Simple Proof for using Induction

In summary: So there is no smallest integer not in A, so A must be all of N. In summary, the conversation is about understanding a proof using induction from the book "Alan F beardon, Abstract algebra and geometry". The proof involves showing that if a set A is a subset of positive integers and 1 is in A, and for every integer m, if {1,...,m} is in A then m+1 is also in A, then A must be equal to all positive integers. The proof involves contradiction and the principle of induction.
  • #1
PcumP_Ravenclaw
106
4
Dear All,
I am trying to understand this proof for using induction. Please help me!

As per the book "Alan F beardon, Abstract algebra and geometry" The following...

Quote:
Proof: Let B be the set of positive integers that are not in A. Suppose that
B = ∅; then, by the Well-Ordering Principle, B has a smallest element, say b.
As before, b ≥ 2, so that now {1, . . . , b − 1} ⊂ A. With the new hypothesis,
this implies that b ∈ A which is again a contradiction. Thus (as before) B = ∅,and A = N.
Questions??

b is >= 2 because 1 is in A right?

b - 1 is 1 right?? therefore it should be in A??

Then...

b - 1 is an element of A so b is an element of A + 1??

so how does b become an element of A??

Danke...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It would help if you would include the statement of the theorem.
 
  • #3
Proof by Induction

The Principle of Induction II : Suppose that A ⊂ N, 1 ∈ A, and for every m,
{1, . . . ,m} ⊂ A implies that m + 1 ∈ A. Then A = N.
 
  • #4
Jose_Peeterson said:
Dear All,
I am trying to understand this proof for using induction. Please help me!

As per the book "Alan F beardon, Abstract algebra and geometry" The following...

Quote:
Proof: Let B be the set of positive integers that are not in A. Suppose that
B = ∅; then, by the Well-Ordering Principle, B has a smallest element, say b.
You mean "suppose that B is NOT empty" don't you?

As before, b ≥ 2
"As before"?? Was there something you didn't tell us? You hadn't said, before that 1 was in A.
, so that now {1, . . . , b − 1} ⊂ A. With the new hypothesis,
this implies that b ∈ A which is again a contradiction.
Because, if n is in A then so is n+1.

Thus (as before) B = ∅,and A = N.
Questions??

b is >= 2 because 1 is in A right?
Yes. "Induction" says that "if 1 is in A and, whenever, n is in A so is n+ 1, then A= N".

b - 1 is 1 rhight??
Not necessarily! But b- 1 is less than b and b is, by hypothesis, the smallest member of B.

therefore it should be in A??

Then...

b - 1 is an element of A so b is an element of A + 1??
I don't know what you mean by "A+ 1". A is a set and 1 is a number.

so how does b become an element of A??
Because of the "induction hypothesis": "if n is in A then so is n+ 1".

Danke...
 
  • Like
Likes PcumP_Ravenclaw
  • #5
Jose_Peeterson said:
Proof by Induction

The Principle of Induction II : Suppose that A ⊂ N, 1 ∈ A, and for every m,
{1, . . . ,m} ⊂ A implies that m + 1 ∈ A. Then A = N.
Let k be the smallest integer not in A, (k must be >1). (1,. . .,k-1) are in A, therefore k is in A, contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes PcumP_Ravenclaw

FAQ: Simple Proof for using Induction

What is induction in science?

Induction is a method of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn based on a pattern observed in a set of specific cases. It involves making a generalization based on specific examples and using this generalization to make predictions about future cases.

How is induction used in scientific research?

Induction is commonly used in scientific research to develop and test hypotheses. It allows scientists to make predictions about future experiments or observations based on patterns observed in previous data.

What is a simple proof for using induction?

A simple proof for using induction involves demonstrating that a specific case or subset of cases follows a certain pattern, and then using this pattern to show that the same conclusion applies to all cases in the set. This is also known as a mathematical induction proof.

Can induction be used to prove all scientific theories?

No, induction can only be used to prove theories that are based on patterns observed in specific cases. It cannot be used to prove theories that are based on unobservable phenomena or are not testable.

What are the limitations of using induction in science?

One limitation of using induction in science is that it relies on the assumption that future cases will follow the same pattern as previous cases. This may not always be the case, and thus the conclusion drawn from induction may not always be accurate. Additionally, induction cannot be used to prove causal relationships, as it only shows correlation between different variables.

Back
Top