2/23/12

Always use Strong Induction?

Ordinary is a special case of
Ordinary Induction Strong, so why bother with it?
•  helps a reader to know that
vs Strong Induction k’s < n don’t matter for n+1
vs WOP •  more intuitive (?)

Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.1 Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.2

Always use Ordinary Induction? Always use Ordinary Induction?

Suppose ∀m. P(m) proved revise induction hypothesis to:

by Strong Induction.
Q(n) ::= ∀k ≤ n. P(k)
Inductive step assumed
∀k ≤ n. P(k) Now same proof becomes
Ordinary Induction.
and proved P(n+1).
Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.4 Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.5

Ordinary Induction replaces Strong Strong vs. Ordinary

So Strong Induction adds no Why use Strong?

power. Just decorate a cleaner: no need for
Strong proof with some ∀’s
and it becomes Ordinary.
∀k ≤ n.
all over.

Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.6 Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.7

1  
 2/23/12  

WOP vs Induction? Why WOP first?

Same deal: easy to rephrase
any Induction proof into
WOP and vice-versa.
So Induction & WOP are
rephrasing of same logical
principle. Which to use is
a matter of taste.
Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012
Exam performance & surveys
show about 20% of students
don’t “get” induction. They
worry that assuming P(n) is
circular and/or they can’t do
induction proofs. This
baffles us and the other 80%.
lec 3F.8 Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.9

Why WOP first?

No one has problems believing
the WOP, and they have no
harder time using WOP than
Induction. So to get going on
interesting proofs right away,
we start with WOP.

Albert R Meyer February 24, 2012 lec 3F.10

2  
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

6.042J / 18.062J Mathematics for Computer Science

Spring 2015

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.