Use induction in a non standard way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dmobb Jr.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Standard
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of mathematical induction in a non-standard way, with participants exploring how to rigorously present their proofs. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the setup and presentation of their induction proof, noting that they have made some progress but seek clarity on how to ensure rigor.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the vagueness of the original poster's problem and the challenges in providing guidance without specific details. There are mentions of alternative proof styles, such as the "dot-dot-dot" approach, and concerns about the rigor of the arguments presented.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the clarity of the original poster's setup and expressing a desire for more specific information. Some guidance has been offered regarding proof styles, but there is no consensus on how to proceed rigorously.

Contextual Notes

The original poster has indicated a reluctance to share specific details of the problem, citing concerns about academic integrity. They also mention a requirement to assume certain properties of the variables involved, which may limit the discussion.

Dmobb Jr.
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
So I have to do an induction but I am not quite sure how to set it up. I have already proven that at each step I have either my intended result or I can advance one more step. I have also proven that there are a finite number of steps.


Intuitively I have essentially completed the proof. I just can't figure out how to present this in a way that is completely rigorous.

I get the feeling that "Well there can only be finitely many steps so eventually it will happen" is not good enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see how anyone can suggest anything when what you are trying to do is so vague.
 
Well I feel a little bit guilty for even posting a homework question at all (It's cheeting). So I am not going to post specifics. I will clarify certain things if people have questions. I think that someone could figure this out with the information I have given. If not then I will just have to figure it out myself which is what I should be doing anyway.
 
Sounds like a good "dot-dot-dot" proof, but maybe your professor doesn't like those. I.e. show the process of a couple steps, then "dot-dot-dot", then show the final step!
 
No, I was going to ask questions but this is so vague, it isn't in the ballpark of meaning anything.
 
Yeah i wish I could dot dot dot this one but that's definitely not allowed. I reallized that I had messed up at an earlier part of this problem anyway. Thanks though.

@verty While what I said was not 100% rigourus I could easily make it that way.

For all natural numbers n, if x is not [itex]\geq[/itex] n, then x < n. Also there exists Y[itex]\in[/itex]N such that x [itex]\leq[/itex] Y.

Prove that x exists and is a natural number.

Edit: We must assume x is a natural number not prove it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K