Poincaré and Prawitz have both developed an account of how one can acquire knowledge through reasoning by mathematical induction. Surprisingly, their two accounts are very close to each other: both consider that what underlies reasoning by mathematical induction is a certain chain of inferences by modus ponens ‘moving along’, so to speak, the well-ordered structure of the natural numbers. Yet, Poincaré’s central point is that such a chain of inferences is not sufficient to account for the (...) knowledge acquisition of the universal propositions that constitute the conclusions of inferences by mathematical induction, as this process would require to draw an infinite number of inferences. In this paper, we propose to examine Poincaré’s point—that we will call the closure issue—in the context of Prawitz’s framework where inferences are represented as operations on grounds. We shall see that the closure issue is a challenge that also faces Prawitz’s own account of mathematical induction and which points out to an epistemic gap that the chain of modus ponens cannot bridge. One way to address the challenge is to introduce suitable additional inferential operations that would allow to fill the gap. We will end the paper by sketching such a possible solution. (shrink)

Handbook of Mathematical Induction: Theory and Applications shows how to find and write proofs via mathematical induction. This comprehensive book covers the theory, the structure of the written proof, all standard exercises, and hundreds of application examples from nearly every area of mathematics. In the first part of the book, the author discusses different inductive techniques, including well-ordered sets, basic mathematical induction, strong induction, double induction, infinite descent, downward induction, and several (...) variants. He then introduces ordinals and cardinals, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Zorn’s lemma, empirical induction, and fallacies and induction. He also explains how to write inductive proofs. The next part contains more than 750 exercises that highlight the levels of difficulty of an inductive proof, the variety of inductive techniques available, and the scope of results provable by mathematical induction. Each self-contained chapter in this section includes the necessary definitions, theory, and notation and covers a range of theorems and problems, from fundamental to very specialized. The final part presents either solutions or hints to the exercises. Slightly longer than what is found in most texts, these solutions provide complete details for every step of the problem-solving process. (shrink)

The method of mathematical induction: The method of mathematical induction -- Examples and exercises -- The proof of induction of some theorems of elemetary algebra -- Solutions.

The central argument that Leslie Smith makes in this study is that reasoning by mathematical induction develops during childhood. The basis for this claim is a study conducted with children aged five to seven years in school years one and two.

Philosophers who regard some mathematical proofs as explaining why theorems hold, and others as merely proving that they do hold, disagree sharply about the explanatory value of proofs by mathematical induction. I offer an argument that aims to resolve this conflict of intuitions without making any controversial presuppositions about what mathematical explanations would be.

I support Rips et al.'s critique of psychology through (1) a complementary argument about the normative, modal, constitutive nature of mathematical principles. I add two reservations about their analysis of mathematical induction, arguing (2) for constructivism against their logicism as to its interpretation and formation in childhood (Smith 2002), and (3) for Piaget's account of reasons in rule learning.

In a famous passage from his al-Bāhir, al-Samaw’al proves the identity which we would now write as (ab)n=anbn\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$(ab)^n=a^n b^n$$\end{document} for the cases n=3,4\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$n=3,4$$\end{document}. He also calculates the equivalent of the expansion of the binomial (a+b)n\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$(a+b)^n$$\end{document} for the same values of n and describes the construction of what we now call the Pascal Triangle, showing (...) the table up to its 12th row. We give a literal translation of the whole passage, along with paraphrases in more modern or symbolic form. We discuss the influence of the Euclidean tradition on al-Samaw’al’s presentation, and the role that diagrams might have played in helping al-Samaw’al’s readers follow his arguments, including his supposed use of an early form of mathematical induction. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper may be found in the following quotation. “Whenever an argument can be made to lead to a descending infinitude of natural numbers the hypothesis upon which the argument rests becomes untenable. This method of proof is called the method of infinite descent;.... It would be interesting and valuable to compare this method with the method of mathematical induction.”.

