Avoiding direct proof while writing proof by inductionFactorial (Proof by Induction)Proof by contradiction and mathematical inductionWhat would be the induction hypothesis in my proof?Proof by Induction of an inequality with a sumProof By Induction Summations, Factorials and Inequalitiessummation and inequality induction proofIs my proof by induction on binary trees correct?Bogus Proof by Strong InductionProof By Induction: Summation of Polynomialtricky summation proof by induction
Short story with a alien planet, government officials must wear exploding medallions
How writing a dominant 7 sus4 chord in RNA ( Vsus7 chord in the 1st inversion)
Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?
Examples of smooth manifolds admitting inbetween one and a continuum of complex structures
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable
Plagiarism or not?
How did the Super Star Destroyer Executor get destroyed exactly?
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
Is there an expression that means doing something right before you will need it rather than doing it in case you might need it?
Forgetting the musical notes while performing in concert
How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?
What method can I use to design a dungeon difficult enough that the PCs can't make it through without killing them?
What do you call someone who asks many questions?
How do I gain back my faith in my PhD degree?
Do scales need to be in alphabetical order?
When is человек used as the word man instead of человек
Can we compute the area of a quadrilateral with one right angle when we only know the lengths of any three sides?
How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?
What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?
Why no variance term in Bayesian logistic regression?
Unlock My Phone! February 2018
What's the in-universe reasoning behind sorcerers needing material components?
Is "remove commented out code" correct English?
Avoiding direct proof while writing proof by induction
Factorial (Proof by Induction)Proof by contradiction and mathematical inductionWhat would be the induction hypothesis in my proof?Proof by Induction of an inequality with a sumProof By Induction Summations, Factorials and Inequalitiessummation and inequality induction proofIs my proof by induction on binary trees correct?Bogus Proof by Strong InductionProof By Induction: Summation of Polynomialtricky summation proof by induction
$begingroup$
$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$
I received a homework problem that instructed me to use induction to prove that for all natural numbers n
$$S_n = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$
First I proved that my base case of $S_0$ holds, because substituting $0$ for $n$ in both the top formula and the following formula makes both equal to $3$. The next step is to form my inductive hypothesis. My hypothesis is that
$$sum_i=0^n(5i+3) = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$ for all natural numbers $n$. Then I'm assuming that $$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$ holds when $n$ = some arbitrary natural number $k$ (I've since been told not to do $n=k$ for some reason).
Next step is to prove that $S_k+1$ holds, because if it does, knowing that my base case holds will tell me that $S_1$ holds, telling me that $S_2$ holds, etc.
To prove this, I took the equation from my assumption and substituted $k+1$ for $k$. Evaluating the left hand side of $frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3$ eventually yielded $frac5k^2+21k+222$, and solving the right hand side of $sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3)$ using Gauss's(?) sum and splitting the terms of the sum (I don't know what to call it) to come to the same result. Since both sides of the equation reduced to the same expression, I reasoned that this proves that my original assumption holds, therefore the statement at the top has been proven.
I've gone wrong somewhere above, since I was told that I proved the original assertion with a direct proof rather than by induction. Where did I go wrong? I thought that after making my assumption and learning the case that needs to hold to make such assumption true, all I need to do is see if both sides of the equation equal each other. Has doing a direct proof of the original statement caused me to make too many assumptions? Or have I done something else inappropriate?
proof-verification summation induction alternative-proof gauss-sums
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$
I received a homework problem that instructed me to use induction to prove that for all natural numbers n
$$S_n = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$
First I proved that my base case of $S_0$ holds, because substituting $0$ for $n$ in both the top formula and the following formula makes both equal to $3$. The next step is to form my inductive hypothesis. My hypothesis is that
$$sum_i=0^n(5i+3) = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$ for all natural numbers $n$. Then I'm assuming that $$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$ holds when $n$ = some arbitrary natural number $k$ (I've since been told not to do $n=k$ for some reason).
Next step is to prove that $S_k+1$ holds, because if it does, knowing that my base case holds will tell me that $S_1$ holds, telling me that $S_2$ holds, etc.
