A Presentation on

Incorrect Proofs and

Principle of
Mathematical
Induction
INTRODUCTION
TO PROOFS
•What is a proof?

•A mathematical proof is an inferential

argument for a mathematical statement,
showing that the stated assumptions logically
guarantee the conclusion. 

•What are some terminologies concerning

proofs?

•Conjecture: An unproven proposition that

is believed to be true

•Hypothesis: Frequently used assumption for

mathematical work without the assumption of
its truth.  

•Theorem: A general proposition not self-

evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a
truth established by means of accepted truths.
 NEED OF PROOF
•Why do we need a proof?

• To prove the truthfulness of a statement

• To distinguish a theorem from a conjecture or
a hypothesis
• To reduce the errors in the concerned field of
study
• To make progress in the field of study
• To develop critical thinking

•What are the types of proofs?

•Broadly, proofs can be categorized into two types:

• Informal Proof: Employs logic accompanied

with natural language 

• Formal proof: Uses rigorous mathematical

symbols without the use of natural language 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROOFS

How to establish a proof? How many cases need to be

• Start with previously established proved?
statements: Axioms or Proven • Proving many cases does not guarantee a
Theorems. proof
• Use deductive logic, inductive logic or • It must hold for all the cases under
accepted rules of inference to arrive at consideration.
the desired conclusion. • Any single contradiction inside the
domain makes the statement invalid.
History
    The idea of proving a statement is true is said
to have begun in about the 5th century BCE in
Greece where philosophers developed a way of
convincing each other of the truth of some
mathematical statements. They had to agree
definitions of certain basic ideas and axioms .
Thales (624–546 BCE) and Hippocrates of
Chios (c. 470–410 BCE) gave some of the first
known proofs of theorems in geometry.
Mathematical proof was revolutionized
by Euclid (300 BCE), who introduced
the axiomatic method still in use today. It starts
with undefined terms and axioms, propositions
concerning the undefined terms which are
assumed to be self-evidently true.
                    Types of Proof

                                                                             Direct proof
 In direct proof, the conclusion is established by logically combining the axioms, definitions, and
earlier proven theorems.
 Assume that P is true.
 Use P to show that Q must be true.

                       Proof by contraposition

 Proof by contraposition infers the statement "if p then q" by establishing the logically

equivalent contrapositive statement: “if not q then not p”   

                             Proof by Contradiction

 A common form of proving a theorem is assuming the theorem is false, and then show that the
assumption is false itself, and is therefore a contradiction.
Proof by induction

 In a proof by induction, we generally

have 2 parts, a basis and the inductive
step. The basis is the simplest version of
the problem
 The next part of the proof is the
inductive step. The inductive step is the
part where we generalize the basis.
 We take our theorem, generalize it and
take it to the next step.  

    Proof by exhaustion
 In proof by exhaustion, the conclusion is
established by dividing it into a finite
number of cases and proving each one
separately.
Incorrect Proofs
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often
exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a
concept called mathematical fallacy. There is a distinction
between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a
proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof
while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies
there is some element of concealment or deception in the
presentation of the proof.

The reason why validity fails may be attributed to a division by

zero that is hidden by algebraic notation, thus producing
absurd result
 Example of Incorrect Proofs
Division by zero:

        a = b
Þ a2 = ab  ( multiply by a)
Þ  a2 – b2 = ab – b2    (subtracting b2)
Þ (a-b)(a+b) = a(a-b) 
Þ a+b = b (dividing by a-b)   -----------(i)
Þ b + b = b (a = b)
Þ 2b = b
Þ 2 = 1 (😐)

In (i) we have divided by a-b , but a=b, so we are

dividing by zero and thus getting absurd result
Positive and negative roots:
-20
  = -20
=> 25 – 45 = 16 – 36
=> 52 – 5×9 = 42 - 4×9
=> 52 - 5×9 + = 42 - 4×9 +
=> (5 - )2 = (4 - )2
Taking square roots
5- =4-
Adding to both sides
5=4
On taking square roots we get both positive and
negative roots and we need to choose sign by
considering the original equation, else we will get
absurd result
PRINCIPLE OF
MATHEMATICAL

INDUCTION
Principle of Mathematical Induction
Introduction :
•The principle of mathematical induction has
been used for about 350 years. It was familiar to
Fermat, in a disguised form, and the first clear
statement seems to have been made by Pascal in
proving results about the arrangement of
numbers now known as Pascal's Triangle. There
are many applications of inductive arguments
Definition:
•Mathematical Induction is a technique of
proving a statement, theorem or formula which
is thought to be true, for each and every natural
number n. By generalizing this in form of a
principle which we would use to prove any
mathematical statement is ‘Principle of
Mathematical Induction‘.
•For example: 13 +23 + 33 + ….. +n3 = (n(n+1) /
2)2, the statement is considered here as true for
all the values of natural numbers.
 Historical Note

