"I think it would be worthwhile to explicitly ca..."

https://arbital.com/p/5gd

by Eric Rogstad Jul 18 2016


We'll do an example to build our intuition before giving the proper definition of the principle\. We'll provide yet another proof that 1+2+cdots+n\=fracn(n+1)2 for all integers nge1\. First, let's check the base case, where n\=1: 1\=frac1(1+1)2\=frac22\=1. This is \(fairly obviously\) true, so we can move forward with the inductive step\. The inductive step includes an assumption, namely that the statement is true for some integer k that is larger than the base integer\. For our example, if kge1, we assume that 1+2+cdots+k\=frack(k+1)2 and try to prove that 1+2+cdots+k+(k+1)\=frac(k+1)(\[k+1\]+1)2. Take our assumption and add k+1 to both sides: 1+2+cdots+k+(k+1)\=frack(k+1)2+k+1. Now the left\-hand sides of what we know and what we want are the same\. Hopefully the right\-hand side will shake out to be the same\. Get common denominators so that the right\-hand side of the above equation is frack(k+1)2+frac2(k+1)2\=frac(k+2)(k+1)2\=frac(k+1)(\[k+1\]+1)2. Therefore, 1+2+cdots+k+(k+1)\=frac(k+1)(\[k+1\]+1)2 as desired\.

I think it would be worthwhile to explicitly call out that what's happening here is that we're replacing n in the original equation with k+1.