Mathematical Induction

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Mathematical Induction
is a method for proving that:

a property defined for integers n is true

for all values of n that are greater than or

equal to some initial integer.

Mathematical Induction
is a method for proving that:

a property defined for integers n is true

for all values of n that are greater than or

equal to some initial integer.
Example
If we get rid of pennies (1 cent) and replace with new coins of 3
cents value,

With only 3-cent coins and 5-cent coins, can we still give changes
of n cents for any positive integer n>7?

n=8: 8 = 3+5
n=9: 9 = 3+3+3
n=10: 10=5+5
n=11: 11=3+3+5
n=12: 12=3+3+3+3
n=13: …
How do you convince/prove for any n>7?

Ideas
With only 3-cent coins and 5-cent coins, can we still give
changes of n cents for any positive integer n>7?

If we can give changes of k cents, how to create solution to

(k+1) cents from it?

n=8: 8 = 3+5
n=9: 9 = 3+3+3
n=10: 10=5+5
n=11: 11=3+3+5
n=12: 12=3+3+3+3
n=13: …
any pattern?

Ideas: change reaction

if k>=9, then either we use

a 5, or we use 3 3-cents.
Ideas: change reaction
• We can give change of 9 cents.

• for any k>=9, if we can give change of k cents,

then we can give change of k+1 cents.

* So we can give change of 10 cents.

* why?
* So we can give change of 11 cents.
* why?
* Continue forever…

Logic behind: change reaction

• We can give change of 9 cents. p(9)

• for any k>=9, if we can give change of k cents,

then we can give change of k+1 cents. for any k>=9,
if P(k) then P(k+1)

* So we can give change of 10 cents.

* Universal Modus Ponens
* So we can give change of 11 cents.
* Universal Modus Ponens
* Continue forever…

Mathematical Induction: two steps

Example 1 – Sum of the First n Integers
Use mathematical induction to prove that

Solution:

first identify property P(n). Here, P(n) i:

[To see that P(n) is a sentence, its subject being “the sum of
the integers from 1 to n” and its verb is “equals.”]

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Basis step: show that the property is true for n = 1, i.e.,

P(1) is true.

P(1) is obtained by substituting 1 in place of n in P(n).

The left-hand side of P(1) is the sum of all the successive
integers starting at 1 and ending at 1. This is just 1. Thus
P(1) is

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

this equation is true because the right-hand side is

which equals the left-hand side.

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Inductive step: assume that P(k) is true, for a particular

but arbitrarily chosen integer k with k ≥ 1. You must then
show that P(k + 1) is true.
What are P(k) and P(k + 1)? P(k) is obtained by substituting
k for every n in P(n).
Thus P(k) is

Thus P(k + 1) is

or, equivalently,

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

In this case, left-hand side of P(k + 1) is

1 + 2 +· · ·+ (k + 1),
which equals
(1 + 2 +· · ·+ k) + (k + 1)

But by substitution from the inductive hypothesis,

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

So the left-hand side of P(k + 1) is .

Now the right-hand side of P(k + 1) is

Thus the two sides of P(k + 1) are equal to each other, and
so the equation P(k + 1) is true.

Applying the Formula for the Sum of the First n Integers

a. Evaluate 2 + 4 + 6 +· · ·+ 500.

b. Evaluate 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 +· · ·+ 50.

c. For an integer h ≥ 2, write 1 + 2 + 3 +· · ·+ (h – 1) in

closed form.

Mathematical Induction
Geometric sequence: each term is obtained from the
preceding one by multiplying by a constant factor.

for example: 1, r, r 2, r 3, . . . , r n, . . . .

sum of first n terms of this sequence is given by the formula

for all integers n ≥ 0 and real numbers r not equal to 1.

Mathematical Induction
in expanded form:

and because r 0 = 1 and r 1 = r, the formula for n ≥ 1 can be

rewritten as

Sum of a Geometric Sequence

Prove that , for all integers n ≥ 0 and all real

numbers r except 1.

