Misplaced Pages

#595404

73-569: The axiomatization of arithmetic provided by Peano axioms is commonly called Peano arithmetic . The importance of formalizing arithmetic was not well appreciated until the work of Hermann Grassmann , who showed in the 1860s that many facts in arithmetic could be derived from more basic facts about the successor operation and induction . In 1881, Charles Sanders Peirce provided an axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic. In 1888, Richard Dedekind proposed another axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic, and in 1889, Peano published

146-453: A + b = b + a {\displaystyle a+b=b+a} by induction on b {\displaystyle b} . The structure ( N , +) is a commutative monoid with identity element 0. ( N , +) is also a cancellative magma , and thus embeddable in a group . The smallest group embedding N is the integers . Similarly, multiplication is a function mapping two natural numbers to another one. Given addition, it

219-503: A combination of such coins. Let S ( k ) denote the statement " k dollars can be formed by a combination of 4- and 5-dollar coins". The proof that S ( k ) is true for all k ≥ 12 can then be achieved by induction on k as follows: Base case: Showing that S ( k ) holds for k = 12 is simple: take three 4-dollar coins. Induction step: Given that S ( k ) holds for some value of k ≥ 12 ( induction hypothesis ), prove that S ( k + 1) holds, too. Assume S ( k )

292-583: A consistency proof cannot be formalized within Peano arithmetic itself, if Peano arithmetic is consistent. Although it is widely claimed that Gödel's theorem rules out the possibility of a finitistic consistency proof for Peano arithmetic, this depends on exactly what one means by a finitistic proof. Gödel himself pointed out the possibility of giving a finitistic consistency proof of Peano arithmetic or stronger systems by using finitistic methods that are not formalizable in Peano arithmetic, and in 1958, Gödel published

365-424: A method for proving the consistency of arithmetic using type theory . In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen gave a proof of the consistency of Peano's axioms, using transfinite induction up to an ordinal called ε 0 . Gentzen explained: "The aim of the present paper is to prove the consistency of elementary number theory or, rather, to reduce the question of consistency to certain fundamental principles". Gentzen's proof

438-587: A more general version, | sin ⁡ n x | ≤ n | sin ⁡ x | {\displaystyle \left|\sin nx\right|\leq n\left|\sin x\right|} for any real numbers n , x {\displaystyle n,x} , could be proven without induction; but the case n = 1 2 , x = π {\textstyle n={\frac {1}{2}},\,x=\pi } shows it may be false for non-integer values of n {\displaystyle n} . This suggests we examine

511-401: A nonempty X ⊆ N be given and assume X has no least element. Thus, by the strong induction principle, for every n ∈ N , n ∉ X . Thus, X ∩ N = ∅ , which contradicts X being a nonempty subset of N . Thus X has a least element. A model of the Peano axioms is a triple ( N , 0, S ) , where N is a (necessarily infinite) set, 0 ∈ N and S : N → N satisfies

584-451: A simplified version of them as a collection of axioms in his book The principles of arithmetic presented by a new method ( Latin : Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita ). The nine Peano axioms contain three types of statements. The first axiom asserts the existence of at least one member of the set of natural numbers. The next four are general statements about equality ; in modern treatments these are often not taken as part of

657-555: A single-valued " successor " function S . Axioms 1, 6, 7, 8 define a unary representation of the intuitive notion of natural numbers: the number 1 can be defined as S (0), 2 as S ( S (0)), etc. However, considering the notion of natural numbers as being defined by these axioms, axioms 1, 6, 7, 8 do not imply that the successor function generates all the natural numbers different from 0. The intuitive notion that each natural number can be obtained by applying successor sufficiently many times to zero requires an additional axiom, which

730-399: Is a natural number: This relation is stable under addition and multiplication: for a , b , c ∈ N {\displaystyle a,b,c\in \mathbb {N} } , if a ≤ b , then: Thus, the structure ( N , +, ·, 1, 0, ≤) is an ordered semiring ; because there is no natural number between 0 and 1, it is a discrete ordered semiring. The axiom of induction

