Hi(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm a high school student. I gave a proof for the following theorem, but I was told by some professors that this is trivial and using natural induction twice for the rationals will do the same thing. What do you think? Is it just redundant?

Theorem:

Let P(r) be a statement about r, then if :

1) P(1) is true and,

2) [tex]\forall[/tex] m,n [tex]\in[/tex] [tex]N[/tex] , m[tex]\geq[/tex]n ; P([tex]\frac{m}{n}[/tex])[tex]\rightarrow[/tex] P([tex]\frac{m+1}{n}[/tex])

Then [tex]\forall[/tex] r[tex]\in[/tex] Q, r[tex]\geq[/tex]1 ; P(r).

(PS: I apologize for my (probable) mistakes, because I'm neither an English speaker nor familiar with Latex.)

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Mathematical Induction on rationals

Loading...

Similar Threads for Mathematical Induction rationals | Date |
---|---|

What units will this equation have? | Oct 21, 2015 |

Euler's identity, mathematical beauty and applications of it | Mar 15, 2015 |

Any number operated by modulus operator gives remainder as the last digit of the number? | Oct 21, 2014 |

Mathematical Products | Sep 23, 2014 |

Mathematical induction please help me | Nov 20, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**