Prove a statement using Peano's Axioms

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the statement m*S(n) = nm + m using Peano's Axioms, with a focus on the properties of natural numbers and multiplication. Participants suggest that it is simpler to first prove m*S(n) = m*n + m, which can help establish the commutative property of multiplication. The conversation highlights the use of induction, where one proof assumes m*n = n*m to show S(m)*n = n*S(m). The need for two separate induction proofs is clarified, emphasizing the importance of establishing n*S(m) = n*m + n before proving the commutativity of multiplication. The participants reach a consensus on the approach, confirming their understanding of the induction process.
supermiedos
Messages
62
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let, m, n be natural numbers and S(n) the succesor of n.
If S(n)*m = nm + m
Prove that m*S(n) = nm + m

Homework Equations


l67Hh0b.png


The Attempt at a Solution


V5rIbzP.png
 

Attachments

  • l67Hh0b.png
    l67Hh0b.png
    5.6 KB · Views: 1,819
  • V5rIbzP.png
    V5rIbzP.png
    9 KB · Views: 1,089
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm. It seems more straight-forward to prove

m \cdot S(n) = m \cdot n + m
 
stevendaryl said:
Hmm. It seems more straight-forward to prove

m \cdot S(n) = m \cdot n + m
But since S(n)*m = nm + m I'd like to prove that also m*S(n) = nm + m, thus S(n)*m = m*S(n), meaning that nm = mn
 
supermiedos said:
But since S(n)*m = nm + m I'd like to prove that also m*S(n) = nm + m, thus S(n)*m = m*S(n), meaning that nm = mn

I understand that, but it's easier to prove m \cdot S(n) = m \cdot n + m than it is to prove m \cdot S(n) = n \cdot m + m. Then you can use this lemma to prove that m \cdot n = n \cdot m.

Suppose that you want to prove that m \cdot n = n \cdot m by induction on m.
  1. Prove 0 \cdot n = n \cdot 0
  2. Assuming m \cdot n = n \cdot m, prove S(m) \cdot n = n \cdot S(m)
Sketch:
  1. We're trying to prove S(m) \cdot n = n \cdot S(m)
  2. We can use the rules for multiplication to rewrite the left-hand side: S(m) \cdot n = m \cdot n + n.
  3. Then we can use our inductive hypothesis to write m \cdot n = n \cdot m. So the left hand side becomes: n \cdot m + n
  4. So switching left and right sides, we need to show: n \cdot S(m) = n \cdot m + n. That's true by my "lemma".
 
Last edited:
Wait, so in this case we have like "two inductions" into one?

We're assuming that m⋅n = n⋅m
but also we're assuming that n⋅S(m) = n⋅m +n in the same proof?
 
Last edited:
supermiedos said:
Wait, so in this case we have like "two inductions" into one?

We're assuming that m⋅n = n⋅m
but also we're assuming that n⋅S(m) = n⋅m +n in the same proof?

No, first you prove by induction that n \cdot S(m) = n \cdot m + n.

Then you prove by induction that m \cdot n = n \cdot m. In the second proof, you assume m \cdot n = n \cdot m and use that to prove S(m) \cdot n = n \cdot S(m).
 
  • Like
Likes supermiedos
stevendaryl said:
No, first you prove by induction that n \cdot S(m) = n \cdot m + n.

Then you prove by induction that m \cdot n = n \cdot m. In the second proof, you assume m \cdot n = n \cdot m and use that to prove S(m) \cdot n = n \cdot S(m).
Of course. I get it now. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K