803-408: Is actually a special case of the previous form, because if the statement to be proved is P ( n ) then proving it with these two rules is equivalent with proving P ( n + b ) for all natural numbers n with an induction base case 0 . Assume an infinite supply of 4- and 5-dollar coins. Induction can be used to prove that any whole amount of dollars greater than or equal to 12 can be formed by

SECTION 10

#1732772277596

876-461: Is also incomplete and one of its important properties is that any structure M {\displaystyle M} satisfying this theory has an initial segment (ordered by ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } ) isomorphic to N {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} } . Elements in that segment are called standard elements, while other elements are called nonstandard elements. Finally, Peano arithmetic PA

949-410: Is arguably finitistic, since the transfinite ordinal ε 0 can be encoded in terms of finite objects (for example, as a Turing machine describing a suitable order on the integers, or more abstractly as consisting of the finite trees , suitably linearly ordered). Whether or not Gentzen's proof meets the requirements Hilbert envisioned is unclear: there is no generally accepted definition of exactly what

1022-438: Is defined recursively as: It is easy to see that S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is the multiplicative right identity : To show that S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is also the multiplicative left identity requires the induction axiom due to the way multiplication is defined: Therefore, by the induction axiom S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)}

1095-410: Is meant by a finitistic proof, and Hilbert himself never gave a precise definition. The vast majority of contemporary mathematicians believe that Peano's axioms are consistent, relying either on intuition or the acceptance of a consistency proof such as Gentzen's proof . A small number of philosophers and mathematicians, some of whom also advocate ultrafinitism , reject Peano's axioms because accepting

1168-543: Is obtained by adding the first-order induction schema. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems , the theory of PA (if consistent) is incomplete. Consequently, there are sentences of first-order logic (FOL) that are true in the standard model of PA but are not a consequence of the FOL axiomatization. Essential incompleteness already arises for theories with weaker axioms, such as Robinson arithmetic . Axiomatization Too Many Requests If you report this error to

1241-406: Is obtained by explicitly adding the addition and multiplication operation symbols and replacing the second-order induction axiom with a first-order axiom schema . The term Peano arithmetic is sometimes used for specifically naming this restricted system. When Peano formulated his axioms, the language of mathematical logic was in its infancy. The system of logical notation he created to present

1314-405: Is possible to define the addition and multiplication operations from the successor operation , but this cannot be done in the more restrictive setting of first-order logic. Therefore, the addition and multiplication operations are directly included in the signature of Peano arithmetic, and axioms are included that relate the three operations to each other. The following list of axioms (along with

1387-399: Is sometimes called the axiom of induction . The induction axiom is sometimes stated in the following form: In Peano's original formulation, the induction axiom is a second-order axiom . It is now common to replace this second-order principle with a weaker first-order induction scheme. There are important differences between the second-order and first-order formulations, as discussed in

1460-425: Is sometimes stated in the following form that uses a stronger hypothesis, making use of the order relation "≤": This form of the induction axiom, called strong induction , is a consequence of the standard formulation, but is often better suited for reasoning about the ≤ order. For example, to show that the naturals are well-ordered —every nonempty subset of N has a least element —one can reason as follows. Let

1533-497: Is the earliest extant proof of the sum formula for integral cubes . In India, early implicit proofs by mathematical induction appear in Bhaskara 's " cyclic method ". None of these ancient mathematicians, however, explicitly stated the induction hypothesis. Another similar case (contrary to what Vacca has written, as Freudenthal carefully showed) was that of Francesco Maurolico in his Arithmeticorum libri duo (1575), who used

SECTION 20

#1732772277596

1606-437: Is the multiplicative left identity of all natural numbers. Moreover, it can be shown that multiplication is commutative and distributes over addition: Thus, ( N , + , 0 , ⋅ , S ( 0 ) ) {\displaystyle (\mathbb {N} ,+,0,\cdot ,S(0))} is a commutative semiring . The usual total order relation ≤ on natural numbers can be defined as follows, assuming 0

1679-414: Is the sentence where y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} is an abbreviation for y 1 ,..., y k . The first-order induction schema includes every instance of the first-order induction axiom; that is, it includes the induction axiom for every formula φ . The above axiomatization of Peano arithmetic uses a signature that only has symbols for zero as well as

