280wk3_x4 - Faulty Inductions Part of why I want you to...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Faulty Inductions Part of why I want you to write out your assumptions carefully is so that you dont get led into some standard errors. Theorem: All women are blondes. Proof by induction: Let P ( n ) be the statement: For any set of n women, if at least one of them is a blonde, then all of them are. Basis: Clearly OK. Inductive step: Assume P ( n ). Lets prove P ( n + 1). Given a set W of n + 1 women, one of which is blonde. Let A and B be two subsets of W of size n , each of which contains the known blonde, whose union is W . By the induction hypothesis, each of A and B consists of all blondes. Thus, so does W . This proves P ( n ) P ( n + 1). 1 Take W to be the set of women in the world, and let n = | W | . Since there is clearly at least one blonde in the world, it follows that all women are blonde! Wheres the bug? 2 Theorem: Every integer > 1 has a unique prime fac- torization. [The result is true, but the following proof is not:] Proof: By strong induction. Let P ( n ) be the statement that n has a unique factorization. We prove P ( n ) for n > 1. Basis: P (2) is clearly true. Induction step: Assume P (2) , . . . , P ( n ). We prove P ( n + 1). If n + 1 is prime, we are done. If not, it factors somehow. Suppose n + 1 = rs r, s > 1. By the induction hypothesis, r has a unique factorization i p i and s has a unique prime factorization j q j . Thus, i p i j q j is a prime factorization of n + 1, and since none of the factors of either piece can be changed, it must be unique. Whats the flaw?? 3 Problem: Suppose n + 1 = 36. That is, youve proved that every number up to 36 has a unique factorization. Now you need to prove it for 36. 36 isnt prime, but 36 = 3 12. By the induction hy- pothesis, 12 has a unique prime factorization, say p 1 p 2 p 3 . Thus, 36 = 3 p 1 p 2 p 3 . However, 36 is also 4 9. By the induction hypothesis, 4 = q 1 q 2 and 9 = r 1 r 2 . Thus, 36 = q 1 q 2 r 1 r 2 . How do you know that 3 p 1 p 2 p 3 = q 1 q 2 r 1 r 2 . (They do, but it doesnt follow from the induction hy- pothesis.) This is a breakdown error . If youre trying to show some- thing is unique, and you break it down (as we broke down n +1 into r and s ) you have to argue that nothing changes if we break it down a different way. What if n + 1 = tu ? The actual proof of this result is quite subtle 4 Theorem: The sum of the internal angles of a regular n-gon is 180( n- 2) for n 3. Proof: By induction. Let P ( n ) be the sum of the internal angles of a regular n-gon is 180( n- 2). For n = 3, the result was shown in high school. Assume P ( n ); lets prove P ( n + 1). Given a regular ( n + 1)-gon, we can lop off one of the corners: By the induction hypothesis, the sum of the internal an- gles of the regular n-gon is 180( n- 2) degrees; the sum of the internal angles of the triangle is 180 degrees. Thus, the internal angles of the original ( n +1)-gon is 180(...
View Full Document

Page1 / 6

280wk3_x4 - Faulty Inductions Part of why I want you to...

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