How are formulas with inductive proofs discovered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formulas Proofs
Click For 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).
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K