1752-412: Is this initial object, and ( X , 0 X , S X ) is any other object, then the unique map u  : ( N , 0, S ) → ( X , 0 X , S X ) is such that This is precisely the recursive definition of 0 X and S X . When the Peano axioms were first proposed, Bertrand Russell and others agreed that these axioms implicitly defined what we mean by a "natural number". Henri Poincaré

1825-430: Is true for a given case, then the next case is also true. Informal metaphors help to explain this technique, such as falling dominoes or climbing a ladder: Mathematical induction proves that we can climb as high as we like on a ladder, by proving that we can climb onto the bottom rung (the basis ) and that from each rung we can climb up to the next one (the step ). A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first,

1898-408: Is true for every natural number n {\displaystyle n} , that is, that the infinitely many cases P ( 0 ) , P ( 1 ) , P ( 2 ) , P ( 3 ) , … {\displaystyle P(0),P(1),P(2),P(3),\dots }   all hold. This is done by first proving a simple case, then also showing that if we assume the claim

1971-409: Is true for some arbitrary k ≥ 12 . If there is a solution for k dollars that includes at least one 4-dollar coin, replace it by a 5-dollar coin to make k + 1 dollars. Otherwise, if only 5-dollar coins are used, k must be a multiple of 5 and so at least 15; but then we can replace three 5-dollar coins by four 4-dollar coins to make k + 1 dollars. In each case, S ( k + 1)

2044-414: Is true for some natural number n , it also holds for some strictly smaller natural number m . Because there are no infinite decreasing sequences of natural numbers, this situation would be impossible, thereby showing ( by contradiction ) that Q ( n ) cannot be true for any n . The validity of this method can be verified from the usual principle of mathematical induction. Using mathematical induction on

2117-421: Is true. Therefore, by the principle of induction, S ( k ) holds for all k ≥ 12 , and the proof is complete. In this example, although S ( k ) also holds for k ∈ { 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 } {\textstyle k\in \{4,5,8,9,10\}} , the above proof cannot be modified to replace the minimum amount of 12 dollar to any lower value m . For m = 11 ,

2190-1832: Is true. Using the angle addition formula and the triangle inequality , we deduce: | sin ⁡ ( k + 1 ) x | = | sin ⁡ k x cos ⁡ x + sin ⁡ x cos ⁡ k x | (angle addition) ≤ | sin ⁡ k x cos ⁡ x | + | sin ⁡ x cos ⁡ k x | (triangle inequality) = | sin ⁡ k x | | cos ⁡ x | + | sin ⁡ x | | cos ⁡ k x | ≤ | sin ⁡ k x | + | sin ⁡ x | ( | cos ⁡ t | ≤ 1 ) ≤ k | sin ⁡ x | + | sin ⁡ x | (induction hypothesis ) = ( k + 1 ) | sin ⁡ x | . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\left|\sin(k+1)x\right|&=\left|\sin kx\cos x+\sin x\cos kx\right|&&{\text{(angle addition)}}\\&\leq \left|\sin kx\cos x\right|+\left|\sin x\,\cos kx\right|&&{\text{(triangle inequality)}}\\&=\left|\sin kx\right|\left|\cos x\right|+\left|\sin x\right|\left|\cos kx\right|\\&\leq \left|\sin kx\right|+\left|\sin x\right|&&(\left|\cos t\right|\leq 1)\\&\leq k\left|\sin x\right|+\left|\sin x\right|&&{\text{(induction hypothesis}})\\&=(k+1)\left|\sin x\right|.\end{aligned}}} The inequality between

2263-408: Is used in mathematical logic and computer science . Mathematical induction in this extended sense is closely related to recursion . Mathematical induction is an inference rule used in formal proofs , and is the foundation of most correctness proofs for computer programs. Despite its name, mathematical induction differs fundamentally from inductive reasoning as used in philosophy , in which