•Unlike other concepts and methods, proof by

mathematical induction is not the invention of a
particular individual at a fixed moment. It is said
that the principle of mathematical induction was
known by the Pythagoreans. The French
mathematician Blaise Pascal is credited with the
origin of the principle of mathematical induction.
The name induction was used by the English
mathematician John Wallis. Later the principle was
employed to provide a proof of the binomial
theorem. De Morgan contributed many
accomplishments in the field of mathematics on
many different subjects. He was the first person to
define and name “mathematical induction” and
developed De Morgan’s rule to determine the
convergence of a mathematical series. G. Peano
undertook the task of deducing the properties of
natural numbers from a set of explicitly stated
assumptions, now known as Peano’s axioms. The
principle of mathematical induction is a restatement
of one of the Peano’s axioms.
General Structure of a Proof by
Mathematical Induction

Sometimes the
statement P(n) will only be
true for values of n≥4, for
example, or some other
value. In such cases, replace
all the 0's above with 4's (or
the other value).
Examples of Standard Induction

• Summation:
n

•
 (2k -1)  n 2

1.Prove that                             for all positive integers.

k 1

• Ans:
• Since  2 × 1 -1= 12 ,the statement holds when n=1.
• Now let's assume that 1+3+5+.......+(2k-1)=k2  for
some positive integer k. Then add 2k+1 to both
sides of the equation, which gives

1+3+5+....+(2k−1)+(2k+1)= k2+(2k+1) = (k+1)2 .

• Thus, if the statement holds when n=k, it also holds

for n=k+1. Therefore, the statement is true for all
positive integers n.
• Inequalities:
1.Prove that 2n>n for all positive integers n.
Ans:
Since 21>1, the statement holds when n=1.
Now let's assume that 2k>k for some positive integer k which is larger
than 1. Then multiply both sides of the equation by 2, which gives
2k×2 = 2k+1 > 2k.

Since we assumed that k > 1, 2k > k+1 is always true. Hence, we have
2k+1 > 2k > k+1.

Thus, if the given statement holds when n=k, it also holds for n=k+1.
Therefore, the statement is true for all positive integers n.
Divisibility
Q. Prove that 2^2n-1 is always divisible by 3 if n is
a positive integer.

• For n=1, our statement is true since 22x1-1  is equal

to 3 and thus divisible by 3.
• Now, we have  to show that if the statement is true
for some positive integer k, it is true for k+1. If
the statement is true for k, we can set 222k-1
=3x for some positive integer x.
• 22(k+1)-1=2(2k+2)-1=22.22k-1=4.22k-1=3.22k+22k-1
• Since 22k-1=3x, this can be rewritten
as 3(22k+x), which is obviously divisible by 3.
• We've been able to show the inductive step and
that completes our proof
The Extended Principle of
Mathematical Induction

•Let's think about what would happen if

instead of knocking over the first domino,
we knock over the sixth domino. If we Let  M  be an integer. If  T  is a subset
also prove the inductive step, then we of  Z  such that
would know that every domino after the 1. M∈T , and
sixth domino would also fall. This is the 2. For every  k∈Z  with  k≥M , if 
idea of the Extended Principle of k∈T , then  (k+1)∈T ,
Mathematical Induction.  Then  T  contains all integers greater
•It is not necessary for the basis step to be than or equal to  M . That is  {n∈Z|
the proof that  P(1)  is true. We can make n≥M}⊆T .
the basis step be the proof that  P(M)  is
true, where  M  is some natural number.
Using the Extended Principle of Mathematical
Induction

• Let  M  be an integer. To prove:  (∀n∈Z, with n≥M)(P(n)). 

Inductive step: Prove that for every k∈Z with

Basis step: Prove P(M) .
k≥M , if P(k) is true, then P(k+1) is true.

• We can then conclude that  P(n)  is true for all  n∈Z, with n≥M.
STAMPS!!
•Problem Statement : 

•You need to mail a package, but don't yet know

how much postage you will need. You have a large
supply of 8-cent stamps and 5-cent stamps.
Which amounts of postage can you make exactly
using these stamps? Which amounts are
impossible to make?

