Weak Induction

Weak Induction
Principle of Weak Induction
Let P(n) be a statement about the nth integer.
If the following hypotheses hold:
i. P(1) is True.
ii. The statement P(n) → P(n + 1) is True for all n ≥ 1.
Then we can conclude that:
iii. P(n) is True for Every Integer n ≥ 1.

Template for Proofs by Weak Induction
Prove
i. P(1) {Base Case}
ii. P(n) → P(n + 1) {Inductive Step}
Conclude
iii. P(n) is True for Every Integer n ≥ 1 {Conclusion}
Remark
• Do not always need to start at 1.
Examples -- Weak Induction
n
n(n + 1)
1. ∑ k =
k=1
2
n
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
2. ∑ k = 2
k=1
6
n 2
3 ⎛ n(n + 1) ⎞
3. ∑ k = ⎜
⎝ 4 ⎟⎠
k=1
n
4. ∑ 2 k
= 2 n+1
−1
k=0
n
n(n + 1)
Proposition: ∑ k =
k=1
2
Proof:
Base Case: n = 1.
1
1(1+ 1) 1∗ 2
∑ k = 1 and 2 = 2 = 1.
k=1
Inductive Step:
n
n(n + 1)
Assume: ∑k = 2
k=1
n+1
(n + 1)(n + 2)
Must Show: ∑ k =
k=1
2
Inductive Proof:
n+1 n
∑ k = (n + 1) + ∑ k (recursion)
k=1 k=1
n(n + 1)
= (n + 1) + (inductive hypothesis)
2
2(n + 1) n ( n + 1)
= + (common denominator)
2 2
(n + 1) ( 2 + n )
= ( factoring)
2
Good Semantics
n
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
Proposition: ∑ k = 2
k=1
6
Good Proof:
Base Case: n = 1.
1
1(1 + 1)(2 ∗1 + 1) 1∗ 2 ∗ 3
∑ k = 1 and
2
6
=
6
= 1.
k=1
Inductive Step:
n
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
Assume: ∑k = 2
6
k=1
n+1
(n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)
Must Show: ∑ k = 2
k=1
6
Inductive Proof:
n+1 n
∑ k 2 = (n + 1)2 + ∑ k 2 (recursion)
k=1 k=1
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
= (n + 1)2 + (inductive hypothesis)
6
= (n + 1)
( 6(n + 1) + n(2n + 1) )
( factoring)
6
= (n + 1)
( 6n + 6 + 2n 2 + n ) (expanding)
6
(n + 1)(2n 2 + 7n + 6)
= (adding)
6
(n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)
= ( factoring)
6
Bad Semantics
n
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
Prop: ∑ k = 2
k=1
6
Bad Proof:
Base Case: n = 1.
1
2 1(1 + 1)(2 ∗1 + 1) 1∗ 2 ∗ 3
∑k = 6
=
6
= 1.
k=1
Inductive Step:
n
n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
Assume: ∑k = 2
6
k=1
n+1
(n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)
Must Show: ∑ k = 2
k=1
6
n+1
(n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)
∑k = 2
6
k=1
n
(n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)
(n + 1) + ∑ k =
2 2
k =1
6
n(n + 1)(2n + 1) (n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)

2
(n + 1) + =
6 6
( 6(n + 1) + n(2n + 1) ) (n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)

(n + 1) =
6 6
(n + 1)
( 6n + 6 + 2n 2
+n ) = (n + 1)(n 2
+ 7n + 6)
6 6
(n + 1)(n 2 + 7n + 6) (n + 1)(n 2 + 7n + 6)
= BAD
6 6
Bad Semantics (continued)
1. The implications go the wrong way

a. From q and p ⇒ q , we cannot conclude p. BAD
2. Good style for discovery; bad style for proof.
3. Start at bottom; work to the top.
4. Start with what you know; prove what you do not know.
5. Do not assume what you are trying to prove.
6. Sometimes this proof style actually is correct because

the implications are if and only if.
But this style is highly dangerous because often the
implications are only one way.
Good Style for Inductive Proofs
A. First verify the base case, using the following template:

LHS(1)=something
RHS(1)=something
and say "base case holds".
DO NOT WRITE:
LHS(1)=RHS(1)
BEFORE showing they are both equal to some common result.
B. Clearly specify your induction hypothesis.

