Using substitution in an inductive proof

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of substitution in an inductive proof, specifically examining the implications of assuming a relationship between sequences defined by n_k and n_(k+1). Participants explore the validity of substituting indices in the context of mathematical induction.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the correctness of substituting k+1 for s in the context of proving that n_(k+1) < n_(k+2) based on the assumption n_k < n_(k+1). There are inquiries about the completeness of the proof when only specific cases are shown, and the necessity of proving the base case and the inductive step.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants providing clarifications on the inductive proof process and the importance of proving the base case. There is recognition of the need for a complete proof that holds for all integers, not just specific instances.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the assumption in induction typically applies to all integers up to a certain fixed value, and there is mention of specific examples that illustrate the nuances of proving relationships in sequences.

dane502
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I am to prove something inductively. Can one substitute as follows?

For the inductive part, assume that
(*) n_k < n_(k+1)

In order to show that this implies:
(**) n_(k+1) < n_(k+2),

Can one then simply make the substitution k+1 = s in (**), yielding
n_(s) < n_(s+1)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer is yes, if the assumption is that it holds for all k.

Usually though, in an inductive prove you assume that (*) only holds for all k up to some fixed value (say, K) and you want to prove that it also holds for k = K + 1.
 
Okay, so if my proof consisted of proving, that
n_1 < n_2

and then using the "induction" used in my previous post, it wouldn't complete the proof that

n_k < n_(k+1) for all integers, k?
 
No, unfortunately not.

As a very simple example, consider nk = k4 - 2 k2.
It is very easy to show that 0 = n_0 &gt; n_1 = -1, but n_k &lt; n_{k + 1} for all other k (so if you take 2k2 - k4 to flip the < and > signs in my example and shift the whole sequence by 1 you will get precisely what you asked, starting at k = 1).

The idea of induction is, that if you know that a statement holds for all integers up to some value, you can prove it for the next one. And then if it holds up to k = 1, you have shown that it holds for k = 2, from which it follows for k = 3, hence for k= 4 ,etc.
 
Here is a post that I wrote earlier, that tries to explain proof by induction in more detail. Hopefully it helps.

Generally, when you have some statement like "for all n, X is true", a proof by induction consists of two steps. First, you have to show that for some simple case (usually n = 0 or 1, depending on the question), X is true. Then you assume that X is true for all integers n up to some given value n0, and you prove that under that assumption, X is also true for n0 + 1.

The reasoning is then as follows: you have checked by hand that it is true for n = 1. You have proven that if it is true for n0 = 1 (which it is), then it is true for n = n0 + 1 = 2. So it is true for n = 2. Also, you have shown that if it is true for n = 2, it is true for n = 3. Since it is true for n = 2, it holds for n = 3. Similarly, it is true for n = 4, and for n = 5, and so on.

Note that proof by induction is a convenient way (once you are used to it) to prove such statements "for all n", but it doesn't help you to find the statement. So if instead of "prove that the nth derivative is ...formula..." you get "derive and prove a formula for the nth derivative", you will first need to come up with a hypothesis by some other way. Once you have the hypothesis, you can make it into a theorem and try to prove it by induction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K