To prove this, I took the equation from my assumption and substituted $k+1$ for $k$. Evaluating the left hand side of $frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3$ eventually yielded $frac5k^2+21k+222$, and solving the right hand side of $sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3)$ using Gauss's(?) sum and splitting the terms of the sum (I don't know what to call it) to come to the same result. Since both sides of the equation reduced to the same expression, I reasoned that this proves that my original assumption holds, therefore the statement at the top has been proven.
I've gone wrong somewhere above, since I was told that I proved the original assertion with a direct proof rather than by induction. Where did I go wrong? I thought that after making my assumption and learning the case that needs to hold to make such assumption true, all I need to do is see if both sides of the equation equal each other. Has doing a direct proof of the original statement caused me to make too many assumptions? Or have I done something else inappropriate?
proof-verification summation induction alternative-proof gauss-sums
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$
I received a homework problem that instructed me to use induction to prove that for all natural numbers n
$$S_n = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$
First I proved that my base case of $S_0$ holds, because substituting $0$ for $n$ in both the top formula and the following formula makes both equal to $3$. The next step is to form my inductive hypothesis. My hypothesis is that
$$sum_i=0^n(5i+3) = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$ for all natural numbers $n$. Then I'm assuming that $$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$ holds when $n$ = some arbitrary natural number $k$ (I've since been told not to do $n=k$ for some reason).
Next step is to prove that $S_k+1$ holds, because if it does, knowing that my base case holds will tell me that $S_1$ holds, telling me that $S_2$ holds, etc.
To prove this, I took the equation from my assumption and substituted $k+1$ for $k$. Evaluating the left hand side of $frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3$ eventually yielded $frac5k^2+21k+222$, and solving the right hand side of $sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3)$ using Gauss's(?) sum and splitting the terms of the sum (I don't know what to call it) to come to the same result. Since both sides of the equation reduced to the same expression, I reasoned that this proves that my original assumption holds, therefore the statement at the top has been proven.
I've gone wrong somewhere above, since I was told that I proved the original assertion with a direct proof rather than by induction. Where did I go wrong? I thought that after making my assumption and learning the case that needs to hold to make such assumption true, all I need to do is see if both sides of the equation equal each other. Has doing a direct proof of the original statement caused me to make too many assumptions? Or have I done something else inappropriate?
proof-verification summation induction alternative-proof gauss-sums
$endgroup$
$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$
I received a homework problem that instructed me to use induction to prove that for all natural numbers n
$$S_n = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$
First I proved that my base case of $S_0$ holds, because substituting $0$ for $n$ in both the top formula and the following formula makes both equal to $3$. The next step is to form my inductive hypothesis. My hypothesis is that
$$sum_i=0^n(5i+3) = fracn(5n+11)2+3$$ for all natural numbers $n$. Then I'm assuming that $$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$ holds when $n$ = some arbitrary natural number $k$ (I've since been told not to do $n=k$ for some reason).
Next step is to prove that $S_k+1$ holds, because if it does, knowing that my base case holds will tell me that $S_1$ holds, telling me that $S_2$ holds, etc.
To prove this, I took the equation from my assumption and substituted $k+1$ for $k$. Evaluating the left hand side of $frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3$ eventually yielded $frac5k^2+21k+222$, and solving the right hand side of $sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3)$ using Gauss's(?) sum and splitting the terms of the sum (I don't know what to call it) to come to the same result. Since both sides of the equation reduced to the same expression, I reasoned that this proves that my original assumption holds, therefore the statement at the top has been proven.
I've gone wrong somewhere above, since I was told that I proved the original assertion with a direct proof rather than by induction. Where did I go wrong? I thought that after making my assumption and learning the case that needs to hold to make such assumption true, all I need to do is see if both sides of the equation equal each other. Has doing a direct proof of the original statement caused me to make too many assumptions? Or have I done something else inappropriate?
proof-verification summation induction alternative-proof gauss-sums
proof-verification summation induction alternative-proof gauss-sums
edited 2 hours ago
Eevee Trainer
9,51331740
9,51331740
asked 2 hours ago
user2709168user2709168
324
324
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Typically, you want to remember that, for proof by induction, you have to make use of the induction assumption. You assume some case greater than your base case holds, and then show it implies the succeeding step - that gives you the whole "$S_1 implies S_2 implies S_3 implies ...$" chain.
