9.3 Mathematical Induction
The Chinese philosopher Confucius is credited with the saying, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” In many ways, this is the central theme of this section. Here we introduce a method of proof, Mathematical Induction, which allows us to prove many of the formulas we have merely motivated in Sections and by starting with just a single step. A good example is the formula for arithmetic sequences we touted in Equation. Arithmetic sequences are defined recursively, starting with and then for . This tells us that we start the sequence with and we go from one term to the next by successively adding . In symbols,
The pattern suggested here is that to reach the th term, we start with and add to it exactly times, which lead us to our formula for . But how do we prove this to be the case? We have the following.
The Principle of Mathematical Induction (PMI): Suppose is a sentence involving the natural number .
IF
- is true and
- whenever is true, it follows that is also true
THEN the sentence is true for all natural numbers .
The Principle of Mathematical Induction, or PMI for short, is exactly that - a principle.1 It is a property of the natural numbers we either choose to accept or reject. In English, it says that if we want to prove that a formula works for all natural numbers , we start by showing it is true for (the `base step') and then show that if it is true for a generic natural number , it must be true for the next natural number, (the `inductive step'). The notation acts just like function notation. For example, if is the sentence (formula) `', then would be `', which is false. The construction would be `'. As usual, this new concept is best illustrated with an example. Returning to our quest to prove the formula for an arithmetic sequence, we first identify as the formula . To prove this formula is valid for all natural numbers , we need to do two things. First, we need to establish that is true. In other words, is it true that ? The answer is yes, since this simplifies to , which is part of the definition of the arithmetic sequence. The second thing we need to show is that whenever is true, it follows that is true. In other words, we assume is true (this is called the `induction hypothesis') and deduce that is also true. Assuming to be true seems to invite disaster - after all, isn't this essentially what we're trying to prove in the first place? To help explain this step a little better, we show how this works for specific values of . We've already established is true, and we now want to show that is true. Thus we need to show that . Since is true, we have , and by the definition of an arithmetic sequence, . So is true. We now use the fact that is true to show that is true. Using the fact that , we show . Since , we get , so we have shown is true. Similarly, we can use the fact that is true to show that is true, and so forth. In general, if is true (i.e., ) we set out to show that is true (i.e., ). Assuming , we have by the definition of an arithmetic sequence that so we get . Hence, is true.
In essence, by showing that must always be true when is true, we are showing that the formula can be used to get the formula , which in turn can be used to derive the formula , which in turn can be used to establish the formula , and so on. Thus as long as is true for some natural number , is true for all of the natural numbers which follow . Coupling this with the fact is true, we have established is true for all natural numbers which follow , in other words, all natural numbers . One might liken Mathematical Induction to a repetitive process like climbing stairs.2 If you are sure that (1) you can get on the stairs (the base case) and (2) you can climb from any one step to the next step (the inductive step), then presumably you can climb the entire staircase.3 We get some more practice with induction in the following example.
While we have used the Principle of Mathematical Induction to prove some of the formulas we have merely motivated in the text, our main use of this result comes in Section to prove the celebrated Binomial Theorem. The ardent Mathematics student will no doubt see the PMI in many courses yet to come. Sometimes it is explicitly stated and sometimes it remains hidden in the background. If ever you see a property stated as being true `for all natural numbers ', it's a solid bet that the formal proof requires the Principle of Mathematical Induction.
Exercises
In Exercises -, prove each assertion using the Principle of Mathematical Induction.
- for
- for
- Use the Product Rule for Absolute Value to show for all real numbers and all natural numbers
- Use the Product Rule for Logarithms to show for all real numbers and all natural numbers .
- for .
Prove Equations and for the case of geometric sequences. That is:
- For the sequence , , , prove , .
- , if , , if .
- Prove that the determinant of a lower triangular matrix is the product of the entries on the main diagonal. (See Exercise in Section.) Use this result to then show where is the identity matrix.
- Discuss the classic `paradox' All Horses are the Same Color problem with your classmates.
Selected Answers
Let be the sentence . For the base case, , we get
We now assume is true and use it to show is true. We have
By induction, is true for all natural numbers .
- Let be the sentence . Our base case is and we check and so that as required. We now assume is true, that is , and try to show is true. We note that and so we are done if we can show for . We can solve the inequality using the techniques of Section, and doing so gives us Hence, for , so that . By induction, is true for all natural numbers .
Let be the sentence . For the duration of this argument, we assume . The base case amounts checking that which is clearly true. Next we assume is true, that is and try to show is true. Using the Product Rule for Logarithms along with the induction hypothesis, we get
Hence, . By induction is true for all and all natural numbers .
Let be an lower triangular matrix. We proceed to prove the is the product of the entries along the main diagonal by inducting on . For , and , so the result is (trivially) true. Next suppose the result is true for lower triangular matrices. Let be a lower triangular matrix. Expanding along the first row, we have
Since for , this simplifies . By definition, we know that where is matrix obtained by deleting the first row and first column of . Since is lower triangular, so is and, as such, the induction hypothesis applies to . In other words, is the product of the entries along 's main diagonal. Now, the entries on the main diagonal of are the entries , , …, from the main diagonal of . Hence,
We have is the product of the entries along its main diagonal. This shows is true, and, hence, by induction, the result holds for all upper triangular matrices. The identity matrix is a lower triangular matrix whose main diagonal consists of all 's. Hence, , as required.
Adapted from Precalculus, 3rd corrected edition, by Carl Stitz and Jeff Zeager (stitz-zeager.com), licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Changes were made: reformatted as an accessible XYZ web edition. License: CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0.