Induction definition











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Suppose $T$ is a subset of $N$



Property 1: $0 in T$, and



Property 2: For every natural number $n ge 1$, if $n − 1 in T$ then $n in T$



Hi this is how POI is introduced in my notes and then it is stated in the more common way. Im wondering if this version is really useful at all i cant see the point in stating it this way?



Maybe you can help me thanks










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
    – Matt.P
    Nov 18 at 0:54












  • what is what you called 'more common way'?
    – Robson
    Nov 18 at 1:00










  • where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
    – Carlos Bacca
    Nov 18 at 1:02















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Suppose $T$ is a subset of $N$



Property 1: $0 in T$, and



Property 2: For every natural number $n ge 1$, if $n − 1 in T$ then $n in T$



Hi this is how POI is introduced in my notes and then it is stated in the more common way. Im wondering if this version is really useful at all i cant see the point in stating it this way?



Maybe you can help me thanks










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
    – Matt.P
    Nov 18 at 0:54












  • what is what you called 'more common way'?
    – Robson
    Nov 18 at 1:00










  • where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
    – Carlos Bacca
    Nov 18 at 1:02













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Suppose $T$ is a subset of $N$



Property 1: $0 in T$, and



Property 2: For every natural number $n ge 1$, if $n − 1 in T$ then $n in T$



Hi this is how POI is introduced in my notes and then it is stated in the more common way. Im wondering if this version is really useful at all i cant see the point in stating it this way?



Maybe you can help me thanks










share|cite|improve this question















Suppose $T$ is a subset of $N$



Property 1: $0 in T$, and



Property 2: For every natural number $n ge 1$, if $n − 1 in T$ then $n in T$



Hi this is how POI is introduced in my notes and then it is stated in the more common way. Im wondering if this version is really useful at all i cant see the point in stating it this way?



Maybe you can help me thanks







induction






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 18 at 2:16









hanszimmer

195




195










asked Nov 18 at 0:49









Carlos Bacca

171116




171116












  • I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
    – Matt.P
    Nov 18 at 0:54












  • what is what you called 'more common way'?
    – Robson
    Nov 18 at 1:00










  • where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
    – Carlos Bacca
    Nov 18 at 1:02


















  • I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
    – Matt.P
    Nov 18 at 0:54












  • what is what you called 'more common way'?
    – Robson
    Nov 18 at 1:00










  • where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
    – Carlos Bacca
    Nov 18 at 1:02
















I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
– Matt.P
Nov 18 at 0:54






I think the definition is technically imprecise. The second property is correct, though it's often stated that if $n in T$ then $n + 1 in T$. The first property technically is not correct since we never require a base case of $n = 0$: some statements work only for, say, integers at least $2$. I do think it's useful to think of $T$ as a subset of $mathbb{N}$ to symbolize that we could be talking about all natural numbers (assuming we start with $0$ or $1$, depending on how you define $mathbb{N}$) or all naturals after some point.
– Matt.P
Nov 18 at 0:54














what is what you called 'more common way'?
– Robson
Nov 18 at 1:00




what is what you called 'more common way'?
– Robson
Nov 18 at 1:00












where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
– Carlos Bacca
Nov 18 at 1:02




where property 2 is if n is in T then n+1 is in T. This just seems more useful to me, and the one stated above to me seems more unclear
– Carlos Bacca
Nov 18 at 1:02










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Yes that is a valid definition of induction method .



Probably you worry about the starting point of $0$ instead of $1$ because usually they start with $n=1$



You can start at any integer and go from there depending on the problem.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    You can enunciate the principle of finite induction (PFI) in many ways! A nice approach that helps visualizing equivalence between different statements about PFI is to imagine that you are going up stairs.



    Property one says simply where you begin your rise. You could prove that some math statements works for all $ngeq 2$ and induction is used there too! For example, Fermat's Last Theorem! (Although that its not just induction which solves it hehehe)



    Property two says just how you walk up the stairs. The main point is that from where you started PIF guarantees you will go through all steps up the stairs.



    Saying "if its valid for $n-1$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n$" also guarantees our climb because you DO know that you got in step $0$ (by property one) and you can use $0=n-1$ and prove that you ALSO can go to step $1=n$... and so one. That's exactly the same thing that saying that "if its valid for $n$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n+1$"... you just name $0=n$ and then $1=n+1$ and so on.



    The first way maybe is more "esthetically good" because you were asked to prove some statement for all $n$ and finishes your proof by showing that some property is also valid for some generical $n$ (instead of some generical $n+1$)






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      What I like about this POI is that it focuses on set membership and not equations. This is what I mean. Consider the equation $$forall n in mathbb N, sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)tag{1}$$ A proof using your version of POI would go as follows.



      Let $displaystyle mathbf T = left{n in mathbb N: sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)right}$. (Note $mathbf T subseteq mathbb N.$)



      STEP $1$. Since $sum_{i=0}^0 i =0= dfrac 120(0+1)$, then $0 in mathbf T$.



