Mathematical Writing - Vivaldi Franco 2014
Peano’s Induction Principle
Induction
This is a third form of mathematical induction; it was proposed by Dedekind6 and formalised by Peano. The principle of induction states that:
()
If is a predicate over such that
then is true for all .
The first condition is called the basis of the induction (or the base case); the second the inductive step. The bi-unique correspondence between predicates over and subsets of , given by [see Eqs. (4.15 and 4.16)]
allows us to reformulate the induction principle in the language of sets.
()
If is a subset of such that
then .
The principle of induction follows from well-ordering (). To show this, we define the set
We prove that is empty by contradiction. If is non-empty, then, by the well-ordering axiom, has a least element . Since , we have , and since is the smallest element of , it follows that . Then, putting , we find from condition ii) that , which contradicts the fact that .
The base case of Peano’s induction could be any integer, not just 1. Indeed if is valid for all , then by letting , the range becomes .
Peano’s induction provides straightforward proofs of finite sums and products formulae:
(8.2)
(8.3)
where is a sequence of numbers (or more generally of elements of a commutative ring), and and are explicit functions of , hopefully easier to compute than the original sum or product.
In an inductive proof of (8.2), the base case consists of verifying that . For the inductive step, we assume that the formula holds for some , and using the induction hypothesis we obtain:
Thus the proof reduces to the verification of the statements
(8.4)
which no longer involve summation. For example, to prove the formula
we must verify that
For a product formula, the expressions (8.4) are replaced by
(8.5)
In some cases the identities (8.4) and (8.5) may be established using a computer algebra system. This is an instance of computer-assisted proof 7—see Exercise 8.1.
A similar arrangement applies to the inductive proof of inequalities. However, even in the simplest cases, such proofs are not as mechanical as those of summation and product formulae, as the following example illustrates.
Proposition
If , then .
PROOF. We prove it by induction on . The base case is immediate: . Assume now that for some we have . Then
where the inequality follows from the induction hypothesis. To complete the proof, we must show that for all we have . Now the polynomial
has roots , with
Thus, for , we have , or . Hence , completing the induction.
The next example warns us that a straightforward inductive strategy doesn’t always work.
Proposition
For all integers and real numbers , we have
(8.6)
We attempt to prove this by induction on .
Base case: . Since , we have , as desired.
Inductive step: Assume (8.6) for some . Then
We don’t seem to be getting anywhere.
PROOF. We prove the stronger inequality . This is the Bernoulli inequality—see p. 139. Base case: . Since , we have .Inductive step: Assume the inequality for . Then
The inductive step is complete.