We can try to prove the statement by mathematical Induction technique or by using the following method: $$S=1+3+5...+(2n-1)$$ $$S=(2n-1)+(2n-3)+(2n-5)...+1$$ $$2S=2n+2n+2n...+2n$$ $$2S=2n^2$$ This method also includes mathematical Induction (as people pointed out). My question is do these two methods of proving works independently, since, I have doubt that they may be integrated or combined for a more formal (or better) proof.
-
1$$\frac{2n(2n+1)}2-2\frac{n(n+1)}2=n(2n+1)-n(n+1)=n^2$$ – Prasun Biswas Oct 09 '20 at 10:06
-
1There is an induction implied in the second method. Any time you prove something about all natural numbers, you use somewhere that they are an inductive set. – Mark Bennet Nov 15 '20 at 13:12
-
1The title should say "sum of the first $n$ odd natural numbers", especially since it's the only statement of the actual question. – Andreas Blass Nov 15 '20 at 18:18
3 Answers
Both are valid proofs, combining them does not result in a 'more formal' proof. But to answer the question in the title, the best way of proving this fact is a picture:
(picture taken from https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/probsolv/LP1ans.html)

- 2,221
What exactly $S_n=1+3+\cdots+(2n-1)$ means?
Well, technically there's a recursive definition hidden in the "$\cdots$" symbol:
$$S_1=1$$ $$S_n=S_{n-1} + 2n-1$$
And recursion is equivalent to induction.
Now secondly, you need to know that $a_1+\cdots +a_n=a_n+\cdots+a_1$. While this follows from the commutativity of addition, formally you would need induction to prove this. Note that $S'_n=a_n+\cdots + a_1$ has a different (even though similar) recursive definition:
$$S'_1=1$$ $$S'_n=2n-1+S'_{n-1}$$
Finally, you need to prove that $a_1+\cdots+a_n+b_1+\cdots+b_n=(a_1+b_1)+\cdots+(a_n+b_n)$ and $a+\cdots +a$ added $n$-times is equl to $n\cdot a$ which both need induction as well.
And so "yes", this is a valid proof, but "no", this is not a proof without induction. Your proof heavily depends on the induction. The induction is just well hidden there.

- 42,851
-
So, it just means both are equally valid. These are just two methods which both involve induction? – Navneet Oct 09 '20 at 10:08
-
1
What you did is correct, you can also show it by induction, which is different from your method above.
Induction start:
For $n=1$ we have $1=1^2$. For $n=2$ we have $1+3=4$ and $2^2=4$, which is again true.
Induction hypothesis (IH):
Assume it holds for the $n$th odd natural number $(2n-1)$, that is $1+3+5+....+(2n-1) =n^2.$
Induction step:
Using IH we want to show that it also holds for the first $(n+1)$ odd natural numbers. Indeed we have $$1+3+5+....+(2n-1)+\color{red}{2n+1}\underbrace{=}_{\text{by $IH$}}n^2+2n+1$$ $$=(n+1)^2$$
Thus if we assume that it is true for any arbitrary odd natural number $n$, it must be true for the next odd natural number $n+1$. Since it is true for the first natural number, applying the result infinitely many times, we conclude that it is true for all natural numbers.
Another way.
Since for the sum of $n$ natural numbers we have $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}k=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
Which can be shown by induction or your method above for example. Then for the sum of of the first $n$ odd natural numbers we have $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}(2k-1)$$ $$=2\sum_{k=1}^{n}k-\sum_{k=1}^{n}1=2\frac{n(n+1)}{2}-n$$ $$=n(n+1)-n=n^2+n-n=n^2.$$

- 10,599