Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Description. The simplest and most common form of mathematical induction infers that a statement involving a natural number n (that is, an integer n ≥ 0 or 1) holds for all values of n. The proof consists of two steps: The base case (or initial case): prove that the statement holds for 0, or 1. The induction step (or inductive step, or step ...
Then P(n) is true for all natural numbers n. For example, we can prove by induction that all positive integers of the form 2n − 1 are odd. Let P(n) represent " 2n − 1 is odd": (i) For n = 1, 2n − 1 = 2 (1) − 1 = 1, and 1 is odd, since it leaves a remainder of 1 when divided by 2. Thus P(1) is true.
Proof by exhaustion, also known as proof by cases, proof by case analysis, complete induction or the brute force method, is a method of mathematical proof in which the statement to be proved is split into a finite number of cases or sets of equivalent cases, and where each type of case is checked to see if the proposition in question holds. [1]
All horses are the same color. All horses are the same color is a falsidical paradox that arises from a flawed use of mathematical induction to prove the statement All horses are the same color. [1] There is no actual contradiction, as these arguments have a crucial flaw that makes them incorrect. This example was originally raised by George ...
Simplifications. Some of the proofs of Fermat's little theorem given below depend on two simplifications. The first is that we may assume that a is in the range 0 ≤ a ≤ p − 1. This is a simple consequence of the laws of modular arithmetic; we are simply saying that we may first reduce a modulo p.
We prove commutativity (a + b = b + a) by applying induction on the natural number b. First we prove the base cases b = 0 and b = S (0) = 1 (i.e. we prove that 0 and 1 commute with everything). The base case b = 0 follows immediately from the identity element property (0 is an additive identity), which has been proved above: a + 0 = a = 0 + a.
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the ...
Structural induction is used to prove that some proposition P(x) holds for all x of some sort of recursively defined structure, such as formulas, lists, or trees. A well-founded partial order is defined on the structures ("subformula" for formulas, "sublist" for lists, and "subtree" for trees). The structural induction proof is a proof that the ...