Induction II

Margaret M. Fleck
1 March 2010

In this lecture, we see more examples of mathematical induction (section

4.1 of Rosen).

Announcements

Homework 5 is hard. Even if you plan to do most of your work at the last
minute, browse through it earlier to see if you understand how to get started.
Were in the middle of grading the midterms. Watch the newsgroup for
exactly when theyll be returned.

Recap

If we want to prove a claim P (n), for all integers n, a proof by induction has
the following outline:
Proof: We will show P (n) is true for all n, using induction on n.
Base: We need to show that P (1) is true.
Induction: Suppose that P (k) is true, for some integer k. We
need to show that P (k + 1) is true.

Why is this legit?

There are several ways to think about mathematical induction, and understand why its a legitimate proof technique. Different people prefer different
motivations at this point, so Ill offer several.
A proof by induction of that P (k) is true for all positive integers k involves
showing that P (1) is true (base case) and that P (k) P (k + 1) (inductive
step).
Domino Theory: Imagine an infinite line of dominoes. The
base step pushes the first one over. The inductive step claims
that one domino falling down will push over the next domino
in the line. So dominos will start to fall from the beginning all
the way down the line. This process continues forever, because
the line is infinitely long. However, if you focus on any specific
domino, it falls after some specific finite delay.
Recursion fairy: The recursion fairy is the mathematicians
version of a programming assistant. Suppose you tell her how to
do the proof for P (1) and also why P (k) implies P (k + 1). Then
suppose you pick any integer (e.g. 1034) then she can take this
recipe and use it to fill in all the details of a normal direct proof
that P holds for this particular integer. That is, she takes P (1),
then uses the inductive step to get from P (1) to P (2), and so on
up to P (1034).
Smallest counter-example: Lets assume weve established
that P (1) is true and also that P (k) implies P (k + 1). Lets prove
that P (j) is true for all positive integers j, by contradiction.
That is, we suppose that P (1) is true, also that P (k) implies
P (k + 1), but there is a counter-example to our claim that P (j)
is true for all j. That is, suppose that P (m) was not true for
some integer m.
Now, lets look at the set of all counter-examples. We know that
all the counter-examples are larger than 1, because our induction
2

proof established explicitly that P (1) was true. Suppose that the
smallest counter-example is s. So P (s) is not true. We know
that s > 1, since P (1) was true. Since s was supposed to be the
smallest counter-example, s 1 must not be a counter-example,
i.e. P (s 1) is true.
But now we know that P (s 1) is true but P (s) is not true. This
directly contradicts our assumption that P (k) implies P (k + 1)
for any k.
The smallest counter-example explanation is a formal proof that induction
works, given how weve defined the integers. If you dig into the mathematics,
youll find that it depends on the integers having whats called the wellordering property: any subset has a smallest element. Standard axioms
used to define the integers include either a well-ordering or an induction
axiom.
These arguments dont depend on whether our starting point is 1 or some
other integer, e.g. 0 or 2 or -47. All you need to do is ensure that your base
case covers the first integer for which the claim is supposed to be true.

Building an inductive proof

In constructing an inductive proof, youve got two tasks. First, you need
to set up this outline for your problem. This includes identifying a suitable
proposition P and a suitable integer variable n.
Notice that P (n) must be a statement, i.e. something that is either true
or false. For example, it is never just a formula whose value is a number.
Also, notice that P (n) must depend on an integer n. This integer n is known
as our induction variable. The assumption at the start of the inductive step
(P (k) is true) is called the inductive hypothesis.
Your second task is to fill in the middle part of the induction step. That
is, you must figure out how to relate a solution for a larger problem P (k + 1)
to a solution for a small problem P (k). Most students want to do this
by starting with the small problem and adding something to it. For more
complex situations, its usually better to start with the larger problem and
3

try to find an instance of the smaller problem inside it.

An example of induction

Last Friday, we used induction to prove the following claim:

Claim 1 For any positive integer n, ni=1 i =

n(n+1)
.
2

Lets do another example:

Claim 2 For every positive integer n 4, 2n < n!.
Remember that n! (n factorial) is 1 2 3 4 . . . n. E.g. 5! = 1 2 3 4 5 =
120.
First, as usual, try some specific integers and verify that the claim is true.
Since the claim specifies n 4, its worth checking that 4 does work but the
smaller integers dont.
In this claim, the proposition P (n) is 2n < n!. So an outline of our
inductive proof looks like:
Proof: Suppose that n is an integer and n 4. Well prove that
2n < n! using induction on n.
Base: n = 4. [show that the formula works for n = 4]
Induction: Suppose that the claim holds for n = k. That is,
suppose that we have an integer k 4 such that 2k < k!. We need
to show that the claim holds for n = k+1, i.e. that 2k+1 < (k+1)!.
Notice that our base case is for n = 4 because the claim was specified to
hold only for integers 4.
Fleshing out the details of the algebra, we get the following full proof.
When working with inequalities, its especially important to write down your
assumptions and what you want to conclude with. You can then work from
both ends to fill in the gap in the middle of the proof.
4