So our assumption is
$$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$
We seek to show
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3 = frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3$$
Starting with the sum at the left, we can pull out the $(k+1)^th$ term:
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = 5(k+1) + 3 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = 5k+8 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3)$$
As it happens, this new summation is precisely what we assume holds. So we substitute the corresponding expression and do some algebra:
$$beginalign
5k+9 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) &= 5k+8 + frack(5k+11)2+3\
&=frac10k+16 + 5k^2 + 11k2 + 3\
&=frac5k^2+21k+162 + 3\
&= frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3
endalign$$
Thus, the case for $(k+1)$ holds, completing the induction step.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I think the place where you say you used the "Gauss sum" is where your instructor says you just gave a direct proof. It's hard to tell, because you didn't show us your proof, you just said "and then I did and then ...".
What's expected is that you write the result for a particular value of $k$ - the inductive hypothesis, then add the next term and do some algebra to show that you get the result for $k+1$.
As an aside, I really don't like a question that asks you to prove something by induction when there is an easier straightforward way - in this case, Gauss's method.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174030%2favoiding-direct-proof-while-writing-proof-by-induction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Typically, you want to remember that, for proof by induction, you have to make use of the induction assumption. You assume some case greater than your base case holds, and then show it implies the succeeding step - that gives you the whole "$S_1 implies S_2 implies S_3 implies ...$" chain.
So our assumption is
$$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$
We seek to show
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3 = frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3$$
Starting with the sum at the left, we can pull out the $(k+1)^th$ term:
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = 5(k+1) + 3 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = 5k+8 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3)$$
As it happens, this new summation is precisely what we assume holds. So we substitute the corresponding expression and do some algebra:
$$beginalign
5k+9 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) &= 5k+8 + frack(5k+11)2+3\
&=frac10k+16 + 5k^2 + 11k2 + 3\
&=frac5k^2+21k+162 + 3\
&= frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3
endalign$$
Thus, the case for $(k+1)$ holds, completing the induction step.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Typically, you want to remember that, for proof by induction, you have to make use of the induction assumption. You assume some case greater than your base case holds, and then show it implies the succeeding step - that gives you the whole "$S_1 implies S_2 implies S_3 implies ...$" chain.
So our assumption is
$$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$
We seek to show
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3 = frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3$$
Starting with the sum at the left, we can pull out the $(k+1)^th$ term:
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = 5(k+1) + 3 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = 5k+8 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3)$$
As it happens, this new summation is precisely what we assume holds. So we substitute the corresponding expression and do some algebra:
$$beginalign
5k+9 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) &= 5k+8 + frack(5k+11)2+3\
&=frac10k+16 + 5k^2 + 11k2 + 3\
&=frac5k^2+21k+162 + 3\
&= frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3
endalign$$
Thus, the case for $(k+1)$ holds, completing the induction step.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Typically, you want to remember that, for proof by induction, you have to make use of the induction assumption. You assume some case greater than your base case holds, and then show it implies the succeeding step - that gives you the whole "$S_1 implies S_2 implies S_3 implies ...$" chain.
So our assumption is
$$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$
We seek to show
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3 = frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3$$
Starting with the sum at the left, we can pull out the $(k+1)^th$ term:
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = 5(k+1) + 3 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = 5k+8 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3)$$
As it happens, this new summation is precisely what we assume holds. So we substitute the corresponding expression and do some algebra:
$$beginalign
5k+9 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) &= 5k+8 + frack(5k+11)2+3\
&=frac10k+16 + 5k^2 + 11k2 + 3\
&=frac5k^2+21k+162 + 3\
&= frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3
endalign$$
Thus, the case for $(k+1)$ holds, completing the induction step.
$endgroup$
Typically, you want to remember that, for proof by induction, you have to make use of the induction assumption. You assume some case greater than your base case holds, and then show it implies the succeeding step - that gives you the whole "$S_1 implies S_2 implies S_3 implies ...$" chain.