In this paper, I argue that there are cases of explanatory induction in mathematics. To do so, I first introduce the notion of explanatory definition in the context of mathematical explanation. A large part of the paper is dedicated to introducing and analyzing this notion of explanatory definition and the role it plays in mathematics. After doing so, I discuss a particular inductive definition in advanced mathematics—CW\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${ CW}$$\end{document}-complexes—and argue that (...) it is explanatory. With this, we see that there are cases of explanatory induction. (shrink)

Mathematical instrumentalism construes some parts of mathematics, typically the abstract ones, as an instrument for establishing statements in other parts of mathematics, typically the elementary ones. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem seems to show that one cannot prove the consistency of all of mathematics from within elementary mathematics. It is therefore generally thought to defeat instrumentalisms that insist on a proof of the consistency of abstract mathematics from within the elementary portion. This article argues that though some versions of (...) class='Hi'>mathematical instrumentalism are defeated by Gödel’s theorem, not all are. By considering inductive reasons in mathematics, we show that some mathematical instrumentalisms survive the theorem. (shrink)

Mathematics used to be portrayed as a deductive science. Stemming from Polya, however, is a philosophical movement which broadens the concept of mathematical reasoning to include inductive or quasi-empirical methods. Interest in inductive methods is a welcome turn from foundationalism toward a philosophy grounded in mathematical practice. Regrettably, though, the conception of mathematical reasoning embraced by quasi-empiricists is still too narrow to include the sort of thought-experiment which Mueller describes as traditional mathematical proof and which Lakatos (...) examines in Proofs and refutations. This paper extends the concept of mathematical reasoning along two further dimensions to accommodate thought-experiment.Keywords: Thought-experiment; Informal proof; Mathematical reasoning. (shrink)

In this paper1, we explore some positive elements from the Epicurean position on mathematics. Is induction important in mathematical practice or useful in proof? Does atomism appear in mathematics and in what ways? Keywords: Epicurus, induction, Polya, proof, atomism.

The context for this paper is Feferman's theory of explicit mathematics, T 0 . We address a problem that was posed in [6]. Let MID be the principle stating that any monotone operation on classifications has a least fixed point. The main objective of this paper is to show that T 0 + MID, when based on classical logic, also proves the existence of non-monotone inductive definitions that arise from arbitrary extensional operations on classifications. From the latter we deduce that (...) MID, when adjoined to classical T 0 , leads to a much stronger theory than T 0. (shrink)

If α and β are ordinals, α ≤ β, and $\beta \nleq \alpha$ , then α + 1 ≤ β. The first result of this paper shows that the restriction of this statement to countable well orderings is provably equivalent to ACA 0 , a subsystem of second order arithmetic introduced by Friedman. The proof of the equivalence is reminiscent of Dekker's construction of a hypersimple set. An application of the theorem yields the equivalence of the set comprehension scheme ACA (...) 0 and an arithmetical transfinite induction scheme. (shrink)

According to a long interpretative tradition, Aristotle holds that the formal cause is the ultimate object of induction when investigating perceptible substances. For, the job of induction is to find the essential nature common to a set of individuals, and that nature is captured solely by their shared formal cause. Against this view, I argue that Aristotle understands perceptible individuals as irreducibly composite objects whose nature is constituted by both their formal and their material cause. As a result, (...) when investigating perceptible objects, the job of induction is to discover their composite, formal and material nature. The process by which universal claims about this composite nature are justified, I argue, is similar to what we now know as mathematical induction. In particular, such claims are grounded in a non-enumerative, but replicable process in which things are resolved into their simplest components. As a result, the observation of past uniformities has, at most, a heuristic function in scientific inquiry. (shrink)

This study investigated the cognitive processes involved in inductive reasoning. Sixteen undergraduates solved quadratic function–finding problems and provided concurrent verbal protocols. Three fundamental areas of inductive activity were identified: Data Gathering, Pattern Finding, and Hypothesis Generation. These activities are evident in three different strategies that they used to successfully find functions. In all three strategies, Pattern Finding played a critical role not previously identified in the literature. In the most common strategy, called the Pursuit strategy, participants created new quantities from (...) x and y, detected patterns in these quantities, and expressed these patterns in terms of x. These expressions were then built into full hypotheses. The processes involved in this strategy are instantiated in an ACT‐based model that simulates both successful and unsuccessful performance. The protocols and the model suggest that numerical knowledge is essential to the detection of patterns and, therefore, to higher‐order problem solving. (shrink)

