Principle of Mathematical Induction

By: Aashish Srinivas

Introduction to Mathematical Induction

The goal of an inductive proof is to prove that a certain statement, P, is true for a given subset of natural numbers. Given a statement P, a properly constructed inductive proof will show that for the infinity of numbers equal to or greater than some base number b, the statement holds. The proof begins by showing that the statement is true for the case where n=b. In addition, the proof might need to show that the statement holds for the next few cases depending on the form of inductive proof utilized. Next, the proof must contain an inductive hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that P is true for a certain subset of numbers. An inductive proof finally concludes by showing that, given the inductive hypothesis, the statement P is true for the next number. In other words, an inductive proof shows that given either that P is true for the kth case or that it is true for every lth case such that blk, P holds for the (k+1)th case as well. Proving that the truth of the (k+1)th case follow from the previous cases is sufficient to prove that P holds for all natural numbers greater than b. This is because, if the statement holds for the first case (n=b), then it must hold for the (b+1)th case. Then, the truth of the statement for the (b+1)th case implies that P is true for n=b+2. In this manner, the inductive proof will show that P is true for b,b+1,b+2,...

Statement of the Principle of Mathematical Induction

I. Weak Form The weak form of the Principle of Mathematical Induction states that if a statment P is true for some base natural number b and that it can be shown from the truth of P for the kth case that P is also true for the (k+1)th case, then P is true for all natural numbers n such that n b. II. Strong Form The strong form of the PMI states that if P is true for some natural number b and that P can be shown true for k given that P is also for all l such that bl<k, then P is true for all natural numbers n such that nb.

Discrete_Math_PMI.nb

Comparison Between Weak and Strong Induction

Weak and strong induction can be shown to be logically equivalent to the Well-Ordering Principle, which states that a non-empty set of natural numbers has a smallest element. Therefore, by the transitive property, both forms of induction should be logically equivalent to one another, implying that any inductive proof can be completed using either form. The differences between the two forms of induction are the number of "base" cases which are required and also the respective inductive hypotheses. If one uses strong induction, one may have to show P true for more than one initial case, such as in the case of a proof where the (k-1) and k cases are needed to show that P is true for k+1. In addition, the inductive hypotheses of the two forms of induction differ. Weak induction only assumes that the P holds for n=k while Strong induction assumes that P holds for every number from the base case to the kth case. However, despite these differences in the form of the proof, both of these forms, as has been previously mentioned, may theoretically be used to prove a statement P inductively.

Example
An n-gon is a closed planar figure bounded by n straight lines no two of which intersect unless they are adjacent, in which case they intersect just at a vertex. Prove that the sum of the interior angles of a convex n-gon is (n-2)180 for all n 3. First the statement must be shown to be true for the base case, namely when n=3. When n=3, the n-gon is a triengle. The sum of the interior angles of a triangle can be found by drawing a triangle with a line that intersects any one vertex and is also parallel to the side opposite to that vertex. In this case, the line creates two exterior angles with respect to the triangle. Because the angle at the vertex and the two exterior angles lie along a straight line, their sum is 180. Now, if we treat the other two sides of the triangle as transversals (between the other side of the triangle and the newly drawn line parallel to it), we see that each of the other two angles of the triangle is equal to one of the exterior angles. Thus, the sum of the angles of the triangle is also 180, which is consistent with P. Next, we must make the inductive hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that, for a k-gon, the sum of the interior angles of the polygon is (k-2)180. Now, we must consider the case where n=k+1. A (k+1)-gon can be formed from a k-gon by taking any one side of the k-gon and replacing it with two sides. This means, for example, that a pentagon can be formed by drawing a rectangle and then drawing a triangle with one side lying completely adjacent to one side of the rectangle. Essentially, adding this triangle takes one side of the rectangle and replaces it with two sides, making a 4-gon into a 5-gon. The sum of the interior angles is then the sum of the angles of the original rectangle plus the sum of the interior angles of the newly added triangle. Generalizing this example to the case of a (k+1)-gon can be formed from a k-gon by attaching a triangle to one of the sides in such a way that what was once just one side in the n=k case becomes two sides in the n=k+1 case. By doing so, the sum of the interior angles of the (k+1)-gon is the sum of the angles of the k-gon and a triangle, meaning that it is equal to: k 2 180 180

((k+1 2 180 Thus, the statement has been proven true for the (k+1)th case and thus by the Principle of Mathematical Induction (weak form), the sum of the interior angles of a convex n-gon is (n-2)180 for all n3.