      STEP $2$. Suppose for some natural number, $n > 0$, that $n-1 in mathbf T$. Then
      $displaystyle sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = dfrac 12(n-1)(n)$. So
      begin{align}
      sum_{i=0}^{n} i
      &= sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i + sum_{i=n}^{n} i \
      &= dfrac 12(n-1)(n) + n \
      &= dfrac 12(n^2 - n + 2n) \
      &= dfrac 12 n(n+1).
      end{align}



      Hence $n-1 in mathbf T implies n in mathbf T$.



      It follows, from POI, that $mathbf T = mathbb N$. Hence equation $(1)$ is proved.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003021%2finduction-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted










        Yes that is a valid definition of induction method .



        Probably you worry about the starting point of $0$ instead of $1$ because usually they start with $n=1$



        You can start at any integer and go from there depending on the problem.






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes that is a valid definition of induction method .



          Probably you worry about the starting point of $0$ instead of $1$ because usually they start with $n=1$



          You can start at any integer and go from there depending on the problem.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            Yes that is a valid definition of induction method .



            Probably you worry about the starting point of $0$ instead of $1$ because usually they start with $n=1$



            You can start at any integer and go from there depending on the problem.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Yes that is a valid definition of induction method .



            Probably you worry about the starting point of $0$ instead of $1$ because usually they start with $n=1$



            You can start at any integer and go from there depending on the problem.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 18 at 0:57









            Mohammad Riazi-Kermani

            40.3k41958




            40.3k41958






















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                You can enunciate the principle of finite induction (PFI) in many ways! A nice approach that helps visualizing equivalence between different statements about PFI is to imagine that you are going up stairs.



                Property one says simply where you begin your rise. You could prove that some math statements works for all $ngeq 2$ and induction is used there too! For example, Fermat's Last Theorem! (Although that its not just induction which solves it hehehe)



                Property two says just how you walk up the stairs. The main point is that from where you started PIF guarantees you will go through all steps up the stairs.



                Saying "if its valid for $n-1$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n$" also guarantees our climb because you DO know that you got in step $0$ (by property one) and you can use $0=n-1$ and prove that you ALSO can go to step $1=n$... and so one. That's exactly the same thing that saying that "if its valid for $n$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n+1$"... you just name $0=n$ and then $1=n+1$ and so on.



                The first way maybe is more "esthetically good" because you were asked to prove some statement for all $n$ and finishes your proof by showing that some property is also valid for some generical $n$ (instead of some generical $n+1$)






                share|cite|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  You can enunciate the principle of finite induction (PFI) in many ways! A nice approach that helps visualizing equivalence between different statements about PFI is to imagine that you are going up stairs.



                  Property one says simply where you begin your rise. You could prove that some math statements works for all $ngeq 2$ and induction is used there too! For example, Fermat's Last Theorem! (Although that its not just induction which solves it hehehe)



                  Property two says just how you walk up the stairs. The main point is that from where you started PIF guarantees you will go through all steps up the stairs.



                  Saying "if its valid for $n-1$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n$" also guarantees our climb because you DO know that you got in step $0$ (by property one) and you can use $0=n-1$ and prove that you ALSO can go to step $1=n$... and so one. That's exactly the same thing that saying that "if its valid for $n$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n+1$"... you just name $0=n$ and then $1=n+1$ and so on.



                  The first way maybe is more "esthetically good" because you were asked to prove some statement for all $n$ and finishes your proof by showing that some property is also valid for some generical $n$ (instead of some generical $n+1$)






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    You can enunciate the principle of finite induction (PFI) in many ways! A nice approach that helps visualizing equivalence between different statements about PFI is to imagine that you are going up stairs.



                    Property one says simply where you begin your rise. You could prove that some math statements works for all $ngeq 2$ and induction is used there too! For example, Fermat's Last Theorem! (Although that its not just induction which solves it hehehe)



                    Property two says just how you walk up the stairs. The main point is that from where you started PIF guarantees you will go through all steps up the stairs.



                    Saying "if its valid for $n-1$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n$" also guarantees our climb because you DO know that you got in step $0$ (by property one) and you can use $0=n-1$ and prove that you ALSO can go to step $1=n$... and so one. That's exactly the same thing that saying that "if its valid for $n$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n+1$"... you just name $0=n$ and then $1=n+1$ and so on.



                    The first way maybe is more "esthetically good" because you were asked to prove some statement for all $n$ and finishes your proof by showing that some property is also valid for some generical $n$ (instead of some generical $n+1$)






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    You can enunciate the principle of finite induction (PFI) in many ways! A nice approach that helps visualizing equivalence between different statements about PFI is to imagine that you are going up stairs.



                    Property one says simply where you begin your rise. You could prove that some math statements works for all $ngeq 2$ and induction is used there too! For example, Fermat's Last Theorem! (Although that its not just induction which solves it hehehe)



                    Property two says just how you walk up the stairs. The main point is that from where you started PIF guarantees you will go through all steps up the stairs.



                    Saying "if its valid for $n-1$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n$" also guarantees our climb because you DO know that you got in step $0$ (by property one) and you can use $0=n-1$ and prove that you ALSO can go to step $1=n$... and so one. That's exactly the same thing that saying that "if its valid for $n$ then it works too for $n$, for all $n+1$"... you just name $0=n$ and then $1=n+1$ and so on.



