Simple Proof for using Induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter PcumP_Ravenclaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
PcumP_Ravenclaw
Messages
105
Reaction score
4
Dear All,
I am trying to understand this proof for using induction. Please help me!

As per the book "Alan F beardon, Abstract algebra and geometry" The following...

Quote:
Proof: Let B be the set of positive integers that are not in A. Suppose that
B = ∅; then, by the Well-Ordering Principle, B has a smallest element, say b.
As before, b ≥ 2, so that now {1, . . . , b − 1} ⊂ A. With the new hypothesis,
this implies that b ∈ A which is again a contradiction. Thus (as before) B = ∅,and A = N.
Questions??

b is >= 2 because 1 is in A right?

b - 1 is 1 right?? therefore it should be in A??

Then...

b - 1 is an element of A so b is an element of A + 1??

so how does b become an element of A??

Danke...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would help if you would include the statement of the theorem.
 
Proof by Induction

The Principle of Induction II : Suppose that A ⊂ N, 1 ∈ A, and for every m,
{1, . . . ,m} ⊂ A implies that m + 1 ∈ A. Then A = N.
 
Jose_Peeterson said:
Dear All,
I am trying to understand this proof for using induction. Please help me!

As per the book "Alan F beardon, Abstract algebra and geometry" The following...

Quote:
Proof: Let B be the set of positive integers that are not in A. Suppose that
B = ∅; then, by the Well-Ordering Principle, B has a smallest element, say b.
You mean "suppose that B is NOT empty" don't you?

As before, b ≥ 2
"As before"?? Was there something you didn't tell us? You hadn't said, before that 1 was in A.
, so that now {1, . . . , b − 1} ⊂ A. With the new hypothesis,
this implies that b ∈ A which is again a contradiction.
Because, if n is in A then so is n+1.

Thus (as before) B = ∅,and A = N.
Questions??

b is >= 2 because 1 is in A right?
Yes. "Induction" says that "if 1 is in A and, whenever, n is in A so is n+ 1, then A= N".

b - 1 is 1 rhight??
Not necessarily! But b- 1 is less than b and b is, by hypothesis, the smallest member of B.

therefore it should be in A??

Then...

b - 1 is an element of A so b is an element of A + 1??
I don't know what you mean by "A+ 1". A is a set and 1 is a number.

so how does b become an element of A??
Because of the "induction hypothesis": "if n is in A then so is n+ 1".

Danke...
 
  • Like
Likes PcumP_Ravenclaw
Jose_Peeterson said:
Proof by Induction

The Principle of Induction II : Suppose that A ⊂ N, 1 ∈ A, and for every m,
{1, . . . ,m} ⊂ A implies that m + 1 ∈ A. Then A = N.
Let k be the smallest integer not in A, (k must be >1). (1,. . .,k-1) are in A, therefore k is in A, contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes PcumP_Ravenclaw
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top