in the power of induction for all integers greater than zero.
  • Another participant questions whether the property P(infinity) would still hold as finite, reflecting on the implications of the previous comments.
  • A later reply clarifies that induction is a method for proving statements for each natural number and that the concept of P(infinity) does not align with the inductive framework, providing an example of how limits can be deduced from finite cases without being part of the induction proof itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of induction to infinite sums. Some argue that induction does not extend to infinity, while others suggest that the concept of induction inherently involves an infinite set. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of extending properties proven by induction to infinite cases.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of what constitutes the "infinite case" in induction and the dependence on definitions of properties and sums. The discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of the assumptions underlying the application of induction to infinite scenarios.

wany
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Ok so I have a question regarding induction.

So suppose that a sum from 1 to n=1 has property P. Suppose further that if the sum from 1 to n has property P, then the sum from 1 to n+1 has property P also (for n greater than or equal to 1). Now will this property hold for the sum from 1 to infinity?

I know that from mathematical induction this should be true, but I am wondering does it carry out to infinity. There's just something in the back of my head telling me that for some reason this might not hold.

So I guess, I just want to get some clarification.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It does not necessarily carry out to infinity; induction only tells you your proposition holds for all natural numbers n.

Consider the proposition P(n) that the sum 1+2+...+n is finite. P(1) is true, and if P(n) holds, then 1+2+...+n is finite, so 1+2+...+n+(n+1) is also finite, so P(n+1) holds. Thus P(n) is true for all n (not that induction is necessary here). However, if we formulate P(infinity) to be the proposition that 1+2+3+... is finite, then P(infinity) is false.
 


If induction goes over the entire set of natural numbers then you can call this the infinite case. Which is the same as for every natural number, i.e., we have a sucessor--namely n passes to n+1. Thus we may conclude that all natural numbers have been included in the set and such a set is infinite, since we have no largest number.

In some cases, this is called the Principal of Induction and otherwise it is called the Axiom of Induction. Usually it is considered an axiom, so that no proof is necessary. However in some systems by defining the number system, well-ordering, and the successor function, it can be proven.

Principally, it is probably better at the start to simply regard it as an axiom. That is the simplist way to see it. There are different forms of infinity as Cantor has shown, but what occurs here is the simplist case: countable infinity. That is, we can come up--at least mentally--with a long list and given any number we can find it somewhere on this list.
 
Last edited:


wany said:
Ok so I have a question regarding induction.

So suppose that a sum from 1 to n=1 has property P. Suppose further that if the sum from 1 to n has property P, then the sum from 1 to n+1 has property P also (for n greater than or equal to 1). Now will this property hold for the sum from 1 to infinity?

I know that from mathematical induction this should be true, but I am wondering does it carry out to infinity. There's just something in the back of my head telling me that for some reason this might not hold.

So I guess, I just want to get some clarification.

I assume you proved the fact that the property holds for n = 1; and, also that if holds for a given integer n, that it must hold for n + 1. If so, then the property holds for all integers > 0 no matter how large. That is the power of induction.
 


Hmmm I see. So in the case of JCVD's comment, P(infinity) would actually still follow the property that P(k) is finite?
 


Induction is just a proof of a general statement P(n) for each n. From the inductive argument, you may, for any chosen integer m, infer
P(m). P(infinity) does not make sense. Induction does not say anything about the "infinite" case, if it even makes sense in some informal way.

However, consider the following example. Say you prove by induction that 1/2+1/2^2...+1/2^n = 1-1/2^n. You can from this deduce the value of the corresponding infinite sum (the limit of the sequence of partial finite sums), but this is not the "infinite case" in the induction argument. The value of the limit is not proven in the induction argument, but deduced on that basis.
 


I see, well thank you very everyone's help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K