Solution:

In this example property P(n) is again an equation, although
in this case it contains a real variable r :

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Because r can be any real number other than 1, the proof

begins by supposing that r is a particular but arbitrarily
chosen real number not equal to 1.

Then the proof continues by mathematical induction on n,

starting with n = 0.

In the basis step, you must show that P(0) is true; that is,
you show the property is true for n = 0.
Example 3 – Solution cont’d

So you substitute 0 for each n in P(n):

Is P(0) true?

In inductive step, you suppose k is any integer with k ≥ 0 for

which P(k) is true; that is, you suppose the property is true
for n = k.

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

So you substitute k for each n in P(n):

Then you show that P(k + 1) is true; that is, you show the
property is true for n = k + 1.

So you substitute k + 1 for each n in P(n):

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Or, equivalently,

In inductive step, we use another common technique for

showing that an equation is true:

We start with the left-hand side, transform it


step-by-step into the right-hand side, using the inductive
hypothesis together with algebra and other known facts.
Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Proof (by mathematical induction):


Suppose r is a particular but arbitrarily chosen real number
that is not equal to 1, and let the property P(n) be the
equation

We must show that P(n) is true for all integers n ≥ 0. We do

this by mathematical induction on n.

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Show that P(0) is true:

To establish P(0), we must show that

The left-hand side of this equation is r 0 = 1 and the right-

hand side is

also because r 1 = r and r ≠ 1. Hence P(0) is true.

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Show that for all integers k ≥ 0, if P(k) is true then P(k

+ 1) is also true:
[Suppose that P(k) is true for a particular but arbitrarily
chosen integer k ≥ 0. That is:]
Let k be any integer with k ≥ 0, and suppose that

[We must show that P(k + 1) is true. That is:] We must show
that
Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Or, equivalently, that

[We will show that the left-hand side of P(k + 1) equals the
right-hand side.] The left-hand side of P(k + 1) is

Example 3 – Solution cont’d

which is the right-hand side of P(k + 1) [as was to be shown.]

[Since we have proved the basis step and the inductive step,
we conclude that the theorem is true.]

Proving an Equality
Proving an Equality
Two different ways to show that an equation is true:

1. transforming the LHS (left-hand side) and RHS (right-hand

side) independently until they are seen to be equal, and
2. transforming one side of the equation until it is the same
as the other side of the equation.
3. another approach: show LHS >= RHS, and RHS>=LHS,
and then they have to equal to each other

Proving an Equality
Sometimes people use a method that they believe proves
equality but that is actually invalid.
e.g., to prove basis step for Theorem 5.2.3:

What’s going on here?

The problem with this method is that starting from a

statement and deducing a true conclusion does not prove
that the statement is true.

Proving an Equality

A true conclusion can also be deduced from a false

statement. For instance, the steps below show how to
deduce the true conclusion that 1 = 1 from the false
statement that 1 = 0:
Alternative way to prove
Let

Then

and so

Deducing Additional Formulas

But

Equating the right-hand sides of equations (5.2.1) and (5.2.2)

and dividing by r – 1 gives

This derivation of the formula is attractive and is quite

convincing.

However, it is not as logically airtight as the proof by

mathematical induction.

Proving a Divisibility Property

Use mathematical induction to prove that for all integers 

n ≥ 0, 22n – 1 is divisible by 3.

Solution:

What is P(n)?


I P(n) is the sentence

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

By substitution, the statement for the basis step, P(0), is

The supposition for the inductive step, P(k), is

and the conclusion to be shown, P(k + 1), is

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

We know that an integer m is divisible by 3 if, and only if, 


m = 3r for some integer r.

Now the statement P(0) is true because 


22 ● 0 – 1 = 20 – 1 = 1 – 1 = 0, which is divisible by 3 because
0 = 3 ● 0.

To prove the inductive step, you suppose that k is any

integer greater than or equal to 0 such that P(k) is true.

This means that 22k – 1 is divisible by 3. You must then prove

the truth of P(k + 1). Or, in other words, you must show that
22(k+1) – 1 is divisible by 3.

