Why can i not use induction here?

  • Thread starter linuxux
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Induction
In summary, the conversation discusses the use of induction to prove the equality (1) for a sequence of sets, A_n. The speaker is confused about why induction cannot be used to prove the equality when infinity is involved. The expert explains that induction can only be used for positive integers, not infinity, and provides a proof for the statement using contraposition. The expert also clarifies that infinity is not a positive integer and therefore cannot be used in an induction argument.
  • #1
linuxux
133
0
I'm presented with this,

[tex](1)\ (\bigcup^{\infty}_{\n=1}A_{n})^{c}\ =\ \bigcap^{\infty}_{\n=1}A_{n}^{c} [/tex]

and asked why induction cannot be used to conclude this.

Now, i know the principle behind induction is to show that P(S)=N by showing that when

(i) S contains 1 and
(ii) whenever S contains a natural number n, it also contains n+1.

So I assume somewhere along the line (1) can't fit into either (i) or (ii), but I'm just not getting it. Help please, thanks.

I also have some trouble understanding infinity in general. My text says that, notationally,

[tex](2)\ \bigcup^{\infty}_{\n=1}A_{n}[/tex]

is just another way of saying the set whose elements consist of any element that appears in at least one particular (An), but, in a previous question, we already proved with induction that

[tex](3)\ (A_1\ \cup\ A_2\ \cup\ A_3\ \cup\ ...\ \cup\ A_n)^c\ =\ A^{c}_{1}\ \cup\ A^{c}_{2}\ \cup\ A^{c}_{3}\ \cup\ ...\ \cup\ A^{c}_{n}[/tex]

In my mind, (3) should lead to (1), and since we used induction on (3) to extrapolate to (1), then we did use induction to prove (1), but obviously, this is incorrect and I am not sure why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Consider a sequence of sets, A_n. If an element x in not in the union of this collection of sets then it is not inside ANY set in this sequence of sets. (*)That means it is in the compliment of every set contained in the sequence of sets ie the intersection(*). We have shown the LHS is contained in the RHS of (1), now show the other containment using contraposition.

You can use induction to prove in detail the sentence surrounded with asterisks given the information of the previous sentence. A similar proof is used for the converse.
 
  • #3
The principle of induction can be used to prove that a statement S(n) is true for n any positive integer. It CANNOT be used to prove that a statement is true for infinity.

Induction can be used to prove
[tex](1)\ (\bigcup^{N}_{n=1}A_{n})^{c}\ =\ \bigcap^{N}_{n=1}A_{n}^{c} [/tex]
for any positive integer N.

It cannot be used to prove
[tex](1)\ (\bigcup^{\infty}_{\n=1}A_{n})^{c}\ =\ \bigcap^{\infty}_{\n=1}A_{n}^{c} [/tex]
because "[itex]\infty[/itex]" is NOT a positive integer.
 
  • #4
Thanks.
 

1. Why is induction not applicable in every situation?

Induction is a type of reasoning that involves making generalizations based on specific observations. It relies on the assumption that the future will be similar to the past. However, this assumption may not hold true in every situation, as there may be unexpected variables or factors that can disrupt the pattern.

2. Can I use induction in all scientific experiments?

No, induction is not suitable for every scientific experiment. It is primarily used in observational and descriptive studies, where data is collected and analyzed to find patterns and make generalizations. In experiments, where variables can be controlled and manipulated, other forms of reasoning such as deduction may be more appropriate.

3. What are the limitations of using induction in scientific research?

One major limitation of induction is the possibility of encountering biased or incomplete data. This can lead to inaccurate generalizations and conclusions. Additionally, induction does not provide proof or certainty, but rather it offers a high degree of probability.

4. Is induction a reliable method of scientific reasoning?

Induction is a commonly used and valuable method of scientific reasoning. However, it is important to acknowledge its limitations and potential for error. It is always necessary to critically evaluate the data and conclusions drawn through inductive reasoning.

5. Can induction be used to prove a hypothesis?

No, induction cannot be used to prove a hypothesis. Inductive reasoning can only support or strengthen a hypothesis by providing evidence and patterns, but it cannot provide definite proof. To prove a hypothesis, deductive reasoning and controlled experiments are typically used.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
665
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
882
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
940
Back
Top