Using induction to prove the multiplication rule












1












$begingroup$


I am trying to use mathematical induction to prove the multiplication rule:




If there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$ for $k=1,dots,m$, then there are $n_1n_2dots n_m$ ways to perform all $m$ tasks.




In attempting to prove this, I used the advice from Brian M. Scott's answer in this thread.





Proof



Let $P(m)$ represent the above statement.



$P(1)$ is obviously true, since, if there are $n_1$ ways to perform task $T_1$, then there are $n_1$ ways to perform the single task.



$P(2)$ is assumed to be true by the statement.



Now assume that $P(m)$ is true for some $m ge 2$.



To prove that $P(m + 1)$ is true, we start with the two tasks $T$ and $T_k$, where $T$ represents all tasks $T_1, T_2, dots , T_m$, and $k = m + 1$. Using the induction hypothesis, we have that there are $n_1 n_2 dots n_m$ ways to perform task $T$. And since there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$, where $k = m + 1$, and since $P(2) = n_1 n_2$ ways to perform two tasks, we can conclude that there are $(n_1 n_2 dots n_m)(n_k) = n_1 n_2 dots n_m n_{m + 1}$ ways to perform $m + 1$ tasks (task $T$ and $T_k$, $k = m + 1$, together).





I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof for correctness.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    I am trying to use mathematical induction to prove the multiplication rule:




    If there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$ for $k=1,dots,m$, then there are $n_1n_2dots n_m$ ways to perform all $m$ tasks.




    In attempting to prove this, I used the advice from Brian M. Scott's answer in this thread.





    Proof



    Let $P(m)$ represent the above statement.



    $P(1)$ is obviously true, since, if there are $n_1$ ways to perform task $T_1$, then there are $n_1$ ways to perform the single task.



    $P(2)$ is assumed to be true by the statement.



    Now assume that $P(m)$ is true for some $m ge 2$.



    To prove that $P(m + 1)$ is true, we start with the two tasks $T$ and $T_k$, where $T$ represents all tasks $T_1, T_2, dots , T_m$, and $k = m + 1$. Using the induction hypothesis, we have that there are $n_1 n_2 dots n_m$ ways to perform task $T$. And since there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$, where $k = m + 1$, and since $P(2) = n_1 n_2$ ways to perform two tasks, we can conclude that there are $(n_1 n_2 dots n_m)(n_k) = n_1 n_2 dots n_m n_{m + 1}$ ways to perform $m + 1$ tasks (task $T$ and $T_k$, $k = m + 1$, together).





    I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof for correctness.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      I am trying to use mathematical induction to prove the multiplication rule:




      If there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$ for $k=1,dots,m$, then there are $n_1n_2dots n_m$ ways to perform all $m$ tasks.




      In attempting to prove this, I used the advice from Brian M. Scott's answer in this thread.





      Proof



      Let $P(m)$ represent the above statement.



      $P(1)$ is obviously true, since, if there are $n_1$ ways to perform task $T_1$, then there are $n_1$ ways to perform the single task.



      $P(2)$ is assumed to be true by the statement.



      Now assume that $P(m)$ is true for some $m ge 2$.



      To prove that $P(m + 1)$ is true, we start with the two tasks $T$ and $T_k$, where $T$ represents all tasks $T_1, T_2, dots , T_m$, and $k = m + 1$. Using the induction hypothesis, we have that there are $n_1 n_2 dots n_m$ ways to perform task $T$. And since there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$, where $k = m + 1$, and since $P(2) = n_1 n_2$ ways to perform two tasks, we can conclude that there are $(n_1 n_2 dots n_m)(n_k) = n_1 n_2 dots n_m n_{m + 1}$ ways to perform $m + 1$ tasks (task $T$ and $T_k$, $k = m + 1$, together).





      I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof for correctness.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I am trying to use mathematical induction to prove the multiplication rule:




      If there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$ for $k=1,dots,m$, then there are $n_1n_2dots n_m$ ways to perform all $m$ tasks.




      In attempting to prove this, I used the advice from Brian M. Scott's answer in this thread.





      Proof



      Let $P(m)$ represent the above statement.



      $P(1)$ is obviously true, since, if there are $n_1$ ways to perform task $T_1$, then there are $n_1$ ways to perform the single task.



      $P(2)$ is assumed to be true by the statement.



      Now assume that $P(m)$ is true for some $m ge 2$.



      To prove that $P(m + 1)$ is true, we start with the two tasks $T$ and $T_k$, where $T$ represents all tasks $T_1, T_2, dots , T_m$, and $k = m + 1$. Using the induction hypothesis, we have that there are $n_1 n_2 dots n_m$ ways to perform task $T$. And since there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$, where $k = m + 1$, and since $P(2) = n_1 n_2$ ways to perform two tasks, we can conclude that there are $(n_1 n_2 dots n_m)(n_k) = n_1 n_2 dots n_m n_{m + 1}$ ways to perform $m + 1$ tasks (task $T$ and $T_k$, $k = m + 1$, together).





      I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof for correctness.







      combinatorics proof-verification induction






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:26









      The PointerThe Pointer

      2,64421638




      2,64421638






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:




          Assume $P(m)$ for some $m geq 2$. Now, for the purpose of proving $P(m+1)$, suppose there are a set of tasks $T_i$ such that there are $n_i$ ways to complete each task $T_i$ for $1 leq i leq m+1$. In particular, this means $T_{m+1}$ can be completed in $m+1$ ways. Now, let the task $T$ be the combination of tasks $T_1, T_2, ... T_m$. By $P(m)$, it is known that $T$ can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_m$ ways.