•Perhaps in investigating the problem above you

picked some amounts of postage, and then figured
out whether you could make that amount using just
8-cent and 5-cent stamps. Perhaps you did this in
order: can you make 1 cent of postage? Can you
make 2 cents? 3 cents? And so on. If this is what you
did, you were answering a sequence of questions. We
have methods for dealing with sequences. Let's see if
that helps.
•The sequence will consist of TT's (for true) and FF's
(for false). In our particular case the sequence starts
•F,F,F,F,T,F,F,T,F,F,T,F,F,T,…
Suppose I told you that P(43)was true (it is). Can you determine from this fact the value
of P(44) (whether it true or false)? Yes you can. Even if we don't know how exactly we made 43
cents out of the 5-cent and 8-cent stamps, we do know that there was some way to do it. What if that
way used at least three 5-cent stamps (making 15 cents)? We could replace those three 5-cent stamps
with two 8-cent stamps (making 16 cents). The total postage has gone up by 1, so we have a way to
make 44 cents, so P(44) is true. Of course, we assumed that we had at least three 5-cent stamps.
What if we didn't? Then we must have at least three 8-cent stamps (making 24 cents). If we replace
those three 8-cent stamps with five 5-cent stamps (making 25 cents) then again we have bumped up
our total by 1 cent so we can make 44 cents, so P(44) is true.
•However, in our current example P(1) is false!
•That's not good, since our recurrence relation just
says that P(k+1)P(k+1) is true if P(k) is also true. We
need to start the process with a true P(k).
•Let 28 be our base condition.
•We will try to prove it is possible to (exactly) make
any amount of postage greater than 27 cents using
just 5-cent and 8-cent stamps. In other words, P(k) is
true for any k≥28
•First, we show that P(28) is true: 28=4⋅5+1⋅8 so we
can make 28 cents using four 5-cent stamps and one
8-cent stamp.
•Now suppose P(k) is true for some arbitrary k≥28.
Then it is possible to make k cents using 5-cent and
8-cent stamps. Note that since k≥28, it cannot be that
we use less than three 5-cent stamps and less than
three 8-cent stamps: using two of each would give
only 26 cents. Now if we have made k cents using at
least three 5-cent stamps, replace three 5-cent stamps
by two 8-cent stamps. This replaces 15 cents of
postage with 16 cents, moving from a total of k cents
to k+1 cents. Thus P(k+1) is true. On the other hand,
if we have made k cents using at least three 8-cent
stamps, then we can replace three 8-cent stamps with
five 5-cent stamps, moving from 24 cents to 25 cents,
giving a total of k+1 cents of postage. So, in this case
as well P(k+1) is true.
•Therefore, by the principle of mathematical
induction, P(n) is true for all n≥28.
5 5 5 15 8 8 8
24

8 8 16 5 5 5 5 5

25
There are certain cases where the concept of general induction which we have been using till
now is rendered nonviable.

To further consolidate this, let us take a look at an example.

  If
Let us proceed this question using standard induction or weak induction. Then prove that

Base Case: we need to prove that 12|(14 – 12) = 12|(1- 1) = 0,

which is divisible by 12 by definition.

Induction Step: We assume that the 12|(k4 – k2) is true such that (k4 – k2) = 12a for some a∈N. We
then need to show that ((k+1)4 – (k+1)2) = 12b for some b∈N.

Our approach would be to a direct proof such that

(k+1)4 – (k+1)2 = k4 + 4k3 + 6k2 + 4k + 1 – (k2 + 2k + 1) =  (k4 – k2) + 4k3 + 6k2 + 2k = 12a + 4k3 +
6k2 + 2k

How do we proceed from there? We don’t have a clue.

So the weak induction method failed. However, we can show that n = k-5 implies that the statement is
true for k+1, so we need to expand the base case to include everything up to n = 6.
This is done by the method of strong induction or complete induction.
STRONG INDUCTION
What is Strong Induction? How does it differ from weak induction?

Strong induction is a variant of induction, in which the inductive step

made easier to prove by using a stronger hypothesis: one proves the
statement P(m + 1) under the assumption that P(n) holds for all natural
n less than m + 1. This provides us with more information to use when
trying to prove the statement.

Strong induction is like weak induction, the only way it differs is that except instead of writing the
induction rule like this:
 If the property P holds for the natural number n, it must also hold for n + 1: P(n) => P(n + 1).

We write the induction rule like this:

 If the property P holds for all the natural numbers 0 through n, it must also hold for n + 1: P(0) and
P(1) and ... and P(n) => P(n + 1).
Now let us take a look at the earlier example.

We need to show that if n∈N then 12|(n4 – n2).

We will procced this question by using principle of strong induction.