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

But

The aim is to show that this quantity, 22k ● 4 – 1, is divisible

by 3. Why should that be so? By the inductive hypothesis,

22k – 1 is divisible by 3, and 22k ● 4 – 1 resembles 22k – 1.
Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Observe what happens, if you subtract 22k – 1 from 22k

● 4 – 1:

Adding 22k – 1 to both sides gives

Both terms of the sum on the right-hand side of this equation

are divisible by 3; hence the sum is divisible by 3.

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Therefore, the left-hand side of the equation is also divisible

by 3, which is what was to be shown.

This discussion is summarized as follows:

Proof (by mathematical induction):

Let the property P(n) be the sentence “22n – 1 is divisible by
3.”

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Show that P(0) is true:

To establish P(0), we must show that

But

and 0 is divisible by 3 because 0 = 3 ● 0.

Hence P(0) is true.

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Show that for all integers k ≥ 0, if P(k) is true then 


P(k + 1) is also true:

[Suppose that P(k) is true for a particular but arbitrarily

chosen integer k ≥ 0. That is:]

Let k be any integer with k ≥ 0, and suppose that

By definition of divisibility, this means that

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

[We must show that P(k + 1) is true. That is:] We must show
that

But

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

But is an integer because it is a sum of products of

integers, and so, by definition of divisibility, is
divisible by 3 [as was to be shown].

[Since we have proved the basis step and the inductive step,
we conclude that the proposition is true.]
Example 2 – Proving an Inequality
Use mathematical induction to prove that for all integers 

n ≥ 3,

Solution:

In this example the property P(n) is the inequality

By substitution, the statement for the basis step, P(3), is

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

The supposition for the inductive step, P(k), is

and the conclusion to be shown is

To prove the basis step, observe that the statement P(3) is

true because 2 ● 3 + 1 = 7, 23 = 8, and 7 < 8.

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

To prove the inductive step, suppose the inductive

hypothesis, that P(k) is true for an integer k ≥ 3.

This means that 2k + 1 < 2k is assumed to be true for a

particular but arbitrarily chosen integer k ≥ 3.

Then derive the truth of P(k + 1). Or, in other words, show
that the inequality is true. But by
multiplying out and regrouping,

and by substitution from the inductive hypothesis,

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

Hence

If it can be shown that 2k + 2 is less than 2k+1, then the

desired inequality will have been proved.
But since the quantity 2k can be added to or subtracted from
an inequality without changing its direction,

And since multiplying or dividing an inequality by 2 does not

change its direction,

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

This last inequality is clearly true for all k ≥ 2. Hence it is true

that .

This discussion is made more flowing (but less intuitive) in

the following formal proof:

Proof (by mathematical induction):

Let the property P(n) be the inequality

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

Show that P(3) is true:

To establish P(3), we must show that

But

Hence P(3) is true.

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

Show that for all integers k ≥ 3, if P(k) is true then 


P(k + 1) is also true:
[Suppose that P(k) is true for a particular but arbitrarily
chosen integer k ≥ 3. That is:]

Suppose that k is any integer with k ≥ 3 such that

[We must show that P(k + 1) is true. That is:] We must show
that

Example 2 – Solution cont’d

Or, equivalently,

But

[This is what we needed to show.]

[Since we have proved the basis step and the inductive step,
we conclude that the proposition is true.]

A Problem with Trominoes

A Problem with Trominoes
A particular type of polyomino, called a tromino, is made up
of three attached squares, which can be of two types:

Call a checkerboard that is formed using m squares on a

side an m × m (“m by m”) checkerboard.

if one square is removed from a 4 × 4 checkerboard, the

remaining squares can be completely covered by L-shaped
trominoes.

A Problem with Trominoes

For instance, a covering for one such board is illustrated in
the figure below.

It is a beautiful example of an argument by mathematical

induction.

A Problem with Trominoes

The main insight leading to a proof of this theorem is the

observation that because , when a
board is split in half both vertically and horizontally, each half
side will have length 2k and so each resulting quadrant will
be a checkerboard.
A Problem with Trominoes
Proof (by mathematical induction):
Let the property P(n) be the sentence
If any square is removed from a 2n ⋅ 2n checkerboard,

then the remaining squares can be completely 

covered by L-shaped trominoes.