Peano axioms - Misplaced Pages Continue

2336-445: The base case , proves the statement for n = 0 {\displaystyle n=0} without assuming any knowledge of other cases. The second case, the induction step , proves that if the statement holds for any given case n = k {\displaystyle n=k} , then it must also hold for the next case n = k + 1 {\displaystyle n=k+1} . These two steps establish that

2409-419: The implication P ( k ) ⟹ P ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(k)\implies P(k+1)} for any natural number k {\displaystyle k} . Assume the induction hypothesis: for a given value n = k ≥ 0 {\displaystyle n=k\geq 0} , the single case P ( k ) {\displaystyle P(k)}

2482-412: The proof of commutativity accompanying addition of natural numbers . More complicated arguments involving three or more counters are also possible. The method of infinite descent is a variation of mathematical induction which was used by Pierre de Fermat . It is used to show that some statement Q ( n ) is false for all natural numbers n . Its traditional form consists of showing that if Q ( n )

2555-420: The Peano axioms, but rather as axioms of the "underlying logic". The next three axioms are first-order statements about natural numbers expressing the fundamental properties of the successor operation. The ninth, final, axiom is a second-order statement of the principle of mathematical induction over the natural numbers, which makes this formulation close to second-order arithmetic . A weaker first-order system

2628-438: The Peano axioms, there is a unique homomorphism f  : N A → N B satisfying and it is a bijection . This means that the second-order Peano axioms are categorical . (This is not the case with any first-order reformulation of the Peano axioms, below.) The Peano axioms can be derived from set theoretic constructions of the natural numbers and axioms of set theory such as ZF . The standard construction of

2701-503: The Peano axioms. Addition is a function that maps two natural numbers (two elements of N ) to another one. It is defined recursively as: For example: To prove commutativity of addition, first prove 0 + b = b {\displaystyle 0+b=b} and S ( a ) + b = S ( a + b ) {\displaystyle S(a)+b=S(a+b)} , each by induction on b {\displaystyle b} . Using both results, then prove

2774-439: The Peano axioms. Peano arithmetic is equiconsistent with several weak systems of set theory. One such system is ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation. Another such system consists of general set theory ( extensionality , existence of the empty set , and the axiom of adjunction ), augmented by an axiom schema stating that a property that holds for the empty set and holds of an adjunction whenever it holds of

2847-483: The Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below. Request from 172.68.168.133 via cp1102 cp1102, Varnish XID 544958815 Upstream caches: cp1102 int Error: 429, Too Many Requests at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 05:37:57 GMT Axiom of induction Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement P ( n ) {\displaystyle P(n)}

2920-472: The adjunct must hold for all sets. The Peano axioms can also be understood using category theory . Let C be a category with terminal object 1 C , and define the category of pointed unary systems , US 1 ( C ) as follows: Then C is said to satisfy the Dedekind–Peano axioms if US 1 ( C ) has an initial object; this initial object is known as a natural number object in C . If ( N , 0, S )

2993-415: The axioms above. Dedekind proved in his 1888 book, The Nature and Meaning of Numbers ( German : Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? , i.e., "What are the numbers and what are they good for?") that any two models of the Peano axioms (including the second-order induction axiom) are isomorphic . In particular, given two models ( N A , 0 A , S A ) and ( N B , 0 B , S B ) of

Peano axioms - Misplaced Pages Continue

3066-406: The axioms amounts to accepting the infinite collection of natural numbers. In particular, addition (including the successor function) and multiplication are assumed to be total . Curiously, there are self-verifying theories that are similar to PA but have subtraction and division instead of addition and multiplication, which are axiomatized in such a way to avoid proving sentences that correspond to

3139-530: The axioms did not prove to be popular, although it was the genesis of the modern notation for set membership (∈, which comes from Peano's ε). Peano maintained a clear distinction between mathematical and logical symbols, which was not yet common in mathematics; such a separation had first been introduced in the Begriffsschrift by Gottlob Frege , published in 1879. Peano was unaware of Frege's work and independently recreated his logical apparatus based on

3212-510: The axioms used 1 instead of 0 as the "first" natural number, while the axioms in Formulario mathematico include zero. The next four axioms describe the equality relation . Since they are logically valid in first-order logic with equality, they are not considered to be part of "the Peano axioms" in modern treatments. The remaining axioms define the arithmetical properties of the natural numbers. The naturals are assumed to be closed under

