Talk:Mathematical induction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Catherine Woodgold (A simple example of inductive proof) |
imported>Aleksander Stos (problems) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
We need a simple example of an inductive proof: something easy to understand, but preferably something that doesn't have an even easier proof without induction. The problem on this web page might be a good example: [http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibphiIndproof.html] --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 12:04, 6 May 2007 (CDT) | We need a simple example of an inductive proof: something easy to understand, but preferably something that doesn't have an even easier proof without induction. The problem on this web page might be a good example: [http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibphiIndproof.html] --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 12:04, 6 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== problems == | |||
I have some problems with the leading section. Maybe it's my language level and terminology problem, but... consider the following remarks: | |||
* inductive proof is not a proof by cases. The latter describes a reasoning when the statement to be proved is split in a _finite_ number of cases (called also "proof by exhaustion" or brute force in computer science). See famous 4 colors problem. | |||
* ''is is applicable _whenever_ the problem can be divided into enumerable propositions''. IMHO, the image is too simplistic: "divide the problem and you can prove it by induction". Wouldn't it be better to say "it is _used_ to prove an infinite number of statements that have similar form and depend on an integer parameter ''n''" -- or something along these lines. | |||
* modus ponens does not apply... In fact the mathematical induction can be viewed as a far-reaching generalization of this concept, but it is not correct to say "modus ponens is used" (there is infinity in question!)... (BTW, do we need Latin at the beginning?) | |||
Besides, I agree that the chosen example is not the simplest explanation of the idea. | |||
So shall we rework all of this? | |||
--[[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 09:59, 15 May 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 08:59, 15 May 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | --AlekStos 16:18, 24 March 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
A simple example of inductive proof
We need a simple example of an inductive proof: something easy to understand, but preferably something that doesn't have an even easier proof without induction. The problem on this web page might be a good example: [1] --Catherine Woodgold 12:04, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
problems
I have some problems with the leading section. Maybe it's my language level and terminology problem, but... consider the following remarks:
- inductive proof is not a proof by cases. The latter describes a reasoning when the statement to be proved is split in a _finite_ number of cases (called also "proof by exhaustion" or brute force in computer science). See famous 4 colors problem.
- is is applicable _whenever_ the problem can be divided into enumerable propositions. IMHO, the image is too simplistic: "divide the problem and you can prove it by induction". Wouldn't it be better to say "it is _used_ to prove an infinite number of statements that have similar form and depend on an integer parameter n" -- or something along these lines.
- modus ponens does not apply... In fact the mathematical induction can be viewed as a far-reaching generalization of this concept, but it is not correct to say "modus ponens is used" (there is infinity in question!)... (BTW, do we need Latin at the beginning?)
Besides, I agree that the chosen example is not the simplest explanation of the idea. So shall we rework all of this? --Aleksander Stos 09:59, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- Mathematics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Mathematics Advanced Articles
- Mathematics Nonstub Articles
- Mathematics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Mathematics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Mathematics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Mathematics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Mathematics External Articles
- Mathematics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Mathematics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup