Prove a statement using Peano's Axioms

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a statement using Peano's Axioms, specifically focusing on the properties of multiplication involving natural numbers and their successors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between multiplication and the successor function, with some suggesting that proving m*S(n) = nm + m is more straightforward than proving S(n)*m = nm + m. Others question the implications of assuming both m*n = n*m and n*S(m) = n*m + n within the same proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants clarifying their understanding of the induction process and the relationships between the equations. Some guidance has been offered regarding the structure of the proofs, but multiple interpretations of the induction steps are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of induction proofs and the assumptions required for proving properties of multiplication in the context of Peano's Axioms.

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: 1,830
  • V5rIbzP.png
    V5rIbzP.png
    9 KB · Views: 1,098
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   Reactions: 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