3285-456: The base case is actually false; for m = 10 , the second case in the induction step (replacing three 5- by four 4-dollar coins) will not work; let alone for even lower m . It is sometimes desirable to prove a statement involving two natural numbers, n and m , by iterating the induction process. That is, one proves a base case and an induction step for n , and in each of those proves a base case and an induction step for m . See, for example,

3358-570: The earliest implicit proof by mathematical induction was written by al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who applied it to arithmetic sequences to prove the binomial theorem and properties of Pascal's triangle . Whilst the original work was lost, it was later referenced by Al-Samawal al-Maghribi in his treatise al-Bahir fi'l-jabr (The Brilliant in Algebra) in around 1150 AD. Katz says in his history of mathematics Another important idea introduced by al-Karaji and continued by al-Samaw'al and others

3431-554: The exact nature of the property to be proven. All variants of induction are special cases of transfinite induction ; see below . If one wishes to prove a statement, not for all natural numbers, but only for all numbers n greater than or equal to a certain number b , then the proof by induction consists of the following: This can be used, for example, to show that 2 ≥ n + 5 for n ≥ 3 . In this way, one can prove that some statement P ( n ) holds for all n ≥ 1 , or even for all n ≥ −5 . This form of mathematical induction

3504-528: The examination of many cases results in a probable conclusion. The mathematical method examines infinitely many cases to prove a general statement, but it does so by a finite chain of deductive reasoning involving the variable n {\displaystyle n} , which can take infinitely many values. The result is a rigorous proof of the statement, not an assertion of its probability. In 370 BC, Plato 's Parmenides may have contained traces of an early example of an implicit inductive proof, however,

3577-402: The extreme left hand and right hand sides, we deduce that: 0 + 1 + 2 + ⋯ + k + ( k + 1 ) = ( k + 1 ) ( ( k + 1 ) + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle 0+1+2+\cdots +k+(k+1)={\frac {(k+1)((k+1)+1)}{2}}.} That is, the statement P ( k + 1) also holds true, establishing

3650-454: The extreme left-hand and right-hand quantities shows that P ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(k+1)} is true, which completes the induction step. Conclusion: The proposition P ( n ) {\displaystyle P(n)} holds for all natural numbers n . {\displaystyle n.}   Q.E.D. In practice, proofs by induction are often structured differently, depending on

3723-1238: The following statement P ( n ) for all natural numbers n . P ( n ) :     0 + 1 + 2 + ⋯ + n = n ( n + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle P(n)\!:\ \ 0+1+2+\cdots +n={\frac {n(n+1)}{2}}.} This states a general formula for the sum of the natural numbers less than or equal to a given number; in fact an infinite sequence of statements: 0 = ( 0 ) ( 0 + 1 ) 2 {\displaystyle 0={\tfrac {(0)(0+1)}{2}}} , 0 + 1 = ( 1 ) ( 1 + 1 ) 2 {\displaystyle 0+1={\tfrac {(1)(1+1)}{2}}} , 0 + 1 + 2 = ( 2 ) ( 2 + 1 ) 2 {\displaystyle 0+1+2={\tfrac {(2)(2+1)}{2}}} , etc. Proposition. For every n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , 0 + 1 + 2 + ⋯ + n = n ( n + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle 0+1+2+\cdots +n={\tfrac {n(n+1)}{2}}.} Proof. Let P ( n ) be

SECTION 50

#1732772277596

3796-592: The induction hypothesis that for a particular k , the single case n = k holds, meaning P ( k ) is true: 0 + 1 + ⋯ + k = k ( k + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle 0+1+\cdots +k={\frac {k(k+1)}{2}}.} It follows that: ( 0 + 1 + 2 + ⋯ + k ) + ( k + 1 ) = k ( k + 1 ) 2 + ( k + 1 ) . {\displaystyle (0+1+2+\cdots +k)+(k+1)={\frac {k(k+1)}{2}}+(k+1).} Algebraically ,

