Let P(n) be an open statement about n &#x2208;<!-- ∈ --> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <

sgwriadaufa24r

sgwriadaufa24r

Answered question

2022-06-01

Let P(n) be an open statement about n N . In the weak induction, beside the base case, it is stated:
k N ( P ( k ) P ( k + 1 ) ) (i)
But, in this page right in the beginning, it states differently, according to my understanding (with a = 1)
( ( k N ) P ( k ) ) P ( k + 1 ) (ii)
Are the statements (i) and (ii) equivalent? If yes, why?

Answer & Explanation

ta1toerx68

ta1toerx68

Beginner2022-06-02Added 5 answers

Step 1
Consider the following sentence: "If something is a cube, then it is large"
At first sight, you might be inclined to translate this to:
x   C u b e ( x ) L a r g e ( x ) but this has a problem: the x in Large(x) is a free variable, and as such it has lost its connection to the x in (Cube(x)
Adding it to the scope of the existential quantifier:
x   ( C u b e ( x ) L a r g e ( x ) ) doesn't help, because that sentence would be vacuously true as soon as there is something that is not a cube ... which is clearly not what we want either
Step 2
Instead, you should realize that by 'some', we really just mean 'any one', i.e. you need to use a universal. That is, what the sentence means is: "Anything that is a cube is large" ... and now you see that the correct formalization is:
x   ( C u b e ( x ) L a r g e ( x ) )
The same is going on in your case.
On the linked page, it states:
if P(k) is true for some integer k a, then P ( k + 1 ) is also true.
Ignoring the a, it looks as if this translates to (as you suggest):
( ( k N ) P ( k ) ) P ( k + 1 )
but as with the earlier example, the problem is that in this formula, the k in P ( k + 1 ) ends up being free, whereas it should clearly refer to the very same k used in P(k).
What the authors try to say is that "if some number k has property P, then its successor (i.e. k + 1) has property P as well", and as with the earlier example, we now realize that this translates to your i):
k N ( P ( k ) P ( k + 1 ) )
So no, your given statements i) and ii) are not equivalent, but the authors didn't mean to express ii) in the first place: what they say also translates to i)

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

New Questions in Discrete math

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?