Show that P(1) is true:

A 21 ⋅ 21 checkerboard just consists of 

four squares. If one square is removed, 

remaining squares form an L, which 

can be covered by a single L-shaped 

tromino, as illustrated in the figure to the 

right. Hence P(1) is true.

A Problem with Trominoes

Show that for all integers k ≥ 1, if P(k) is true then
P(k + 1) is also true:
[Suppose that P(k) is true for a particular but arbitrarily
chosen integer k ≥ 3. That is:]
Let k be any integer such that k ≥ 1, and suppose that

If any square is removed from a 2k ⋅ 2k checkerboard, 


then the remaining squares can be completely 

covered by L-shaped trominoes.

A Problem with Trominoes

P(k) is the inductive hypothesis.
[We must show that P(k + 1) is true. That is:] We must show
that

If any square is removed from a 2k+1 ⋅ 2k+1 checkerboard,

then the remaining squares can be completely 

covered by L-shaped trominoes.
A Problem with Trominoes
Consider a 2k+1 ⋅ 2k+1 checkerboard with one square
removed. Divide it into four equal quadrants: Each will
consist of a 2k × 2k checkerboard.

In one of the quadrants, one square will have been removed,

and so, by inductive hypothesis, all the remaining squares in
this quadrant can be completely covered by 

L-shaped trominoes.

The other three quadrants meet at the center of the

checkerboard, and the center of the checkerboard serves as
a corner of a square from each of those quadrants.

A Problem with Trominoes

An L-shaped tromino can, therefore, be 

placed on those three central squares. 

This situation is illustrated in the figure 

to the right.

By inductive hypothesis, the remaining 


squares in each of the three quadrants 

can be completely covered by L-shaped trominoes.

Thus every square in the 2k+1 ⋅ 2k+1 checkerboard except the

one that was removed can be completely covered by 

L-shaped trominoes [as was to be shown].

Strong Mathematical Induction


and the Well-Ordering Principle for 

the Integers

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Strong Mathematical Induction

similar to ordinary mathematical induction

• a technique for proving of a sequence of statements
about integers.
• also consists of a basis step and an inductive step.

Difference
• basis step may contain proofs for several initial
values,
• inductive step: prove:
for any integer k>=a, if P(a), P(a+1) … P(k), then P(k + 1)

Strong Mathematical Induction

also known as second principle of induction, second

principle of finite induction, and principle of complete
induction.

Strong Mathematical Induction

Any statement that can be proved with ordinary math.

induction can be proved with strong math. induction.

given any integer k ≥ b, if the truth of P(k) alone implies the

truth of P(k + 1), then certainly the truth of P(a), P(a + 1), . . . , and
P(k) implies the truth of P(k + 1).
Strong Mathematical Induction

Any statement that can be proved with strong math.

induction can be proved with ordinary math. induction.

Strong Math. Induction Ord. Math Induction

Let Q(n)=
P (a) ^ P (a + 1) ^ ...P (n 1) ^ P (n)
• P(a), P(a+1), … P(b) * Q(b)

• for any k>=b, if * for any k>=b, if Q(k) then

P(a), P(a+1), … P(k) are Q(k+1)
true, then P(k+1) is true

Applying Strong Mathematical


Induction

Example 1 – Divisibility by a Prime

Prove: Any integer greater than 1 is divisible by a prime
number.

Solution:
inductive step?
I

If a given integer greater than 1 is not itself prime, then it is

a product of two smaller positive integers, each of which is
greater than 1.

Since you are assuming that each of these smaller integers

is divisible by a prime number, by transitivity of divisibility,
those prime numbers also divide the integer you started with.
Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Proof (by strong mathematical induction):

Let the property P(n) be the sentence
n is divisible by a prime number.

Show that P(2) is true:

To establish P(2), we must show that
2 is divisible by a prime number.

this is true because 2 is divisible by 2 and 2 is a prime

number.