3869-492: The induction step, that the statement holds for a particular n , is called the induction hypothesis or inductive hypothesis . To prove the induction step, one assumes the induction hypothesis for n and then uses this assumption to prove that the statement holds for n + 1 . Authors who prefer to define natural numbers to begin at 0 use that value in the base case; those who define natural numbers to begin at 1 use that value. Mathematical induction can be used to prove

3942-651: The induction step. Conclusion: Since both the base case and the induction step have been proved as true, by mathematical induction the statement P ( n ) holds for every natural number n . Q.E.D. Induction is often used to prove inequalities . As an example, we prove that | sin ⁡ n x | ≤ n | sin ⁡ x | {\displaystyle \left|\sin nx\right|\leq n\left|\sin x\right|} for any real number x {\displaystyle x} and natural number n {\displaystyle n} . At first glance, it may appear that

4015-441: The naturals, due to John von Neumann , starts from a definition of 0 as the empty set, ∅, and an operator s on sets defined as: The set of natural numbers N is defined as the intersection of all sets closed under s that contain the empty set. Each natural number is equal (as a set) to the set of natural numbers less than it: and so on. The set N together with 0 and the successor function s  : N → N satisfies

4088-427: The order relation can also be defined using first-order axioms. The axiom of induction above is second-order , since it quantifies over predicates (equivalently, sets of natural numbers rather than natural numbers). As an alternative one can consider a first-order axiom schema of induction. Such a schema includes one axiom per predicate definable in the first-order language of Peano arithmetic, making it weaker than

4161-623: The right hand side simplifies as: k ( k + 1 ) 2 + ( k + 1 ) = k ( k + 1 ) + 2 ( k + 1 ) 2 = ( k + 1 ) ( k + 2 ) 2 = ( k + 1 ) ( ( k + 1 ) + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\frac {k(k+1)}{2}}+(k+1)&={\frac {k(k+1)+2(k+1)}{2}}\\&={\frac {(k+1)(k+2)}{2}}\\&={\frac {(k+1)((k+1)+1)}{2}}.\end{aligned}}} Equating

4234-409: The second-order axiom. The reason that it is weaker is that the number of predicates in first-order language is countable, whereas the number of sets of natural numbers is uncountable. Thus, there exist sets that cannot be described in first-order language (in fact, most sets have this property). First-order axiomatizations of Peano arithmetic have another technical limitation. In second-order logic, it

4307-484: The section § Peano arithmetic as first-order theory below. If we use the second-order induction axiom, it is possible to define addition , multiplication , and total (linear) ordering on N directly using the axioms. However, with first-order induction, this is not possible and addition and multiplication are often added as axioms. The respective functions and relations are constructed in set theory or second-order logic , and can be shown to be unique using

4380-619: The statement | sin ⁡ n x | ≤ n | sin ⁡ x | {\displaystyle \left|\sin nx\right|\leq n\left|\sin x\right|} . We induce on n {\displaystyle n} . Base case: The calculation | sin ⁡ 0 x | = 0 ≤ 0 = 0 | sin ⁡ x | {\displaystyle \left|\sin 0x\right|=0\leq 0=0\left|\sin x\right|} verifies P ( 0 ) {\displaystyle P(0)} . Induction step: We show

4453-609: The statement 0 + 1 + 2 + ⋯ + n = n ( n + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle 0+1+2+\cdots +n={\tfrac {n(n+1)}{2}}.} We give a proof by induction on n . Base case: Show that the statement holds for the smallest natural number n = 0 . P (0) is clearly true: 0 = 0 ( 0 + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle 0={\tfrac {0(0+1)}{2}}\,.} Induction step: Show that for every k ≥ 0 , if P ( k ) holds, then P ( k + 1) also holds. Assume

SECTION 60

#1732772277596

4526-467: The statement P ( n ) defined as " Q ( m ) is false for all natural numbers m less than or equal to n ", it follows that P ( n ) holds for all n , which means that Q ( n ) is false for every natural number n . If one wishes to prove that a property P holds for all natural numbers less than or equal to n , proving P satisfies the following conditions suffices: The most common form of proof by mathematical induction requires proving in

