MHB How Does Nicholson Apply Induction in Theorem 12 Proof?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

W. Keith Nicholson's "Introduction to Abstract Algebra" (Third Edition) discusses the application of the Principle of Mathematical Induction in the proof of Theorem 12, specifically in Section 4.2 regarding the factorization of polynomials over a field. The discussion clarifies that Nicholson employs strong induction, assuming the property holds for all polynomials of degree less than \( n \) to prove it for degree \( n \). This approach differs from simple induction, which assumes the property for \( n \) and proves it for \( n + 1 \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction, specifically strong and simple induction.
  • Familiarity with polynomial factorization concepts.
  • Knowledge of abstract algebra principles as outlined in Nicholson's book.
  • Basic comprehension of theorems and proofs in mathematics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the differences between strong induction and simple induction in detail.
  • Explore polynomial factorization techniques in abstract algebra.
  • Review Theorem 12 in Nicholson's "Introduction to Abstract Algebra" for deeper insights.
  • Investigate the implications of induction in various mathematical contexts, such as divisibility orderings.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers interested in abstract algebra, particularly those focusing on induction methods and polynomial factorization.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading W. Keith Nicholson's book: Introduction to Abstract Algebra (Third Edition) ...

I am focused on Section 4.2:Factorization of Polynomials over a Field.

I need some help with the proof of Part 1 of Theorem 12 on page 218

The relevant text from Nicholson's book is as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4596I do not follow how Nicholson is using the Principle of Mathematical Induction in Part (1) of the above proof ... ... indeed I find his proof strategy quite puzzling.

Nicholson seems to me to proceed as follows:

He proves the case for $$n$$ = deg $$f = 1$$ ... well and good ...

Now, according to my understanding of the Principle of Mathematical Induction he should assume (1) is true for deg $$f = n$$ and then prove it true for deg $$f = n + 1$$.

... ... BUT ... Nicholson does not seem to do this ... ?Can someone please explain exactly how Nicholson is using the Principle of Mathematical Induction ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

There is a difference between using simple or strong induction.

Suppose we want to prove some property $P$ for all natural numbers.

If we use simple induction then we will do what you expect, assume $P(n)$ is true and then prove $P(n+1)$.

But, if we use strong induction we will assume $P(i)$ true for all $i<n$ and then prove $P(n)$, and that's what Nicholson is doing here.

He assumes that every polynomial of degree $d<n$ has a unique factorization, and then proves that a polynomial of degree $n$ also has a unique factorization.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

There is a difference between using simple or strong induction.

Suppose we want to prove some property $P$ for all natural numbers.

If we use simple induction then we will do what you expect, assume $P(n)$ is true and then prove $P(n+1)$.

But, if we use strong induction we will assume $P(i)$ true for all $i<n$ and then prove $P(n)$, and that's what Nicholson is doing here.

He assumes that every polynomial of degree $d<n$ has a unique factorization, and then proves that a polynomial of degree $n$ also has a unique factorization.
Thanks for the help, Fallen Angel ...

Reflecting on on this now ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
This is somewhat off-topic, but "strong" induction and "weak" (regular) induction are actually equivalent.

It is (hopefully) clear that strong induction certainly implies regular induction: if we assume something is true for all:

$n_0 \leq k < n$

then it is certainly true for $k = n-1$ (as long as $n \geq n_0 + 1$, of course).

Of course, it is *not* as clear that weak induction implies strong induction.

Suppose the statement we wish to prove (for all $n \geq n_0$) is $P(n)$. We then consider:

$Q(n) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \forall (n_0 < m < n): P(m)$

and apply weak induction to $Q$, proving strong induction for $P$.

This is especially useful in using induction on "divisibility orderings", where it may be hard to get a statement $P(n)$ into the form $P(n-1)$ and "something else" (a tactic that works very well on SUMS, typically), but it is easy to get a statement on FACTORS of $n$.
 
Deveno said:
This is somewhat off-topic, but "strong" induction and "weak" (regular) induction are actually equivalent.

It is (hopefully) clear that strong induction certainly implies regular induction: if we assume something is true for all:

$n_0 \leq k < n$

then it is certainly true for $k = n-1$ (as long as $n \geq n_0 + 1$, of course).

Of course, it is *not* as clear that weak induction implies strong induction.

Suppose the statement we wish to prove (for all $n \geq n_0$) is $P(n)$. We then consider:

$Q(n) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \forall (n_0 < m < n): P(m)$

and apply weak induction to $Q$, proving strong induction for $P$.

This is especially useful in using induction on "divisibility orderings", where it may be hard to get a statement $P(n)$ into the form $P(n-1)$ and "something else" (a tactic that works very well on SUMS, typically), but it is easy to get a statement on FACTORS of $n$.
Thanks for for the help Deveno ...

Just by the way ... I am so happy to see you back!

Peter
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K