1

Recursion: $L_n = L_{n-1} + n$ where $L_0 = 1$.

We guess that solution is $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + 1$.

Base case: $L_0 = \frac{0(0+1)}{2} + 1 = 1$ is true.

Inductive step: Assume $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + 1$ is true for some $n$. We will show that $L_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + 1$ given that $L_n = L_{n-1} + n$ is true.

$L_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + 1 = L_n + (n+1)$

$L_n = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + 1 - (n+1)$

$L_n = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + \frac{2}{2} - \frac{2n+2}{2} = \frac{n^2+3n+2 + 2 - 2n - 2}{2}$

$L_n = \frac{n^2+n+2}{2} = \frac{n^2+n}{2} + 1 = \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + 1$

This completes the proof.

Is everything in place for a correct induction proof? Is anything wrong? Backwards? Unclear? Awkward?

AJJ
  • 2,043
  • 3
  • 17
  • 28
  • 4
    You basically proved that if the result is true at $n+1$, then something which is (known/assumed) to be true, namely the case $n$, follows. That is precisely the wrong direction. The steps happen to be reversible, and if you reversed them you would have a correct proof. Do it this way. We have $L_{n+1}=L_n+n+1=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1+n+1=\cdots$. – André Nicolas Jan 08 '16 at 19:07
  • Apparently this was backwards http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1592240/is-my-proof-valid-for-9-dividing-sum-of-three-consecutive-cubes and this was backwards http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1601143/how-to-correctly-set-up-inductive-proofs I seriously do not understand what is wrong with any of this because no matter what I do, something is "backwards" – AJJ Jan 08 '16 at 19:11
  • I even tried to follow this template: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/1255268/70349 – AJJ Jan 08 '16 at 19:15
  • At least in the second linked question, you did go backwards. You certainly did not go from $n$ to $n+1$. – André Nicolas Jan 08 '16 at 19:17
  • 1
    The answer by mathlove explains quite clearly how the argument should be written up. – André Nicolas Jan 08 '16 at 19:23
  • Why use induction when you can keep plugging in $n-k$ term? – Alex Jan 08 '16 at 21:09

3 Answers3

2

Base case: $L_0 = \frac{0(0+1)}{2} + 1 = 1$ is true.

Inductive step: Assume $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + 1$ is true for some $n$. We will show that $L_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + 1$ given that $L_n = L_{n-1} + n$ is true.

Fine.

$L_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + 1 = L_n + (n+1)$

Don't start with $L_{n+1}=\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+1$ which is what you have to prove.


$$\begin{align}L_{n+1}&=L_n+n+1\\&=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1+n+1\\&=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+\frac{2(n+1)}{2}+1\\&=\frac{n+1}{2}(n+2)+1\\&=\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+1\end{align}$$

mathlove
  • 139,939
0

Uhm.. It's awkward.. Let me try to explain:

Induction is done on propositions. Let $P(n)$ be a particular proposition you want to prove (indexed by a natural number $n$). If you prove $P(0)$ is true and that $P(n) \implies P(n+1)$, then by induction you proved $P(n)$ for every natural number $n$.

What is your proposition in this case? It seems to me that you want to find a solution to the recurrence relation $$L_n = L_{n-1}+1$$

You want to check wether the ansatz $$L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}2 +1$$ is a solution to said recurrence relation.

You can just plug it in: if $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}2 +1$, then $L_{n-1} = \frac{n(n-1)}2 + 1$ and the relation holds. (QED)

There is no proposition on $n$ to make induction on. If we want to find one, we can say: "Let $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}2 +1$, and let $P(\bar n)$ = "This relation holds: $L_{\bar n} = L_{\bar n-1}+1$"

You want to prove that $P(n)$ is true for every $n$

You can say: $P(1)$ is true. So if I show that $P(n) \implies P(n+1)$ I'm done. Which is true, but it's weird: you can prove $P(n)$ instantly for every $n$ just by plugging the ansatz into the equation, why would you follow such a complicated (and more difficult) route?

Ant
  • 21,098
  • Why not use the proposition $P(n)$ which is "$L_n=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1$...? – kccu Jan 08 '16 at 19:07
  • @Ant My proposition is that $L_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2} +1$ – AJJ Jan 08 '16 at 19:08
  • @kccu I was just editing :) – Ant Jan 08 '16 at 19:09
  • @ArukaJ I was editing. Tell me if something does not convince you, but this is more or less why the whole thing feels awkard :-) – Ant Jan 08 '16 at 19:09
  • What is "ansatz" mean? – AJJ Jan 08 '16 at 19:13
  • @ArukaJ A google search can help.. Anyhow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansatz). It is used a lot :-) – Ant Jan 08 '16 at 19:15
  • Is this the same as "inductive hypothesis"? – AJJ Jan 08 '16 at 19:18
  • I don't think it's totally awkward to use induction to prove that a recursively-defined sequence satisfies a particular equation. This is not the first time I've seen it done. Your method of just checking that $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1$ satisfies the recurrence is not quite correct, either, because you didn't check the base case $L_0$. ($\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ also satisfies the recurrence but not the base case.) You've basically done induction in disguise. – kccu Jan 08 '16 at 19:23
  • @ArukaJ Nope. Did you read the article? – Ant Jan 08 '16 at 19:35
  • @kccu I don't agree.. Every statement on natural numbers can be considered induction in disguise, if one really wants to. To me this is much more similar to finding the solution to $y' = y$ with some initial condition. Guess that the solution is $y = Ae^x$ and see that the ODE is satisfied – Ant Jan 08 '16 at 19:37
  • @Ant I see your point, but I'm still not inclined to say either proof is more or less "awkward" than the other. The computation involved in your proof is essentially the same as the one in the induction proof, even if the logical steps are different. – kccu Jan 08 '16 at 19:46
0

The induction schema is (base) $P(0)$ is true (might start elsewhere too), (induction) if $P(n)$ is true, we prove $P(n + 1)$ is true, (conclusion) $P(n)$ is true for all $n \in \mathbb{N}_0$.

You have to work from $P(n)$ to $P(n + 1)$ somehow.

In your case, the claim is that $L_n = n (n + 1) / 2 + 1$.

Base: For $n = 0$ you have that $L_0 = 1$ by definition, and the formula gives $\frac{0 (0 + 1)}{2} + 1 = 1$. This is true.

Induction: By hypothesis, for $n$ we have:

$\begin{align} L_n = \frac{n (n + 1)}{2} + 1 \end{align}$

We know that:

$\begin{align} L_{n + 1} &= L_n + n + 1 \\ &= \frac{n (n + 1)}{2} + 1 + n + 1\\ &= \frac{(n + 2) (n + 1)}{2} + 1 \end{align}$

(the first step by the definition of $L_{n + 1}$, the second one uses the induction hypothesis, then just algebra)

This is the claim for $n + 1$, as we wanted to prove.

Conclusion: By induction, the claim is true for all $n \ge 0$.

vonbrand
  • 27,812