What is the Proper Notation for Inductive Proofs with Multiple Variables?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the proper notation for inductive proofs involving multiple variables. The typical approach uses 'n' for the iterative variable, but confusion arises when additional variables like 'k' and 'm' are introduced. Suggestions include using alternative letters such as 'j' or 'l' to avoid confusion, while emphasizing that clarity in the proof is paramount. It is noted that using 'n' for the induction variable is acceptable, and the complexity of introducing other variables may be unnecessary. Ultimately, the key is to ensure that the proof remains clear and that the variables used do not create scope conflicts.
jbusc
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have to write several inductive proofs for a class.

Typically, 'n' is used to denote the iterative variable in the problem statement. Then I show the case for n = 1 (or however appropriate for the proof) then proceed to show that if valid for n = k, then valid for n = k+1

However, there are more variables now in the given problem statement (using variables n, k, m, etc) which leaves me uncertain as to how to properly label the inductive step variable. I feel re-using n, k, or m would create additional confusion, as it would if I used alternative variable labels that are not traditionally used to refer only to integers (a, b, c, x, y, z, etc)

How should I alleviate this? Am I clear enough? It's kind of hard to describe...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think it will really make a difference as long as it is clear from your proof how you are using the variable, but I guess you could use j, or l if you want to stick the the letters of the alphabet surrounding n, k, and m.
 
You can also use n for the induction variable, or if not n, whatever variable you happen to be inducting on. It's unnecessary complication to use k in the first place. You just argue:
Code:
Assume S(n)
   ...
   S(n+1)
S(n) --> S(n+1) (conditional proof)
for all n, S(n) --> S(n+1) (universal generalization)
Since n is bound by a quantifier outside of the conditional proof, there is no scope conflict.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K