Mathematical Induction on rationals

  • Thread starter mumatics
  • Start date
  • #1
2
0
Hi
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.)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
It's not quite true as stated; take P(r) = true if r > 0 and false otherwise. But the basic idea is right.

If you were a college student, I would agree that this is a trivial result by double induction. But as a high-school student I actually think it's pretty good. Most wouldn't think to extend induction to the rationals at all.
 
  • #3
2
0
I can't get why it's not true. Did you notice r[tex]\geq[/tex]1 in the last sentence?

And thank you for the reply.
 

Related Threads on Mathematical Induction on rationals

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
Top