Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Purpose of proof by minimum counter example? Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    So, my notes essentially have a proof;

    defined are polynomials  f_0(x) =1, f_1(x) = x, f_n(x) = 2xf_{n-1}(x) - f_{n-2}(x)  (n=2,3,...)

    let  x \in \mathbb{R}

    Let P(n) be the statement  f_n(-x) =(-1)^nf_n(x)

    " f_0 and f_1 proven"

    Assume p(n) is not true

    Let minimal criminal be 2

    Then it shows that;  f_n(-x) = (-1)^nf_n(x) using the definitions given and p(n-1), p(n-2) .

    This contradicts the assumption that p(n) is false so p(n) is true.

    (some intermediate steps skipped above to make the post shorter).

    But what is the point of assuming that p(n) is false just to prove that p(n) is true if it can be proven true without an assumption of the negation with "strong induction " anyway? It seems that the method of induction would make proof by minimum counter example redundant.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The two concepts are very closely related. To be honest, I prefer "smallest counterexample" to induction in many ways. We generally spend several hours on explaining how/why induction works, but we usually don't even bother explaining smallest counterexample at all, because it's kind of obvious that it works.

    You could argue that it's induction that's the redundant concept...
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    The two concepts are very closely related. To be honest, I prefer "smallest counterexample" to induction in many ways. We generally spend several hours on explaining how/why induction works, but we usually don't even bother explaining smallest counterexample at all, because it's kind of obvious that it works.

    You could argue that it's induction that's the redundant concept...
    Thanks for the reply. I guess you could argue that, but I just thought about it the other way around because I learnt standard proof by induction first.

    Could I ask why you prefer smallest counterexample?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    Thanks for the reply. I guess you could argue that, but I just thought about it the other way around because I learnt standard proof by induction first.

    Could I ask why you prefer smallest counterexample?
    Say you have some rules, you know are true
    By assuming these rules are false, you can show a lot of assertions but they end up implying something that contradicts your original rules.
    Therefore the assertions are false, and if everything the rules being false implies is false, then the rules must be true.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emperorCode)
    Say you have some rules, you know are true
    By assuming these rules are false, you can show a lot of assertions but they end up implying something that contradicts your original rules.
    Therefore the assertions are false.
    Ok, so are you saying that it's easier to disproof the negation of "if p(n) then p(n+1)" like in some other standard implications?

    This is the only example I've ever looked at of the minimum counterexample, so I haven't come across those types yet.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    Thanks for the reply. I guess you could argue that, but I just thought about it the other way around because I learnt standard proof by induction first.

    Could I ask why you prefer smallest counterexample?
    I thought I explained it in my previous post. People generally find it easier to understand, you don't have all the formal "boiler plate" to learn (All that "assume true for n=k" stuff) like you do for induction. And you don't have to invoke a "magic" principle ("by the principle of mathematical induction" - it makes me think of He-man saying "by the power of Grey skull"!) to justify the final conclusion.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    Ok, so are you saying that it's easier to disproof the negation of "if p(n) then p(n+1)" like in some other standard implications?

    This is the only example I've ever looked at of the minimum counterexample, so I haven't come across those types yet.
    Exactly.
    You're trying to prove those rules being false makes no sense
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    I thought I explained it in my previous post. People generally find it easier to understand, you don't have all the formal "boiler plate" to learn (All that "assume true for n=k" stuff) like you do for induction. And you don't have to invoke a "magic" principle ("by the principle of mathematical induction" - it makes me think of He-man saying "by the power of Grey skull"!) to justify the final conclusion.
    Thank you - had a chuckle because of the he man reference too.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.