Simple Proof for using Induction

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PcumP_Ravenclaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof by induction as presented in the book "Alan F Beardon, Abstract Algebra and Geometry." Participants are seeking clarification on the logical steps and implications of the proof, particularly regarding the set of positive integers and the application of the Well-Ordering Principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that the set B of positive integers not in A is empty, suggesting it should be considered as not empty instead.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of b being greater than or equal to 2 and whether b - 1 is necessarily in A.
  • Another participant clarifies that the induction hypothesis states if n is in A, then n + 1 must also be in A.
  • Confusion arises regarding the notation "A + 1," with participants discussing the nature of A as a set versus 1 as a number.
  • Participants reiterate the principle of induction and its application to conclude that if certain conditions hold, then A must equal the set of natural numbers N.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the proof's steps and the implications of the induction hypothesis. There is no consensus on the clarity of the proof or the assumptions made regarding the set B and its elements.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note missing assumptions and unclear definitions, particularly regarding the relationship between elements of A and the smallest element of B. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in the proof's logical flow.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: PcumP_Ravenclaw

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K