Using Induction to prove something false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lpau001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
Induction is typically used to prove statements true, but it can also be applied to demonstrate that a statement is false by proving the negation true. For example, one can use induction to show that all positive natural numbers are divisible by one, thereby disproving the statement that there exists a positive natural number not divisible by one. The discussion also highlights the concept of bijections to compare the cardinality of even and odd natural numbers, illustrating that both sets are countably infinite. While some participants find using induction for disproving statements less intuitive, it remains a valid method in mathematical proofs. Understanding Peano's Axioms can further clarify these concepts in the context of natural numbers.
lpau001
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Howdy, I am clumsy at best with induction (pretty new to it sadly), and I was wondering if it's proper to prove something false with induction? Every time I've used induction it's always been to prove something true. It may be a dumb question, but I'm beginning to think induction is only for 'true' proofs, like counterexamples are for 'false' proofs.

Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lpau001 said:
Howdy, I am clumsy at best with induction (pretty new to it sadly), and I was wondering if it's proper to prove something false with induction? Every time I've used induction it's always been to prove something true. It may be a dumb question, but I'm beginning to think induction is only for 'true' proofs, like counterexamples are for 'false' proofs.

Any thoughts?

I don't see why you can't use induction to prove a statement is false. Take the statement: There are more even natural numbers than odd natural numbers.
 
Ipau001, I think I understand where you're coming from. Hopefully, my explanation is correct and makes sense.

We use induction to show that all elements in a countable set (e.g. the set of natural numbers) have a certain property. So to prove a statement is false, we could use induction to show that the negation is true. E.g. to disprove the statement that there exist a positive natural number (i.e not including zero) that is not divisible by one, we could use induction to show that all positive natural numbers are divisible by one.
 
Last edited:
SW VandeCarr said:
I don't see why you can't use induction to prove a statement is false. Take the statement: There are more even natural numbers than odd natural numbers.

I'm curious. How would you disprove that using induction? They're both countably infinite. The only way I can think of is using bijections between both sets.
 
jojay99 said:
I'm curious. How would you disprove that using induction? They're both countably infinite. The only way I can think of is using bijections between both sets.

Every natural number has a unique successor. Every even natural number has an odd successor such that there is a bijection between the set of even numbers and the set of odd numbers. Therefore the sets are equal (have the same cardinality).

Look up Peano's Axioms for the natural numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
 
Last edited:
SW VandeCarr said:
Every natural number has a successor. Every even natural number has an odd successor such that there is a bijection between the set of even numbers and the set of odd numbers. Therefore the sets are equal (have the same cardinality).

Look up Peano's Axioms for the natural numbers.

I thought so. However, using induction to prove that doesn't seem natural (pun intended) to me.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K