1
$\begingroup$

I have already read the following (this one and this one too) discussions on Stack Exchange and they have not answered my query. Proposition 2.2.14 asks the reader to prove that:

Proposition $2.2.14$ (Strong principle of induction). Let $m_0$ be a natural number, and let $P(m)$ be a property pertaining to an arbitrary natural number $m$. Suppose that for each $m \ge m_0$, we have the following implication: if $P(m')$ is true for all natural numbers $m_0 \leq m' < m$, then $P(m)$ is also true. (In particular, this means that $P(m_0)$ is true since in this case, the hypothesis is vacuous .) Then we can conclude that $P(m)$ is true for all natural numbers $m\geq m_0.$ (Hint: define $Q(n)$ to be the property that $P(m)$ is true for all $m_0≤m<n;$ note that $Q(n)$ is vacuously true when $n<m_0.$)

Instead of what Tao suggests, can I let $Q(n)$ to be the property that $P(m)$ is true for all $m_0\le m<m_0+n$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes. That would be saying exactly the same thing. Picking $m_0+n$ as the upper bound is the same as picking $n'=m_0+n$ as the upper bound like Tao suggested. Just a different way of writing it.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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