Mathematical Induction:

A Systematic Technique in Analyzing

Mathematical Proofs

Abstract. Mathematical induction is a technique for proving results or

establishing statements for natural numbers and reasoning about objects, events or
procedures containing repetition. In this research paper we will explain the main
techniques used in mathematical induction through drawing mathematical examples.
This will be showing that those techniques will apply to proofs which involve the
base step which proves that a statement is true for the initial value and the inductive
step which proves that a statement is true for the nth iteration (or number n), then it
is also true for (n+1)th iteration ( or number n+1).

1. Introduction
The principle of mathematical induction has been used for about 350 years. It
was familiar to Fermat, in a disguised form, and the first clear statement seems to
have been made by Pascal in proving results about the arrangement of numbers now
known as Pascal's Triangle. There are many applications of inductive arguments and
the aim of my talk is to give some examples, illustrating why this method has become
an indispensable tool for mathematicians (Bather, 1994).

We begin with a general form of the principle. Let p1, p2 , p3 , … be statements or

propositions, each of which may be true or false.

Principle :

Suppose that (i) p1 is true and that, for n ≥ 1, (ii) pn ⇒ pn+1, then p1 , p2, p3, ... are
all true.
 Perhaps the most familiar applications are concerned with proving statements
like the following.

Example 1: pn : 1 + 2 + ... + n = 1/2n(n + 1).

Proof. P1 : 1= 1/2.i.2 is true.

Now assume that pn is true for some n ≥ 1. Then we have

1 + 2 + ... + n + (n + 1) = 1/2(n + 1) + (n + 1)
= 1/2(n + 1)(n + 2)

pn ⇒ pn+1
A slightly harder exercise is to prove that

12 + 22 + . . . n2 = 1/6n(n + 1) (2n + 1)

1.1. Explicit vs Implicit Induction

From the automation of proof by mathematical indention (Bundy, 1999), there

have been two major approaches to the automation of inductive proof: explicit and
implicit. This chapter is concerned with explicit induction, in which induction rules
are explicitly incorporated into proofs.
In implicit induction the conjecture to be proved is added to the axioms. A
Knuth-Bendix completion procedure is then applied to the whole system. If no
inconsistency is derived by the procedure, then the conjecture is an inductive
theorem. This method is also called induction-less induction or inductive completion.
1.2. Conventions
In this chapter we will use the following conventions. The double shafted arrow,
⇒, will be used to indicate the directed equality used in rewriting. The single shafted
arrow, → , will be used to represent logical implication.
Most research into inductive theorem proving has been restricted to the, so
called, quantifier-free fragment of first-order logic. This means that all variables are
free and, hence, implicitly universally quantified. Also, conjectures and induction
rules will usually be presented in fully quantified form so that the types of the
variables can be emphasized (Bundy, 1999). Note that in quantifier-free form
universal variables become free variables in axioms and hypotheses, but become
arbitrary constants in goals. We will follow the Prologue convention of starting all
free variables with an upper case letter. Bound variables and constants will start with
lower case letters.

2. Induction Rules
Peano induction is merely the simplest and best known inductive rule of
inference. Similar structural induction rules are available for every kind of recursively
defined data-structure, e.g. integers, lists, trees, sets, etc. Moreover, it is not
necessary to traverse such data-structures in the obvious, stepwise manner; they can
be traversed using any well-ordering. An extreme example occurs in a standard proof
that the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the geometric mean. This uses
an induction rule that traverses the natural numbers by rst going up in multiples of 2
and then lling in the gaps by coming in down in steps of 1. Nor is induction restricted
just to data-structures; it is possible to induce over the control ow of a computer
program or the time steps of a digital circuit (The Automation Proof by Mathematical
Induction, p.5).
2.1. Noetherian Induction
All of these forms of induction are subsumed by a single, general schema of
Noetherian induction:

where ≺is some well-founded relation on the type τ, i.e. ≺ is an irreflective, anti-
symmetric relation and there are no infinite, descending chains, like . . . ≺ an ≺ . . .
≺ a3 ≺ a2 ≺ a1. The data-structure, control ow, time step, etc., over which induction
is to be applied, is represented by the type τ. The inductive proof is formalized in a
many-sorted or many-typed logical system.
Success in proving a conjecture, P , by induction is highly dependent on the
choice of x and ≺. There is an infinite variety of possible types, τ , and for most of
these types, an infinite variety of possible well-orderings, ≺. Thus choosing an
appropriate induction rule to prove a conjecture also introduces an infinite branching
point into the search space. Controlling it, therefore, requires special heuristic
techniques.

3. Conclusion
In this chapter we have researched the systematic techniques in analyzing
mathematical induction. We have seen that mathematical induction is necessary in
proving results or establishing statements for natural numbers and reasoning about
objects, events or procedures containing repetition. It shares with all deductively
valid conclusions the property that it is necessarily true or true in all possible worlds
in which the givens are true.
It have been set that the purpose of mathematical induction is to be able to
prove an equation works for all natural numbers without actually calculating each
one individually.
Bibliography

Bather, J. A. (1994). Mathematical induction.

Bundy, A. (1999). The automation of proof by mathematical induction.

Bundy, A. (1999). The automation of proof by mathematical induction. Page 4.

Bundy, A. (1999). The automation of proof by mathematical induction. Page 5.

Bundy, A. (1999). The automation of proof by mathematical induction. Page 6.

Bundy, A. (1999). The Automation of Proof by Mathematical Induction. Institute for

Representation and Reasoning.

Bundy A. [1988], The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs, in R. Lusk and R.
Overbeek, eds, `9th Conference on Automated Deduction', Springer-Verlag, pp.
111{120. Longer version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No.
349.

Bundy A. [1991], A science of reasoning, in J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin, eds,

`Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson', MIT Press, pp. 178{198.
Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 445.

Bundy A., Stevens A., van Harmelen F., Ireland A. and Smaill A. [1993], `Rippling: A
heuristic for guiding inductive proofs', Arti cial Intel ligence 62, 185{253. Also
available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 567.

Bundy A., van Harmelen F., Hesketh J. and Smaill A. [1991], `Experiments with proof
plans for induction', Journal of Automated Reasoning 7, 303{324. Earlier version
available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No 413.

Bundy A., van Harmelen F., Hesketh J., Smaill A. and Stevens A. [1989], A rational
reconstruction and extension of recursion analysis, in N. S. Sridharan, ed.,
`Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Arti cial
Intelligence', Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 359{365. Also available from Edinburgh as
DAI Research Paper 419.

Bundy A., van Harmelen F., Horn C. and Smaill A. [1990], The Oyster-Clam system, in
M. E. Stickel, ed., `10th International Conference on Automated Deduction',
Springer-Verlag, pp. 647{648. Lecture Notes in Arti cial Intelligence No. 449. Also
available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 507.
Bundy A., van Harmelen F., Smaill A. and Ireland A. [1990], Extensions to the
rippling-out tactic for guiding inductive proofs, in M. E. Stickel, ed., `10th
International Conference on Automated Deduction', Springer-Verlag, pp.
132{146. Lecture Notes in Arti cial Intelligence No. 449. Also available from
Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 459.

Dubinsky, E. (1989). Teaching mathematical induction II. Journal of Mathematical

Behavior, 8(3), 285-304.