          We can now consider the set of all $m+1$ tasks to be the combination of the two tasks $T$ and $T_{m+1}$. By $P(2)$, we know that the number of ways to complete two tasks is the product of the number ways one can complete each task separately. Thus, the number of ways to complete task $T$, then task $T_{m+1}$ is the product of the number of ways to complete task $T$, which is $n_1n_2...n_m$, and the number of ways to complete task $T_{m+1}$, which is $n_{m+1}$. This means that the set of all $m+1$ tasks can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_mn_{m+1}$ ways, which proves $P(m+1)$.




          Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
            $endgroup$
            – The Pointer
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:46













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053969%2fusing-induction-to-prove-the-multiplication-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:




          Assume $P(m)$ for some $m geq 2$. Now, for the purpose of proving $P(m+1)$, suppose there are a set of tasks $T_i$ such that there are $n_i$ ways to complete each task $T_i$ for $1 leq i leq m+1$. In particular, this means $T_{m+1}$ can be completed in $m+1$ ways. Now, let the task $T$ be the combination of tasks $T_1, T_2, ... T_m$. By $P(m)$, it is known that $T$ can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_m$ ways.



          We can now consider the set of all $m+1$ tasks to be the combination of the two tasks $T$ and $T_{m+1}$. By $P(2)$, we know that the number of ways to complete two tasks is the product of the number ways one can complete each task separately. Thus, the number of ways to complete task $T$, then task $T_{m+1}$ is the product of the number of ways to complete task $T$, which is $n_1n_2...n_m$, and the number of ways to complete task $T_{m+1}$, which is $n_{m+1}$. This means that the set of all $m+1$ tasks can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_mn_{m+1}$ ways, which proves $P(m+1)$.




          Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
            $endgroup$
            – The Pointer
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:46


















          2












          $begingroup$

          I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:




          Assume $P(m)$ for some $m geq 2$. Now, for the purpose of proving $P(m+1)$, suppose there are a set of tasks $T_i$ such that there are $n_i$ ways to complete each task $T_i$ for $1 leq i leq m+1$. In particular, this means $T_{m+1}$ can be completed in $m+1$ ways. Now, let the task $T$ be the combination of tasks $T_1, T_2, ... T_m$. By $P(m)$, it is known that $T$ can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_m$ ways.



          We can now consider the set of all $m+1$ tasks to be the combination of the two tasks $T$ and $T_{m+1}$. By $P(2)$, we know that the number of ways to complete two tasks is the product of the number ways one can complete each task separately. Thus, the number of ways to complete task $T$, then task $T_{m+1}$ is the product of the number of ways to complete task $T$, which is $n_1n_2...n_m$, and the number of ways to complete task $T_{m+1}$, which is $n_{m+1}$. This means that the set of all $m+1$ tasks can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_mn_{m+1}$ ways, which proves $P(m+1)$.




          Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
            $endgroup$
            – The Pointer
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:46
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:




          Assume $P(m)$ for some $m geq 2$. Now, for the purpose of proving $P(m+1)$, suppose there are a set of tasks $T_i$ such that there are $n_i$ ways to complete each task $T_i$ for $1 leq i leq m+1$. In particular, this means $T_{m+1}$ can be completed in $m+1$ ways. Now, let the task $T$ be the combination of tasks $T_1, T_2, ... T_m$. By $P(m)$, it is known that $T$ can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_m$ ways.



          We can now consider the set of all $m+1$ tasks to be the combination of the two tasks $T$ and $T_{m+1}$. By $P(2)$, we know that the number of ways to complete two tasks is the product of the number ways one can complete each task separately. Thus, the number of ways to complete task $T$, then task $T_{m+1}$ is the product of the number of ways to complete task $T$, which is $n_1n_2...n_m$, and the number of ways to complete task $T_{m+1}$, which is $n_{m+1}$. This means that the set of all $m+1$ tasks can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_mn_{m+1}$ ways, which proves $P(m+1)$.




          Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:




          Assume $P(m)$ for some $m geq 2$. Now, for the purpose of proving $P(m+1)$, suppose there are a set of tasks $T_i$ such that there are $n_i$ ways to complete each task $T_i$ for $1 leq i leq m+1$. In particular, this means $T_{m+1}$ can be completed in $m+1$ ways. Now, let the task $T$ be the combination of tasks $T_1, T_2, ... T_m$. By $P(m)$, it is known that $T$ can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_m$ ways.



          We can now consider the set of all $m+1$ tasks to be the combination of the two tasks $T$ and $T_{m+1}$. By $P(2)$, we know that the number of ways to complete two tasks is the product of the number ways one can complete each task separately. Thus, the number of ways to complete task $T$, then task $T_{m+1}$ is the product of the number of ways to complete task $T$, which is $n_1n_2...n_m$, and the number of ways to complete task $T_{m+1}$, which is $n_{m+1}$. This means that the set of all $m+1$ tasks can be completed in $n_1n_2...n_mn_{m+1}$ ways, which proves $P(m+1)$.




          Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:39









          Noble MushtakNoble Mushtak

          15.3k1835




          15.3k1835












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
            $endgroup$
            – The Pointer
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:46




















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
            $endgroup$
            – The Pointer
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:46


















          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
          $endgroup$
          – The Pointer
          Dec 27 '18 at 14:46






          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the answer. Yes, I agree that the use of variables should have been cleaner. Yours is much better. Thank you for the review.
          $endgroup$
          – The Pointer
          Dec 27 '18 at 14:46




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053969%2fusing-induction-to-prove-the-multiplication-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen