Lec4.1-2 - L4.1-2 Lecture Notes: Mathematical Induction It...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
L4.1-2 Lecture Notes: Mathematical Induction It is often the case that we want to consider the truth of statements such as (1) = n i 0 i = n(n+1)/2, n 0 This means that the sum from zero to any natural number is given by the formula. This is another instance of a hidden universal quantifier. We could state it more explicitly by saying for all natural numbers, = n i 0 i = n(n+1)/2 or 2200 n = n i 0 i = n(n+1)/2 (1) is clearly a proposition. It is either true or false. The variable n is bound by the universal quantifier. Let’s symbolize the formula in logic. Let P(n): = n i 0 i = n(n+1)/2 P is a predicate and P(n) is a propositional function just like the ones we studied in logic. Give it a value for n , and it gives you back a truth value, for example: P(5): = 5 0 i i = 5(5+1)/2 = 15 is True since 0+1+2+3+4+5=15. In a universe of natural numbers, we may restate (1) as 2200 nP(n). It is often the case that we want to prove such statements as (1), but so far we have no way of doing so. Proving (1) is difficult because an infinite number of formulas have to be proved, namely for n=0, 1, . . It turns out that there is a rule of inference that will do the job for us. We will prove that rule of inference below. For now you may accept the following rule of inference as valid. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
RULE OF INFERENCE . P(0) Premise 2200 n(P(n) P(n+1)) Premise ————————— 2200 nP(n) Conclusion If we can show the truth of the two premises (somehow), then we are allowed to say we have proved the conclusion. This rule of inference has the name mathematical induction . This is consistent with our habit of naming rules of inference that we use often, like modus ponens or universal instantiation . Proofs that use mathematical induction as a rule of inference are often called “inductive proofs.” Intuitively, if we prove P for the value 0, then the truth of the second premise says that P is true for the value 1. But if it is true for 1, the second premise says that it is true for 2, and so ad infinitum. P(0) is proved directly. This step is the basis. The second premise is proved by using universal instantiation, and then using the proof method for implications, namely assuming the antecedent and proving the consequent. When we combine these we get a statement like this: Assume that P(n) is true for an arbitrary n. Based on this assumption , show that P(n+1) is true. (At this point the reader is advised to review the proof methods for implications given in Lecture Notes 1.5-7, p 8) (The curious reader may ask why we don’t simply attempt to prove the conclusion 2200 nP(n) by proving P for an arbitrary n . The problem is we don’t know how to express an arbitrary natural number by itself. But in an implication we can work with an arbitrary n in relation to n+1 . That’s an easier concept to work with, and that’s the strength of this rule of inference. It’s important to note that the
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/26/2008 for the course CSC 226 taught by Professor Watkins during the Spring '08 term at N.C. State.

Page1 / 10

Lec4.1-2 - L4.1-2 Lecture Notes: Mathematical Induction It...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online