If the total state of the universe is encodable by a real number, Hardin and Taylor have proved that there is a solution to one version of the problem of induction, or at least a solution to a closely related epistemological problem. Is this philosophical application of the Hardin-Taylor result modest enough? The paper advances grounds for doubt. [A longer and more detailed sequel to this paper, 'Proving Induction', was published in the Australasian Journal of Logic in 2011.].

Various forms of mathematical induction are applicable to domains with some kinds of order. This naturally leads to the questions about the possibility of unification of different inductions and their generalization to wider classes of ordered domains. In the paper we propose a common framework for formulating induction proof principles in various structures and apply it to partially ordered sets. In this framework we propose a fixed induction principle which is indirectly applicable to the class of (...) all posets. In a certain sense, this result provides a solution to the problem of formulating a common generalization of a number of well-known induction principles for discrete and continuous ordered structures. (shrink)

Marc Lange argues that proofs by mathematical induction are generally not explanatory because inductive explanation is irreparably circular. He supports this circularity claim by presenting two putative inductive explanantia that are one another’s explananda. On pain of circularity, at most one of this pair may be a true explanation. But because there are no relevant differences between the two explanantia on offer, neither has the explanatory high ground. Thus, neither is an explanation. I argue that there is no (...) important asymmetry between the two cases because they are two presentations of the same explanation. The circularity argument requires a problematic notion of identity of proofs. I argue for a criterion of proof individuation that identifies the two proofs Lange offers. This criterion can be expressed in two equivalent ways: one uses the language of homotopy type theory, and the second assigns algebraic representatives to proofs. Though I will concentrate on one example, a criterion of proof identity has much broader consequences: any investigation into mathematical practice must make use of some proof-individuation principle. (shrink)

Hailed by the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society as "easy to use and a pleasure to read," this research monograph is recommended for students and professionals interested in model theory and definability theory. The sole prerequisite is a familiarity with the basics of logic, model theory, and set theory. 1974 edition.

In his Tractatus, Wittgenstein maintained that arithmetic consists of equations arrived at by the practice of calculating outcomes of operations$\Omega ^{n}(\bar {\xi })$defined with the help of numeral exponents. Since$Num$(x) and quantification over numbers seem ill-formed, Ramsey wrote that the approach is faced with “insuperable difficulties.” This paper takes Wittgenstein to have assumed that his audience would have an understanding of the implicit general rules governing his operations. By employing the Tractarian logicist interpretation that theN-operator$N(\bar {\xi })$and recursively defined arithmetic (...) operators$\Omega ^{n}(\bar {\xi })$are not different in kind, we can address Ramsey’s problem. Moreover, we can take important steps toward better understanding how Wittgenstein might have imagined emulating proof by mathematical induction. (shrink)

Philosophers of mathematics commonly distinguish between explanatory and non-explanatory proofs. An important subclass of mathematical proofs are proofs by induction. Are they explanatory? This paper addresses the question, based on general principles about explanation. First, a recent argument for a negative answer is discussed and rebutted. Second, a case is made for a qualified positive take on the issue.

Lange offers an argument that, according to him, “does not show merely that some proofs by mathematical induction are not explanatory. It shows that none are […]”. The aim here is to present a counterexample to his argument.

In this paper I want to discuss some basic problems of inductive logic, i.e. of the attempt to solve the problem of induction by means of a calculus of logical probability. I shall try to throw some light upon these problems by contrasting inductive logic, based on logical probability, and working with undefined samples of observations, with mathematical statistics, based on statistical probability, and working with representative random samples.

