Why can i not use induction here?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter linuxux
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of mathematical induction in proving set-theoretic identities, specifically the relationship between the complement of the union of an infinite sequence of sets and the intersection of their complements. Participants explore why induction cannot be applied in this context, particularly regarding the transition from finite to infinite cases.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why induction cannot be used to prove the identity involving infinite unions and intersections, despite having successfully used it for finite cases.
  • Another participant explains that if an element is not in the union of a sequence of sets, it must be in the complement of every set in that sequence, leading to the intersection of their complements.
  • A third participant clarifies that induction can only be applied to statements involving positive integers and cannot be used to prove statements that involve infinity.
  • This participant also notes that while induction can prove the identity for finite unions, it does not extend to infinite unions due to the nature of infinity not being a positive integer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that induction is not applicable to statements involving infinity, but there is some debate regarding the implications of this limitation and the reasoning behind it.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of induction when transitioning from finite to infinite cases, emphasizing the need for different approaches when dealing with infinite sets.

linuxux
Messages
133
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K