Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I can't understand what is wrong with this paradox. How we should strictly mathematically explain it?

Mathematical induction:

1. The basis:

$n=1,n=2$. Through any two (one) points on a plane we can draw a straight line.

2. The inductive step:

$n=k$. Through any $k$ distinct points on a plane we can draw a straight line.

3. Fake-Paradox:

We have an arbitrary $k+1$ points on the plane: $P_1, P_2, ..., P_{k+1}$. From $2)$ (inductive step) we can draw a straight line $L_1$ through $k$ points $P_1, P_2, ..., P_{k}$ and line $L_2$ through $k$ points $P_2, ..., P_k, P_{k+1}$. Lines $L_1$ and $L_2$ have at least two common points $P_2$ and $P_k$. But any two distinct points of a straight line completely determine that line $\Rightarrow L_1=L_2$ and $P_{k+1} \in L_1$. And we prove that

Through any $n$ distinct points on a plane we can draw a straight line.

share|cite|improve this question
Hint: Whenever someone gives you a set $\{a, b\}$ and claims it has two elements, you should frown and check whether $a\ne b$ is true. – Hagen von Eitzen Sep 14 '12 at 21:42
Thanks, I get it from Clive Newstead answer. It is so clear, i'm confused i didn't see that. – Mike Sep 14 '12 at 21:47
As a remark: this is a variant of the "All horses have the same colour" paradox often attributed to Pólya – Willie Wong Feb 22 '13 at 15:54
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Since you've tagged this as homework I won't just give you the answer, but think about this: your stage 3. relies on $P_2 \ne P_k$. When might this not happen?

Edit (in response to comment): Let $\phi$ be a statement about natural numbers; we say $\phi(n)$ if $\phi$ holds for some particular $n$. Let $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. The principle of mathematical induction states that $\phi(n)$ holds for all $n \ge n_0$ if and only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

  • $\phi(n_0)$ holds; and
  • For each $n \ge n_0$, if $\phi(k)$ holds then $\phi(k+1)$ holds.

Here we can set $n_0=2$. But the second condition is not satisfied, since if it were to be satisfied we'd need $\phi(2) \Rightarrow \phi(3)$, but as shown this is not the case since the argument that would make it so would require $P_2 \ne P_2$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The argument in the induction step doesn’t work in going from $n=2$ to $n=3$: the two lines aren’t forced to be the same line. Try drawing a picture of such an example.

share|cite|improve this answer

Hint: We know that through any 2 points in the plane we can draw a straight line, but that is not true for any 3 points. Thus, you should focus your attention on the argument that the claim is true for $n=2$ implies that it is true for $n=3$. Does the argument in 3. (Fake Pair Of Ducks) work for $k=2$ (3 points)?

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.