Lecture 5:

Mathematical Induction
Section 5.1
Section Summary
● Mathematical Induction
● Examples of Proof by Mathematical Induction
● Mistaken Proofs by Mathematical Induction
● Guidelines for Proofs by Mathematical Induction
Climbing an
Infinite Ladder
Suppose we have an infinite ladder:
1. We can reach the first rung of the ladder.
2. If we can reach a particular rung of the ladder, then we can
reach the next rung.

From (1), we can reach the first rung. Then by

applying (2), we can reach the second rung.
Applying (2) again, the third rung. And so on.
We can apply (2) any number of times to reach
any particular rung, no matter how high up.

This example motivates proof by

mathematical induction.
Principle of Mathematical Induction
Principle of Mathematical Induction: To prove that P(n) is true for all
positive integers n, we complete these steps:
○ Basis Step: Show that P(1) is true.
○ Inductive Step: Show that P(k) → P(k + 1) is true for all positive
integers k.
To complete the inductive step, assuming the inductive hypothesis that
P(k) holds for an arbitrary integer k, show that must P(k + 1) be true.

Climbing an Infinite Ladder Example :

○ BASIS STEP: By (1), we can reach rung 1.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: Assume the inductive hypothesis that we can reach
rung k. Then by (2), we can reach rung k + 1.
Hence, P(k) → P(k + 1) is true for all positive integers k. We can reach
every rung on the ladder.
Important Points About Using
Mathematical Induction
● Mathematical induction can be expressed as :
(P(1) ∧ ∀k (P(k) → P(k + 1))) → ∀n P(n),
where the domain is the set of positive integers.
● In a proof by mathematical induction, we don’t prove that
P(k) is true for all positive integers! We show that if we
assume that P(k) is true, then P(k + 1) must also be true.

● Proofs by mathematical induction do not always start at

the integer 1. In such a case, the basis step begins at a
starting point b where b is an integer. We will see
examples of this soon.
 How Mathematical Induction Works
Consider an infinite We know that the first domino is
sequence of dominoes, knocked down, i.e., P(1) is true .
labeled 1,2,3, …, where
each domino is standing. We also know that if whenever
the kth domino is knocked over,
Let P(n) be the it knocks over the (k + 1)st
proposition that the domino, i.e, P(k) → P(k + 1) is
nth domino is true for all positive integers k.
knocked over.

Hence, all dominos are knocked over.

P(n) is true for all positive integers n.

Proving a Summation Formula by
Mathematical Induction
Example : Show that if n is a positive integer, then:
(
Solution :
○ BASIS STEP: P(1) is true since 1 = 1(1 + 1)/2.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: Assume P(k) holds.
Then, the inductive hypothesis is:
Under this assumption,
Conjecturing and Proving Correct a
Summation Formula
Example : Conjecture and prove correct a formula for the sum of the first n
positive odd integers. Then prove your conjecture.
Solution : We have: 1= 1, 1 + 3 = 4, 1 + 3 + 5 = 9, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16,
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25.
○ We can conjecture that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2,
1 + 3 + 5 + ∙∙∙+ (2n − 1) =n2 .

○ We prove that the conjecture is correct with mathematical induction.

○ BASIS STEP: P(1) is true since 12 = 1.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: We have to show that, for every positive integer k,
P(k) → P(k + 1).
Assume the inductive hypothesis P(k) is True and then show that P(k + 1)
holds has well.

(continued →) .
Conjecturing and Proving Correct a
Summation Formula
Inductive Hypothesis : P(k) ≡ “1 + 3 + 5 + ∙∙∙+ (2k − 1) = k2 ”

○ So, assuming P(k), it follows that:

1 + 3 + 5 + ∙∙∙+ (2k − 1) + (2k + 1)
= [1 + 3 + 5 + ∙∙∙+ (2k − 1)] + (2k + 1)
= k2 + (2k + 1) [by the inductive hypothesis]
= k2 + 2k + 1 = (k + 1) 2

○ Hence, we have shown that P(k + 1) follows from P(k).