Base case: 
n = 1:  12|(14 – 12) = 12|(1- 1) = 0 = 0*12
n = 2:  12|(24 – 22) = 12|16-12 = 12 = 1*12
n = 3:  12|(34 – 32) = 12|(81 – 9) = 72  = 6*12
n = 4:  12|(44 – 42) = 12|(256- 16) = 240 = 20 * 12
n = 5:  12|(54 – 52) = 12|(625- 25) = 600 = 50*12
n = 6:  12|(64 – 62) = 12|(1296- 36) = 1260 = 105*12
So far it fits really well.

Induction step: let k≥6∈Nand assume that 12|(m4 – m2) for1≤m≤k, now we need to prove that 12|((k+1)4 –
(k+1)2)  is true as well.
Let us define l =  k-5 for which we assume the proposition to be true such that  (l4 -l2) = 12a for some value of
a. 

We need to show that 12|((l+6)4 – (l+6)2) is true.  So let us try with a direct approach
(l+6)4 – (l+6)2= (l4 +24l3 + 180l2 + 864l + 1296) – (l2 + 12l + 36) = (l4 – l2) +24l3 + 180l2 + 852l + 1260 = 12a
+12(2l3 + 15l2 + 71l + 105).
This statement is clearly divisible by 12, and thus proofs the proposition.
 How to know when to use
strong induction instead of
simple induction?

Whenever the statement you're trying to show depends on

smaller numbers, but not the just preceding number, then
the strong form of induction is needed.

Let us have a look at a couple of examples of such case.

Show that every integer greater than 1 is either prime or a product of primes.

Proof: 

Suppose that each integer greater than 1 and less than n is either prime or a product
of primes. 
 We'll show n is also either prime or a product of primes. 
 If n is prime, we're done. Otherwise, n is not prime, so it is the product of two
smaller integers. 
 Neither can be 1 since they're both smaller than n. 
 Since each is prime or a product of primes, their product is also a product of
primes. 
 Thus, n is either prime or a product of primes.

By strong induction, we conclude that each integer greater than 1 is either prime or a product of primes.

Note: Let us take a particular n to see how the strong form of induction is necessary, say n = 45. 
It's the product of two numbers, 5 times 9, but they're both smaller than 45, so each is either prime or a
product of primes. 5 is prime, and 9 is 3 times 3, and 3 is prime. So 45 is 5 times 3 times 3. Weak
induction could have told us only that 44 is prime or a product of primes, and that wouldn't have helped
at all.
    There exist se
   Fallacious proofs by Induction: vera
fallacious proof l
sb
which one of the y induction in
c
basis case or ind omponents,
The theorem to be proved is “All horses are the uctive step, is
incorrect.
same colour.”
• Let us say that any group of N horses is all of the
same colour.
• If we remove a horse from the group, we have a
group of N − 1 horses of the same colour. If we
add another horse, we have another group
of N horses. By our previous assumption, all the
horses are of the same colour in this new group,
since it is a group of N horses.
• Thus we have constructed two groups of N horses all
of the same colour, with N − 1 horses in common.
Since these two groups have some horses in
common, the two groups must be of the same colour
as each other.
• Therefore, combining all the horses used, we have a group of N + 1 horses of the same colour.
Thus if any N horses are all the same colour, any N + 1 horses are the same colour.

• This is clearly true for N = 1 (i.e. one horse is a

group where all the horses are the same colour).
Thus, by induction, N horses are the same colour
for any positive integer N. i.e. all horses are the
same colour.
• The fallacy in this proof arises in line 3. For N = 1, the
two groups of horses have N − 1 = 0 horses in
common, and thus are not necessarily the same
colour as each other, so the group of N + 1 = 2
horses are not necessarily of the same colour. The
implication "every N horses are of the same colour,
then N + 1 horses are of the same colour" works for
any N > 1, but fails to be true when N = 1. The basis
case is correct, but the induction step has a
fundamental flaw.    Fig. Horses' proof, induction step
failing for n = 1
 References
 http://discrete.openmathbooks.org/dmoi2/sec_seq-induction.html

 https://brilliant.org/wiki/induction/#induction-introduction

 https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Mathematical_Logic_and_Proof/Boo
k%3A_Mathematical_Reasoning__Writing_and_Proof_(Sundstrom)/4%3A_Mat
hematical_Induction/4.2%3A_Other_Forms_of_Mathematical_Induction

 https://www.mathblog.dk/strong-induction/

 NCERT Principle of Mathematical Induction

 Proofs By Induction by Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute

 History of mathematical induction Source- Official journal of The Mathematical

Association of America may,1918

 Google Images