Proof: Suppose that n is an integer and n 4. Well prove that

2n < n! using induction on n.
Base: n = 4. In this case 2n = 24 = 16. Also n! = 1 2 3 4 = 24.
Since 16 < 24, the formula holds for n = 4.
Induction: Suppose that the claim holds for n = k. That is,
suppose that we have an integer k 4 such that 2k < k!. We
need to show that 2k+1 < (k + 1)!.
2k+1 = 22k . By the inductive hypothesis, 2k < k!, so 22k < 2k!.
Since k 4, 2 < k + 1. So 2 k! < (k + 1) k! = (k + 1)!.
Putting these equations together, we find that 2k+1 < (k + 1)!,
which is what we needed to show.

Some comments about style

Notice that the start of the proof tells you which variable in your formula
(n in this case) is the induction variable. In this formula, the choice of
induction variable is fairly obvious. But sometimes theres more than one
integer floating around that might make a plausible choice for the induction
variable. Its good style to always mention that you are doing a proof by
induction and say what your induction variable is.
Its also good style to label your base and inductive steps.
Notice that the proof of the base case is very short. In fact, Ive written
about about twice as long as youd normally see it. Almost all the time, the
base case is trivial to prove and fairly obvious to both you and your reader.
Often this step contains only some worked algebra and a check mark at the
end. However, its critical that you do check the base case. And, if your base
case involves an equation, compute the results for both sides (not just one
side) so you can verify they are equal.
The important part of the inductive step is ensuring that you assume
P (k) and use it to show P (k + 1). At the start, you must spell out your
inductive hypothesis, i.e. what P (k) is for your claim. Make sure that you
use this information in your argument that P (k + 1) holds. If you dont, its
not an inductive proof and its very likely that your proof is buggy.
5

At the start of the inductive step, its also a good idea to say what you
need to show, i.e. quote what P (k + 1) is.
These style issues are optional in theory, but actually critical for beginners writing inductive proofs. You will lose points if your proof isnt clear
and easy to read. Following these style points (e.g. labelling your base and
inductive steps) is a good way to ensure that it is, and that the logic of your
proof is correct.

Another example

The previous examples applied induction to an algebraic formula. We can

also apply induction to other sorts of statements, as long as they involve a
suitable integer n.
Claim 3 For any natural number n, n3 n is divisible by 3.
In this case, P (n) is n3 n is divisible by 3.
Proof: By induction on n.
Base: Let n = 0. Then n3 n = 03 0 = 0 which is divisible by
3.
Induction: Suppose that k 3 k is divisible by 3, for some positive
integer k. We need to show that (k + 1)3 (k + 1) is divisible by
3.
(k+1)3 (k+1) = (k 3 +3k 2 +3k+1)(k+1) = (k 3 k)+3(k 2 +k)
From the inductive hypothesis, (k 3 k) is divisible by 3. And
3(k 2 + k) is divisible by 3 since (k 2 + k) is an integer. So their
sum is divisible by 3. That is (k + 1)3 (k + 1) is divisible by 3.

The zero base case is technically enough to make the proof solid, but
sometimes a zero base case doesnt provide good intuition or confidence. So
youll sometimes see an extra base case written out, e.g. n = 1 in this
example, to help the author or reader see why the claim is plausible.
6

Induction on the size of sets

Now, lets consider a fact about sets which weve used already but never
properly proved:
Claim 4 For any finite set S containing n elements, S has 2n subsets.
The objects involved in this claim are sets. To apply induction to facts
that arent about the integers, we need to find a way to use the integers to
organize our objects. In this case, well organize our sets by their cardinality.
The proposition P (n) for our induction is then For any set S containing
n elements, S has 2n subsets. Notice that each P (k) is a claim about a
whole family of sets, e.g. P (1) is a claim about {37}, {fred}, {31.7}, and
so forth.
Proof: Well prove this for all sets S, by induction on the cardinality of the set.
Base: Suppose that S is a set that contain no elements. Then S
is the empty set, which has one subset, i.e. itself. Putting zero
into our formula, we get 20 = 1 which is correct.
Induction: Suppose that our claim is true for all sets of k elements, where k is some non-negative integer. We need to show
that it is true for all sets of k + 1 elements.
Suppose that S is a set containing k + 1 elements. Since k is
non-negative, k + 1 1, so S must contain at least one element.
Lets pick a random element a in S. Let T = S {a}.
If B is a subset of S, either B contains a or B doesnt contain a.
The subsets of S not containing a are exactly the subsets of T .
The subsets of S containing a are exactly the subsets of T , with
a added to each one. So S has twice as many subsets as T .
By the induction hypothesis, T has 2k subsets. So S has 2 2k =
2k+1 subsets, which is what we needed to show.
Notice that, in the inductive step, we need to show that our claim is true
for all sets of k + 1 elements. Because we are proving a universal statement,
7

we need to pick a representative element of the right type. This is the set S
that we choose in the second paragraph of the inductive step.