                    The first way maybe is more "esthetically good" because you were asked to prove some statement for all $n$ and finishes your proof by showing that some property is also valid for some generical $n$ (instead of some generical $n+1$)







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 18 at 1:20

























                    answered Nov 18 at 1:12









                    Robson

                    751221




                    751221






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        What I like about this POI is that it focuses on set membership and not equations. This is what I mean. Consider the equation $$forall n in mathbb N, sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)tag{1}$$ A proof using your version of POI would go as follows.



                        Let $displaystyle mathbf T = left{n in mathbb N: sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)right}$. (Note $mathbf T subseteq mathbb N.$)



                        STEP $1$. Since $sum_{i=0}^0 i =0= dfrac 120(0+1)$, then $0 in mathbf T$.



                        STEP $2$. Suppose for some natural number, $n > 0$, that $n-1 in mathbf T$. Then
                        $displaystyle sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = dfrac 12(n-1)(n)$. So
                        begin{align}
                        sum_{i=0}^{n} i
                        &= sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i + sum_{i=n}^{n} i \
                        &= dfrac 12(n-1)(n) + n \
                        &= dfrac 12(n^2 - n + 2n) \
                        &= dfrac 12 n(n+1).
                        end{align}



                        Hence $n-1 in mathbf T implies n in mathbf T$.



                        It follows, from POI, that $mathbf T = mathbb N$. Hence equation $(1)$ is proved.






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          What I like about this POI is that it focuses on set membership and not equations. This is what I mean. Consider the equation $$forall n in mathbb N, sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)tag{1}$$ A proof using your version of POI would go as follows.



                          Let $displaystyle mathbf T = left{n in mathbb N: sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)right}$. (Note $mathbf T subseteq mathbb N.$)



                          STEP $1$. Since $sum_{i=0}^0 i =0= dfrac 120(0+1)$, then $0 in mathbf T$.



                          STEP $2$. Suppose for some natural number, $n > 0$, that $n-1 in mathbf T$. Then
                          $displaystyle sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = dfrac 12(n-1)(n)$. So
                          begin{align}
                          sum_{i=0}^{n} i
                          &= sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i + sum_{i=n}^{n} i \
                          &= dfrac 12(n-1)(n) + n \
                          &= dfrac 12(n^2 - n + 2n) \
                          &= dfrac 12 n(n+1).
                          end{align}



                          Hence $n-1 in mathbf T implies n in mathbf T$.



                          It follows, from POI, that $mathbf T = mathbb N$. Hence equation $(1)$ is proved.






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            What I like about this POI is that it focuses on set membership and not equations. This is what I mean. Consider the equation $$forall n in mathbb N, sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)tag{1}$$ A proof using your version of POI would go as follows.



                            Let $displaystyle mathbf T = left{n in mathbb N: sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)right}$. (Note $mathbf T subseteq mathbb N.$)



                            STEP $1$. Since $sum_{i=0}^0 i =0= dfrac 120(0+1)$, then $0 in mathbf T$.



                            STEP $2$. Suppose for some natural number, $n > 0$, that $n-1 in mathbf T$. Then
                            $displaystyle sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = dfrac 12(n-1)(n)$. So
                            begin{align}
                            sum_{i=0}^{n} i
                            &= sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i + sum_{i=n}^{n} i \
                            &= dfrac 12(n-1)(n) + n \
                            &= dfrac 12(n^2 - n + 2n) \
                            &= dfrac 12 n(n+1).
                            end{align}



                            Hence $n-1 in mathbf T implies n in mathbf T$.



                            It follows, from POI, that $mathbf T = mathbb N$. Hence equation $(1)$ is proved.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            What I like about this POI is that it focuses on set membership and not equations. This is what I mean. Consider the equation $$forall n in mathbb N, sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)tag{1}$$ A proof using your version of POI would go as follows.



                            Let $displaystyle mathbf T = left{n in mathbb N: sum_{i=0}^n i = dfrac 12n(n+1)right}$. (Note $mathbf T subseteq mathbb N.$)



                            STEP $1$. Since $sum_{i=0}^0 i =0= dfrac 120(0+1)$, then $0 in mathbf T$.



                            STEP $2$. Suppose for some natural number, $n > 0$, that $n-1 in mathbf T$. Then
                            $displaystyle sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = dfrac 12(n-1)(n)$. So
                            begin{align}
                            sum_{i=0}^{n} i
                            &= sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i + sum_{i=n}^{n} i \
                            &= dfrac 12(n-1)(n) + n \
                            &= dfrac 12(n^2 - n + 2n) \
                            &= dfrac 12 n(n+1).
                            end{align}



                            Hence $n-1 in mathbf T implies n in mathbf T$.



                            It follows, from POI, that $mathbf T = mathbb N$. Hence equation $(1)$ is proved.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 18 at 1:54









                            steven gregory

                            17.6k22257




                            17.6k22257






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003021%2finduction-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater

                                Ивакино (Тотемский район)

                                Can't locate Autom4te/ChannelDefs.pm in @INC (when it definitely is there)