MHB Induction on the number of equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving a statement about differential operators and systems of equations using mathematical induction. It establishes a base case for one equation and an inductive hypothesis for k equations, asserting that they can be expressed in a specific form. The inductive step aims to demonstrate that if the hypothesis holds for k equations, it also holds for k+1 equations by combining the equations to derive a new differential equation. The participants seek clarity on the correctness of their reasoning and how to proceed with the proof. Overall, the thread emphasizes the structured approach of induction in mathematical proofs related to differential equations.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $L$ be a differential operator.

We suppose that we have $n$ equations, that means $\phi: \displaystyle{\bigwedge_{j=1}^n L_j x=f_j}$ and we assume that $\phi$ can be written as $Lx=f \land \psi$, where $\psi$ doesn't contain any $x$.

We prove this by induction on the number of equations, $n$.

  • Base case: For $n=1$ we have one equation, so it is of the form $Lx=f$.
  • Inductive hypothesis: We suppose that it holds for $n=k$, i.e., if $\phi$ contains $k$ equations, then we can reduce it into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
  • Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $n=k+1$, i.e., if we have $k+1$ equations we can reduce this system into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
    From the inductive hypothesis we know that we can reduce the first $k$ equations into the above form. So we have two equations that contain $x$ and its derivatives.

Is this correct so far? (Wondering)

How could we continue? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the inductive step as follows? (Wondering) Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $n=k+1$, i.e., if we have $k+1$ equations we can reduce this system into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
From the inductive hypothesis we know that we can reduce the first $k$ equations into the above form. So we have two equations that contain $x$ and its derivatives. We add these two equations and we get a new differential equation $Lx=f$. So the initial system is equivalent to the new differential equation $Lx=f$.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greetings, I am studying probability theory [non-measure theory] from a textbook. I stumbled to the topic stating that Cauchy Distribution has no moments. It was not proved, and I tried working it via direct calculation of the improper integral of E[X^n] for the case n=1. Anyhow, I wanted to generalize this without success. I stumbled upon this thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-prove-the-cauchy-distribution-has-no-moments.992416/ I really enjoyed the proof...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K