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 = mnstevendaryl said:Hmm. It seems more straight-forward to prove
m \cdot S(n) = m \cdot n + m
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
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?
Of course. I get it now. Thanksstevendaryl 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).