Using Induction to prove something false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lpau001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
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.
 
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