Therefore the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2.
More Summation Proof by Induction
Example :
Show that: Sum of a finite number of terms in a geometric
progression with initial term a and common ratio r is

Solution :
○ BASIS STEP: P(0) is true since
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: Assume true for P(k). So the inductive hypothesis
would be:

Under such assumption, we add ark+1 to both sides of the equality

above.
More Summation Proof by Induction (contd.)
Rewriting the R.H.S of the equation gives

which implies-

Conclusion: If the inductive hypothesis P(k) is true, then P(k+1) must be

true. Proof by induction done!
Proving Divisibility Results
Example : Use mathematical induction to prove that n3 − n is divisible by
3, for every positive integer n.
Solution : Let P(n) be the proposition that n3 − n is divisible by 3.
○ BASIS STEP: P(1) is true since 13 − 1 = 0, which is divisible by 3.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: Assume P(k) holds, i.e., k3 − k is divisible by 3, for
an arbitrary positive integer k. To show that P(k + 1) follows:
(k + 1)3 − (k + 1) = (k3 + 3k2 + 3k + 1) − (k + 1)
= (k3 − k) + 3(k2 + k)
By the inductive hypothesis, the first term (k3 − k) is divisible by 3
and the second term is divisible by 3 since it is an integer multiplied
by 3. So by part (i) of Theorem 1 in Section 4.1 , (k + 1)3 − (k + 1) is
divisible by 3.
Therefore, n3 − n is divisible by 3, for every integer positive integer n.
Proving More Divisibility
Example : Use mathematical induction to prove that 7n+2 +82n+1 is divisible
by 57 for every nonnegative integer n.
Solution : Let P(n) denote the proposition: “7n+2 +82n+1 is divisible by 57.”
○ BASIS STEP: P (0) is true since 70+2 +82⋅0+1 = 72 +81 = 57 is divisible
by 57.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: Assume P(k) holds, that is, we assume that
7k+2 +82k+1 is divisible by 57. So we can write: 7k+2 +82k+1 = 57x,
where x is an integer.
Then, we must show that P(k +1), the statement that
“7(k+1)+2 +82(k+1)+1 is divisible by 57”, is also true. We find that,
7(k+1)+2 +82(k+1)+1 = 7k+3 +82k+3 = 7 ⋅ 7k+2 +82 ⋅ 82k+1 = 7 ⋅ 7k+2 +64 ⋅
82k+1
= 7(7 k+2 +8 2k+1 ) +57⋅ 82k+1 = 7(57x) +57⋅ 82k+1 = 57(7x + 82k+1).
Therefore, 7(k+1)+2 +82(k+1)+1 is divisible by 57.
An Incorrect “Proof” by Mathematical
Induction (Cont.)
Example : Let P(n) be the statement that “Every set of n lines in
the plane, no two of which are parallel, meet in a common point.”
Here is a “proof” that P(n) is true for all positive integers n ≥ 2.
○ BASIS STEP: The statement P(2) is true because any two lines in
the plane that are not parallel meet in a common point.
○ INDUCTIVE STEP: The inductive hypothesis is the statement that
P(k) is true for the positive integer k ≥ 2, i.e., every set of k lines in
the plane, no two of which are parallel, meet in a common point.

○ We must show that if P(k) holds, then P(k + 1) holds,

○ i.e., if every set of k lines in the plane, no two of which are parallel,
k ≥ 2, meet in a common point,
○ then every set of k + 1 lines in the plane, no two of which are
parallel, meet in a common point.
continued →
An Incorrect “Proof” by Mathematical
Induction (Cont.)
Inductive Hypothesis: Every set of k lines in the plane, where
k ≥ 2, no two of which are parallel, meet in a common point.
○ Consider a set of k + 1 distinct lines in the plane, no two parallel. By the inductive
hypothesis, the first k of these lines must meet in a common point p1. By the inductive
hypothesis, the last k of these lines meet in a common point p2.
○ If p1 and p2 are different points, all lines containing both of them must be the same
line since two points determine a line. This contradicts the assumption that the lines
are distinct. Hence, p1 = p2 lies on all k + 1 distinct lines, and therefore P(k + 1)
holds. Assuming that k ≥2, distinct lines meet in a common point, then every k + 1
lines meet in a common point.
○ There must be an error in this proof since the conclusion is absurd. But where is the
error?
■ Answer : P(k)→ P(k + 1) only holds for k ≥3. It is not the case that P(2) implies
P(3). The first two lines must meet in a common point p1 and the second two must
meet in a common point p2. They do not have to be the same point since only the
second line is common to both sets of lines.