4599-673: The statement holds for every natural number n {\displaystyle n} . The base case does not necessarily begin with n = 0 {\displaystyle n=0} , but often with n = 1 {\displaystyle n=1} , and possibly with any fixed natural number n = N {\displaystyle n=N} , establishing the truth of the statement for all natural numbers n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees ; this generalization, known as structural induction ,

4672-690: The statement specifically for natural values of n {\displaystyle n} , and induction is the readiest tool. Proposition. For any x ∈ R {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} } and n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , | sin ⁡ n x | ≤ n | sin ⁡ x | {\displaystyle \left|\sin nx\right|\leq n\left|\sin x\right|} . Proof. Fix an arbitrary real number x {\displaystyle x} , and let P ( n ) {\displaystyle P(n)} be

4745-418: The successor, addition, and multiplications operations. There are many other different, but equivalent, axiomatizations. One such alternative uses an order relation symbol instead of the successor operation and the language of discretely ordered semirings (axioms 1-7 for semirings, 8-10 on order, 11-13 regarding compatibility, and 14-15 for discreteness): The theory defined by these axioms is known as PA . It

4818-423: The technique to prove that the sum of the first n odd integers is n . The earliest rigorous use of induction was by Gersonides (1288–1344). The first explicit formulation of the principle of induction was given by Pascal in his Traité du triangle arithmétique (1665). Another Frenchman, Fermat , made ample use of a related principle: indirect proof by infinite descent . The induction hypothesis

4891-494: The totality of addition and multiplication, but which are still able to prove all true Π 1 {\displaystyle \Pi _{1}} theorems of PA, and yet can be extended to a consistent theory that proves its own consistency (stated as the non-existence of a Hilbert-style proof of "0=1"). All of the Peano axioms except the ninth axiom (the induction axiom) are statements in first-order logic . The arithmetical operations of addition and multiplication and

4964-419: The two basic components of a modern argument by induction, namely the truth of the statement for n = 1 (1 = 1 ) and the deriving of the truth for n = k from that of n = k - 1. Of course, this second component is not explicit since, in some sense, al-Karaji's argument is in reverse; this is, he starts from n = 10 and goes down to 1 rather than proceeding upward. Nevertheless, his argument in al-Fakhri

5037-437: The usual axioms of equality), which contains six of the seven axioms of Robinson arithmetic , is sufficient for this purpose: In addition to this list of numerical axioms, Peano arithmetic contains the induction schema, which consists of a recursively enumerable and even decidable set of axioms . For each formula φ ( x , y 1 , ..., y k ) in the language of Peano arithmetic, the first-order induction axiom for φ

5110-423: The work of Boole and Schröder . The Peano axioms define the arithmetical properties of natural numbers , usually represented as a set N or N . {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} .} The non-logical symbols for the axioms consist of a constant symbol 0 and a unary function symbol S . The first axiom states that the constant 0 is a natural number: Peano's original formulation of

5183-590: Was also employed by the Swiss Jakob Bernoulli , and from then on it became well known. The modern formal treatment of the principle came only in the 19th century, with George Boole , Augustus De Morgan , Charles Sanders Peirce , Giuseppe Peano , and Richard Dedekind . The simplest and most common form of mathematical induction infers that a statement involving a natural number n (that is, an integer n ≥ 0 or 1) holds for all values of n . The proof consists of two steps: The hypothesis in

5256-485: Was more cautious, saying they only defined natural numbers if they were consistent ; if there is a proof that starts from just these axioms and derives a contradiction such as 0 = 1, then the axioms are inconsistent, and don't define anything. In 1900, David Hilbert posed the problem of proving their consistency using only finitistic methods as the second of his twenty-three problems . In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved his second incompleteness theorem , which shows that such

5329-462: Was that of an inductive argument for dealing with certain arithmetic sequences. Thus al-Karaji used such an argument to prove the result on the sums of integral cubes already known to Aryabhata [...] Al-Karaji did not, however, state a general result for arbitrary n . He stated his theorem for the particular integer 10 [...] His proof, nevertheless, was clearly designed to be extendable to any other integer. [...] Al-Karaji's argument includes in essence

#595404