Proof of Induction Principle starting from N, not from 1

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the Induction Principle starting from an integer N rather than the traditional starting point of 1. Participants explore the implications of this approach, its proof structure, and the challenges associated with understanding the transition between the two forms of induction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant summarizes the proof structure, stating that if P(N) holds and P(n) implies P(n+1), then P(n) is true for all n > N.
  • Another participant proposes that the proof can be reformulated using Q(n) = P(n+N-1), establishing that Q(1) = P(N) is true.
  • Some participants note that the transition from P(n+N-1) to P(n) for all n ≥ N is not immediately clear and requires further clarification.
  • One participant suggests that the Well-Ordering principle might provide additional insight into the proof.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of understanding the index shift and suggests using different indices to avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the proof, particularly the last step of the argument. While some agree on the reduction of the induction principle from N to 1, there is no consensus on the clarity of the proof's final transition.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the proof may lack clarity in certain steps, particularly regarding the index shift and the implications of the Well-Ordering principle. There are also concerns about the potential conceptual mistakes when using the same dummy index on both sides of the argument.

Hall
Messages
351
Reaction score
87
TL;DR
Induction Principle.
In this video lecture (though I have linked the video at "current time", in case it doesn't; work please see the video at 19:16), the lecturer just works out (he is not explaining anything) the proof of Induction Principle starting from ##N##. Let me give out here what he did:

Statement: Let N be an integer, ##P(n)## denotes the Property P that a natural number ##n \geq N## may or may not follow. If
1. P(N) holds
2. P(n) implies P(n+1)
then P(n) is true for all ##n \gt N##.

Proof: ##Q(n) = P(n+N-1)##
1. ## Q(1) = P(N)##, since P(N) holds therefore, Q(1) is true.
2. If ## Q(n) = P(n+N-1)## holds then ##Q(n+1) = P(n+N)## holds and therefore P(n) holds for all ##n\geq N##.


I couldn't understand anything of step 2 of the proof. Can you please give some hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I think I got it.

We have to prove that ##P(n)## holds for all ##n \geq N## if the following two conditions are given:
1. P(N) holds
2. P(n) implies P(n+1), for all ##n \geq N##

Proof: Assume another proposition, ## Q (n) = P(n+N-1)##.
Since, ##Q(1) = P(N)## and ##P(N)## is true, therefore, Q(1) is true.

Assume that, ##Q(n)## is true, that is ##P(n+N-1)## is true, then ##Q(n+1) = P(n+N)## is true because it is of the form ##P(r) \implies P(r+1)##, r= n+N-1, which is validated by property 2 in the statement. Hence, ##Q(n) \implies Q(n+1)##, therefore ##Q(n)## is true for all n.

Since, ## P(n+N-1)## is true for all n, we get
  • for n=1, we have P(N) is true
  • for n=2, we have P(N+1) is true
  • for n=3, we have P(N+2) is true
Therefore, P(n) is true for all ##n\geq N##.

Hence, proved.

The lecturer left out so many of things in proof, maybe for some it was obvious.
 
The key point is that induction from ##N## reduces to induction from ##1## simply by rephrasing the propositions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and FactChecker
One proposition's (P's) N is another proposition's (Q's) 1. It is just a matter of where you start counting and adjusting for that.
 
@PeroK @FactChecker Yes, reducing the N induction principle to the normal induction principle was the trick. But the last step, moving from ##P(n+N-1)## to ##P(n) ~ \forall n\geq N##, was also not very obvious.
 
In most accounts I'm familiar with, the Well-Ordering principle is used, so that the set of all P(n) that are true has a least element. Maybe that would shed light on the proof/argument.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hall
Hall said:
But the last step, moving from ##P(n+N-1)## to ##P(n) ~ \forall n\geq N##, was also not very obvious.
The task of shifting an index is one that you may run into occasionally. You can simplify your understanding of it by plugging in n=1 in the side that should start with 1 and see what you get: P(1+N-1)=P(N). And it goes up from there: P(2+N-1) = P(N+1). It really is simple once you get used to it.

PS. Using the same dummy index, n, on both sides may be a conceptual mistake. Use ##n \ge 1## on one side and ##m \ge N## on the other.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
481