For 1.
P(k)
P(k+1)
Show that "if" P(k) is valid, then P(k+1) "must therefore" also be valid.
Hence, write P(k+1) in terms of P(k).
Proof
If P(k) is valid, then
If, then P(k+1) will be valid.
If
then
It can be seen that this is true since
hence, you need to examine the case for![]()
For 2.
You want to show that this inequality holds true for any level of nesting.
Suppose the above inequality is at a nesting depth ofor
P(k)
for a nesting depth of k.
Addto both sides and take the square root to get a depth of
The above has a nesting depth of
P(k) will definately be valid if
If this is so, then P(k) is always true.
Squaring both sides...
??
It's now a simple matter to verify this.
Finally, test foror
?
?
![]()
which is certainly true as![]()
No.4 was a bit more challenging.
Writing it in the way we normally use "k",
P(k)
P(k+1)
We want to show that if P(k) is valid, then it will cause P(k+1) to be valid also.
Hence we try to write P(k+1) so that it contains the P(k) expression.
Then we can draw the conclusion.
Proof
Rewriting P(k+1)..
Squaring both sides,
Subtractingfrom both sides,
Hence, our rewritten P(k+1) is
Rewriting P(k) by squaring both sides, to examine P(k+1)...
Examining the above rewritten P(k+1) and P(k) propositions,
it's easy to see that the RHS of the P(k+1) expression is greater than the RHS of the P(k) expression,
while the LHS is the same for both.
Therefore, if P(k) is valid, P(k+1) will as a result, also be valid.
Hence you only need to test foror
![]()