Omitting this step can cause serious confusion.
C. For the inductive step, NEVER start from the conclusion

LHS(n+1)=RHS(n+1)
and perform arithmetic operations on both sides to derive a well-known fact such as
0=0.
This style is VERY BAD and the semantics are incorrect.
q and p⇒q, do not imply p.
You MAY verify the given statement in this way.
You MAY NOT prove the result in this way.
D. I strongly recommend one of the following three correct approaches:

i. Start from LHS(n+1), show
LHS(n+1) = ..........
= ..........
= ..........
= RHS(n+1)
ii. Start from RHS(n+1), show

RHS(n+1) = ..........
= ..........
= ..........
= LHS(n+1)
iii. Start from LHS(n+1), show

LHS(n+1) = ..........
= ..........
= ..........
= some intermediate result;
and do the same thing on RHS(n+1)
RHS(n+1) = ..........
= ..........
= ..........
= same intermediate result;
E. After you finish the inductive step, you should state a conclusion, summarizing what
your proof has shown.
Questions
1. Is induction circular?
• Aren’t we assuming what we are trying to prove?
• If we assume the result, can’t we prove anything at all?
2. Does induction ever lead to false results?
3. Can we change the base case?
4. Why do we need induction?
5. Is proof by induction finite?

• Don’t we need infinitely many steps to establish P(n)
for every n?
6. Proof of Induction?
• Well Ordering Principle
Failed Induction
n
Proposition: ∑ k = n 2
k=1
Proof:
Base Case: n = 1.
1
∑k =1 and 12 = 1 .
k=1
Inductive Step:
n
Assume: ∑ k = n 2
k=1
n+1
Must Show: ∑ k = (n + 1) 2
k=1
n+1 n
∑ k = (n + 1) + ∑ k (recursion)
k=1 k=1

= (n + 1) + n 2 (inductive hypothesis)
= (n 2 + 2n + 1) − n (add and subtract n)
= (n + 1)2 − n ( factoring)
≠ (n + 1)2 (when n ≠ 0)
PROOF FAILS
Theorem: All horses have the same color.
Theorem: All horses have the same color.
Theorem: For all integers n ≥ 1, in every collection

of n horses, all the horses have the same color.
The Island of Perfect Logicians -- Extra Credit
There once was an island where all the inhabitants were Perfect Logicians and also
Perfectly Law Abiding. The islanders had the following three laws:
1. Anyone who finds out that they have blue eyes must commit suicide that same
day before sundown by jumping off a cliff.
2. No one is allowed to tell another person that the other person has blue eyes.
3. No mirrors are allowed on the island.
One day a man from the Island of Perfect Truth Tellers visits the Island of Perfect
Logicians. After the dinner that night the visitor from the Island of Perfect Truth Tellers
says to all the inhabitants of the Island of Perfect Logicians that he is happy to have
dinner on an island where at least one person has blue eyes. (All the residents of the
Island of Perfect Truth Tellers have brown eyes.)
There are 100 inhabitants on the Island of Perfect Logician, and all 100 inhabitants
have blue eyes. One hundred days after the visit of the person from the Island of Perfect
Truth Tellers all the inhabitant of the Island of Perfect Logicians jump off a cliff. Why?

Weak Induction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weak Induction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weak Induction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weak Induction

Principle of Weak Induction

Let P(n) be a statement about the nth integer.

If the following hypotheses hold:

ii. The statement P(n) → P(n + 1) is True for all n ≥ 1.

Then we can conclude that:

iii. P(n) is True for Every Integer n ≥ 1.

ii. P(n) → P(n + 1) {Inductive Step}

n(n + 1)(2n + 1) (n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)

( 6(n + 1) + n(2n + 1) ) (n + 1)(n + 2)(2n + 3)

1. The implications go the wrong way

2. Good style for discovery; bad style for proof.

3. Start at bottom; work to the top.

5. Do not assume what you are trying to prove.

6. Sometimes this proof style actually is correct because

A. First verify the base case, using the following template:

B. Clearly specify your induction hypothesis.

C. For the inductive step, NEVER start from the conclusion

D. I strongly recommend one of the following three correct approaches:

ii. Start from RHS(n+1), show

iii. Start from LHS(n+1), show

2. Does induction ever lead to false results?

3. Can we change the base case?

4. Why do we need induction?

5. Is proof by induction finite?

= (n 2 + 2n + 1) − n (add and subtract n)

= (n + 1)2 − n ( factoring)

Theorem: For all integers n ≥ 1, in every collection

You might also like