Let be an arbitrary property such that the following holds for all natural numbers .
If holds for all natural numbers smaller than , then holds for .
Is this enough information to conclude that holds for all natural numbers?
The solution to this problem is correct.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Let P be a property that satisfies the following condition which we will call S :
Now, I claim that P holds for all natural numbers. Assume the opposite, then there exists at least one natural number for which P fails to hold. (Note that this number can not be 0 since every natural number less than 0 (namely none) has property P 'vacuously' . Thus by S (case k = 0 ) P holds for 0 .) Now let n be the least natural number that does not have property P . By S there exists a natural number smaller than n which does not have property P , which contradicts with the minimality of n . Thus the assumption that P does not hold for all natural numbers leads to a contradiction and we conclude that P holds for all natural numbers.
Further remarks : To repeat an important point - the so called 'base case', which guarantees that 0 has property P is vacuously established by S (case k = 0 ) since every property (in particular P ) holds for all natural numbers less than 0 (namely all elements of the empty set) vacuously . Thus a property which holds for no natural numbers can not satisfy S .
Note : This principle is also known as complete (strong) induction .