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

What killed these X2 caps?

Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

Detention in 1997

Avoiding direct proof while writing proof by induction

Assassin's bullet with mercury

Cursor Replacement for Newbies

Are there any examples of a variable being normally distributed that is *not* due to the Central Limit Theorem?

How does a predictive coding aid in lossless compression?

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

Little known, relatively unlikely, but scientifically plausible, apocalyptic (or near apocalyptic) events

Do scales need to be in alphabetical order?

Can compressed videos be decoded back to their uncompresed original format?

Why are the 737's rear doors unusable in a water landing?

Why didn't Boeing produce its own regional jet?

Should I cover my bicycle overnight while bikepacking?

Venezuelan girlfriend wants to travel the USA to be with me. What is the process?

Why was the shrinking from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)?

How writing a dominant 7 sus4 chord in RNA ( Vsus7 chord in the 1st inversion)

What method can I use to design a dungeon difficult enough that the PCs can't make it through without killing them?

What are some good books on Machine Learning and AI like Krugman, Wells and Graddy's "Essentials of Economics"

Would Slavery Reparations be considered Bills of Attainder and hence Illegal?

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

Why didn't Miles's spider sense work before?



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













2












$begingroup$


$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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
    2 hours ago















2












$begingroup$


$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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
    2 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




$$S_n = sum_i=0^n(5i+3)$$



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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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
    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
    2 hours 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
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@abiessu I was told this by my TA
$endgroup$
– user2709168
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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


















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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











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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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













3












3








3





$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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
















  • $begingroup$
    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











3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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













3












3








3





$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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
















  • $begingroup$
    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

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Magento 2 duplicate PHPSESSID cookie when using session_start() in custom php scriptMagento 2: User cant logged in into to account page, no error showing!Magento duplicate on subdomainGrabbing storeview from cookie (after using language selector)How do I run php custom script on magento2Magento 2: Include PHP script in headerSession lock after using Cm_RedisSessionscript php to update stockMagento set cookie popupMagento 2 session id cookie - where to find it?How to import Configurable product from csv with custom attributes using php scriptMagento 2 run custom PHP script

Can not update quote_id field of “quote_item” table magento 2Magento 2.1 - We can't remove the item. (Shopping Cart doesnt allow us to remove items before becomes empty)Add value for custom quote item attribute using REST apiREST API endpoint v1/carts/cartId/items always returns error messageCorrect way to save entries to databaseHow to remove all associated quote objects of a customer completelyMagento 2 - Save value from custom input field to quote_itemGet quote_item data using quote id and product id filter in Magento 2How to set additional data to quote_item table from controller in Magento 2?What is the purpose of additional_data column in quote_item table in magento2Set Custom Price to Quote item magento2 from controller

How to solve knockout JS error in Magento 2 Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?(Magento2) knockout.js:3012 Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process bindingUnable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Cannot read property `scopeLabel` of undefined on Product Detail PageCan't get Customer Data on frontend in Magento 2Magento2 Order Summary - unable to process bindingKO templates are not loading in Magento 2.1 applicationgetting knockout js error magento 2Product grid not load -— Unable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Product form not loaded in magento2Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process binding “if: function()return (isShowLegend()) ” magento 2