So our assumption is
$$sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = frack(5k+11)2+3$$
We seek to show
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = frac(k+1)(5(k+1)+11)2+3 = frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3$$
Starting with the sum at the left, we can pull out the $(k+1)^th$ term:
$$sum_i=0^k+1(5i+3) = 5(k+1) + 3 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) = 5k+8 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3)$$
As it happens, this new summation is precisely what we assume holds. So we substitute the corresponding expression and do some algebra:
$$beginalign
5k+9 + sum_i=0^k(5i+3) &= 5k+8 + frack(5k+11)2+3\
&=frac10k+16 + 5k^2 + 11k2 + 3\
&=frac5k^2+21k+162 + 3\
&= frac(k+1)(5k+16)2+3
endalign$$
Thus, the case for $(k+1)$ holds, completing the induction step.
answered 2 hours ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,51331740
9,51331740
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think I mixed up my expressions in the post, but my intention was to have what you had as your assumption(?) as my inductive hypothesis. Do I not use that hypothesis when proving that the k+1 substitution holds?
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You used something you refer to as "Gauss's (?) sum" in that, so, no, you did not make use of your induction hypothesis. At least in any obvious way because I have no idea what this sum you refer to is.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Are you saying my inductive hypothesis was Gauss's sum? Because that's not what I thought I was asserting Copy pasting a different comment of mine explaining what I meant: "I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2."
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm saying that you're not making use of the inductive hypothesis. You verified the inductive step by another method, which makes no use of the inductive hypothesis. You have to assume the inductive hypothesis holds when you verify the inductive step: that's the whole point of the "this implies that implies that" domino effect. Alongside the base case and the fact that one implies the next - and you have to have a step implying the next, and have to show that implication holds - that gives us the domino effect. Verifying the induction step independently does not show $S_kimplies S_k+1$.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What is my inductive hypothesis in this situation? I thought the hypothesis was that the statement holds when n=k, therefore by proving it holds for k+1 then it holds for all n
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I think the place where you say you used the "Gauss sum" is where your instructor says you just gave a direct proof. It's hard to tell, because you didn't show us your proof, you just said "and then I did and then ...".
What's expected is that you write the result for a particular value of $k$ - the inductive hypothesis, then add the next term and do some algebra to show that you get the result for $k+1$.
As an aside, I really don't like a question that asks you to prove something by induction when there is an easier straightforward way - in this case, Gauss's method.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the place where you say you used the "Gauss sum" is where your instructor says you just gave a direct proof. It's hard to tell, because you didn't show us your proof, you just said "and then I did and then ...".
What's expected is that you write the result for a particular value of $k$ - the inductive hypothesis, then add the next term and do some algebra to show that you get the result for $k+1$.
As an aside, I really don't like a question that asks you to prove something by induction when there is an easier straightforward way - in this case, Gauss's method.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the place where you say you used the "Gauss sum" is where your instructor says you just gave a direct proof. It's hard to tell, because you didn't show us your proof, you just said "and then I did and then ...".
What's expected is that you write the result for a particular value of $k$ - the inductive hypothesis, then add the next term and do some algebra to show that you get the result for $k+1$.
As an aside, I really don't like a question that asks you to prove something by induction when there is an easier straightforward way - in this case, Gauss's method.
$endgroup$
I think the place where you say you used the "Gauss sum" is where your instructor says you just gave a direct proof. It's hard to tell, because you didn't show us your proof, you just said "and then I did and then ...".
What's expected is that you write the result for a particular value of $k$ - the inductive hypothesis, then add the next term and do some algebra to show that you get the result for $k+1$.
As an aside, I really don't like a question that asks you to prove something by induction when there is an easier straightforward way - in this case, Gauss's method.
answered 2 hours ago
Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker
45.5k553120
45.5k553120
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean by a particular value of k? I mentioned Gauss's sum because that's one of the things I used to evaluate the right side of my equation- through turning the sum of 5i into 5((k+1)(k+2))/2. I thought the particular value was writing that the statement holds when the value of k is n (or the other way around? trying to figure out what supposedly went wrong is confusing me), and then I can prove I get the same result for k+1.
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I can't explain any better what I mean than what is in @EeveeTrainer 's answer and comments.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174030%2favoiding-direct-proof-while-writing-proof-by-induction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
You were told... by whom? Your proof seems to line up with induction nicely.
$endgroup$
– abiessu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
1 hour ago