How Does Nicholson Apply Induction in Theorem 12 Proof?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of the Principle of Mathematical Induction in the proof of Part 1 of Theorem 12 from W. Keith Nicholson's "Introduction to Abstract Algebra." Participants are examining how Nicholson employs induction in the context of polynomial factorization over a field, specifically addressing the differences between simple and strong induction.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter expresses confusion regarding Nicholson's use of induction, noting that he expected a standard application of simple induction.
  • Some participants clarify the distinction between simple and strong induction, explaining that strong induction assumes the property holds for all integers less than \( n \) to prove it for \( n \).
  • One participant asserts that Nicholson is using strong induction by assuming every polynomial of degree \( d < n \) has a unique factorization to prove the case for degree \( n \).
  • Another participant discusses the equivalence of strong and weak induction, providing insights into how weak induction can imply strong induction under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the distinction between simple and strong induction, but there is no consensus on the implications of this distinction in the context of Nicholson's proof. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved regarding the clarity of Nicholson's induction strategy.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the equivalence of strong and weak induction may not be immediately clear, particularly in specific applications such as divisibility orderings and factorization.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading W. Keith Nicholson's book: Introduction to Abstract Algebra (Third Edition) ...

I am focused on Section 4.2:Factorization of Polynomials over a Field.

I need some help with the proof of Part 1 of Theorem 12 on page 218

The relevant text from Nicholson's book is as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4596I do not follow how Nicholson is using the Principle of Mathematical Induction in Part (1) of the above proof ... ... indeed I find his proof strategy quite puzzling.

Nicholson seems to me to proceed as follows:

He proves the case for $$n$$ = deg $$f = 1$$ ... well and good ...

Now, according to my understanding of the Principle of Mathematical Induction he should assume (1) is true for deg $$f = n$$ and then prove it true for deg $$f = n + 1$$.

... ... BUT ... Nicholson does not seem to do this ... ?Can someone please explain exactly how Nicholson is using the Principle of Mathematical Induction ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

There is a difference between using simple or strong induction.

Suppose we want to prove some property $P$ for all natural numbers.

If we use simple induction then we will do what you expect, assume $P(n)$ is true and then prove $P(n+1)$.

But, if we use strong induction we will assume $P(i)$ true for all $i<n$ and then prove $P(n)$, and that's what Nicholson is doing here.

He assumes that every polynomial of degree $d<n$ has a unique factorization, and then proves that a polynomial of degree $n$ also has a unique factorization.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

There is a difference between using simple or strong induction.

Suppose we want to prove some property $P$ for all natural numbers.

If we use simple induction then we will do what you expect, assume $P(n)$ is true and then prove $P(n+1)$.

But, if we use strong induction we will assume $P(i)$ true for all $i<n$ and then prove $P(n)$, and that's what Nicholson is doing here.

He assumes that every polynomial of degree $d<n$ has a unique factorization, and then proves that a polynomial of degree $n$ also has a unique factorization.
Thanks for the help, Fallen Angel ...

Reflecting on on this now ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
This is somewhat off-topic, but "strong" induction and "weak" (regular) induction are actually equivalent.

It is (hopefully) clear that strong induction certainly implies regular induction: if we assume something is true for all:

$n_0 \leq k < n$

then it is certainly true for $k = n-1$ (as long as $n \geq n_0 + 1$, of course).

Of course, it is *not* as clear that weak induction implies strong induction.

Suppose the statement we wish to prove (for all $n \geq n_0$) is $P(n)$. We then consider:

$Q(n) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \forall (n_0 < m < n): P(m)$

and apply weak induction to $Q$, proving strong induction for $P$.

This is especially useful in using induction on "divisibility orderings", where it may be hard to get a statement $P(n)$ into the form $P(n-1)$ and "something else" (a tactic that works very well on SUMS, typically), but it is easy to get a statement on FACTORS of $n$.
 
Deveno said:
This is somewhat off-topic, but "strong" induction and "weak" (regular) induction are actually equivalent.

It is (hopefully) clear that strong induction certainly implies regular induction: if we assume something is true for all:

$n_0 \leq k < n$

then it is certainly true for $k = n-1$ (as long as $n \geq n_0 + 1$, of course).

Of course, it is *not* as clear that weak induction implies strong induction.

Suppose the statement we wish to prove (for all $n \geq n_0$) is $P(n)$. We then consider:

$Q(n) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \forall (n_0 < m < n): P(m)$

and apply weak induction to $Q$, proving strong induction for $P$.

This is especially useful in using induction on "divisibility orderings", where it may be hard to get a statement $P(n)$ into the form $P(n-1)$ and "something else" (a tactic that works very well on SUMS, typically), but it is easy to get a statement on FACTORS of $n$.
Thanks for for the help Deveno ...

Just by the way ... I am so happy to see you back!

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K