Example 1 – Inductive step cont’d

Show that for all integers k ≥ 2, if P(i ) is true for all

integers i from 2 through k, then P(k + 1) is also true:

Let k be any integer with k ≥ 2 and suppose that

i is divisible by a prime number for all integers
i from 2 through k.

We must show that

k + 1 is divisible by a prime number.

Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Case 1 (k + 1 is prime): k + 1 is divisible by a prime

number, namely itself.

Case 2 (k + 1 is not prime): k + 1 = ab where a and b are

integers with 1 < a < k + 1 and 1 < b < k + 1.

as 2 ≤ a ≤ k, and so by inductive hypothesis, a is divisible by

a prime number p.

In addition because k + 1 = ab, we have that k + 1 is divisible

by a.
Example 1 – Solution cont’d

a| (k + 1)
and p| a , so by transitivity of divisibility,
p| (k + 1)

Therefore, regardless of whether k + 1 is prime or not, it is

divisible by a prime number [as was to be shown].

[Since we have proved both the basis and the inductive step
of the strong mathematical induction, we conclude that the
given statement is true.]

Well-Ordering Principle 

for the Integers

Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

• Well-ordering principle for integers
• ordinary principles of mathematical induction,
• strong principles of mathematical induction

but it can be shown that all three principles are equivalent,

i.e., if any one of the three is true, then so are both of the
others.
Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

Prove that any integer greater than 1 is divisible by a prime

number.
Proof: Suppose not,
i.e., there exist some integers greater than 1 that is not
divisible by a prime.
Let C be the set of all integers greater than one that is not
divisible by any primes, so C is not empty.
By well-ordering principle, there exists a least element in C,
call it n.
n cannot be prime (as if it’s prime, then n|n, and n is not in C)
so n = ab, where 1<a,b<n, therefore a, b are not in C
so a and b are divisible by some prime numbers p, q,
by transitivity of divisibility, p|n, then n is not in C.

Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

Prove that any integer greater than 1 is divisible by a prime

number.
Proof: Suppose not,
i.e., there exist some integers greater than 1 that is not
divisible by a prime.
Let C be the set of all integers greater than one that is not
divisible by any primes, so C is not empty.
By well-ordering principle, there exists a least element in C,
call it n. [we will derive a contradiction]

Finding Least Elements

Does the set has a least element? If so, what is it? If not,
explain why the well-ordering principle is not violated.

a. the set of all positive real numbers.

Finding Least Elements
In each case, if the set has a least element, state what it is. If
not, explain why the well-ordering principle is not violated.

b. the set of all nonnegative integers n such that n2 < n.

Example 4 – Solution cont’d

b. There is no least nonnegative integer n such that n2 < n

because there is no nonnegative integer that satisfies this
inequality.

The well-ordering principle is not violated because the

well-ordering principle refers only to sets that contain at
least one element.

Finding Least Elements

In each case, if the set has a least element, state what it is. If
not, explain why the well-ordering principle is not violated.

c. The set of all nonnegative integers of the form 46 – 7k,


where k is an integer.

{ 46-7k | k is an integer}

46 is an element…
Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

by subtracting six 7’s from 46 leaves 4 left over

This is the least nonnegative integer obtained by
repeated subtraction of 7’s from 46.

• 6 is the quotient and

• 4 is the remainder for the division of 46 by 7.

More generally, in the division of any integer n by any

positive integer d, the remainder r is the least nonnegative
integer of the form n – dk.

Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

Proof:
Let S be the set of all nonnegative integers of the form

where k is an integer.

The Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

This set has at least one element. [For if n is nonnegative,

then

and so n – 0 ● d is in S. And if n is negative, then

and so n – nd is in S.] By well-ordering principle, S contains

a least element r. Then, for some specific integer k = q,

[because every integer in S can be written in this form].

The Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

Adding dq to both sides gives

Furthermore, r < d. [For suppose r ≥ d.

Then

and so n – d(q + 1) would be a nonnegative integer in S that

would be smaller than r. But r is the smallest integer in S.
This contradiction shows that the supposition r ≥ d must be
false.]

Well-Ordering Principle for the Integers

The preceding arguments prove that there exist integers r and

q for which

[This is what was to be shown.]