Originally published in 1973. This book presents a valid mode of reasoning that is different to mathematical probability. This inductive logic is investigated in terms of scientific investigation. The author presents his criteria of adequacy for analysing inductive support for hypotheses and discusses each of these criteria in depth. The chapters cover philosophical problems and paradoxes about experimental support, probability and justifiability, ending with a system of logical syntax of induction. Each section begins with a summary of its (...) contents and there is a glossary of technical terms to aid the reader. (shrink)

Pure Inductive Logic is the study of rational probability treated as a branch of mathematical logic. This monograph, the first devoted to this approach, brings together the key results from the past seventy years, plus the main contributions of the authors and their collaborators over the last decade, to present a comprehensive account of the discipline within a single unified context.

Mathematical logic is a branch of mathematics that takes axiom systems and mathematical proofs as its objects of study. This book shows how it can also provide a foundation for the development of information science and technology. The first five chapters systematically present the core topics of classical mathematical logic, including the syntax and models of first-order languages, formal inference systems, computability and representability, and Gödel’s theorems. The last five chapters present extensions and developments of classical (...) class='Hi'>mathematical logic, particularly the concepts of version sequences of formal theories and their limits, the system of revision calculus, proschemes (formal descriptions of proof methods and strategies) and their properties, and the theory of inductive inference. All of these themes contribute to a formal theory of axiomatization and its application to the process of developing information technology and scientific theories. The book also describes the paradigm of three kinds of language environments for theories and it presents the basic properties required of a meta-language environment. Finally, the book brings these themes together by describing a workflow for scientific research in the information era in which formal methods, interactive software and human invention are all used to their advantage. The second edition of the book includes major revisions on the proof of the completeness theorem of the Gentzen system and new contents on the logic of scientific discovery, R-calculus without cut, and the operational semantics of program debugging. This book represents a valuable reference for graduate and undergraduate students and researchers in mathematics, information science and technology, and other relevant areas of natural sciences. Its first five chapters serve as an undergraduate text in mathematical logic and the last five chapters are addressed to graduate students in relevant disciplines. (shrink)

Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, the Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress at Stanford, is heavily weighted towards technical problems of logic, foundations of mathematics, and the special sciences, especially psychology, economic models, and structural linguistics, with little discussion of general problems of the philosophy of science. Problems about the idealization involved in the relation of theories to the world become problems about probabilistic models at various levels of abstraction ; induction becomes a problem in decision theory (...) ; language becomes the subject-matter of formalized syntactics, and so on. There is nothing in the least undesirable about these inquiries in a Philosophy of Science Congress, but there is a danger that, if they are not balanced by more informal discussions, real points of dispute are missed, or decided over-hastily in the brief preliminaries of formalization. The philosopher's job ought sometimes to be the more irritating one of returning to these points of dispute; a job which is well done in some of the contributions to this volume, but one could wish to find it being done in more. In what follows I shall have to restrict myself to commenting on only a handful of these more philosophical papers. (shrink)

We introduce the simpler and shorter proof of Hajek’s theorem that the mathematical induction on ω implies a contradiction in the set theory with the comprehension principle within Łukasiewicz predicate logic Ł ${\forall}$ (Hajek Arch Math Logic 44(6):763–782, 2005) by extending the proof in (Yatabe Arch Math Logic, accepted) so as to be effective in any linearly ordered MV-algebra.

The notion of proof is central to mathematics yet it is one of the most difficult aspects of the subject to teach and master. In particular, undergraduate mathematics students often experience difficulties in understanding and constructing proofs. Understanding Mathematical Proof describes the nature of mathematical proof, explores the various techniques that mathematicians adopt to prove their results, and offers advice and strategies for constructing proofs. It will improve students’ ability to understand proofs and construct correct proofs of their (...) own. The first chapter of the text introduces the kind of reasoning that mathematicians use when writing their proofs and gives some example proofs to set the scene. The book then describes basic logic to enable an understanding of the structure of both individual mathematical statements and whole mathematical proofs. It also explains the notions of sets and functions and dissects several proofs with a view to exposing some of the underlying features common to most mathematical proofs. The remainder of the book delves further into different types of proof, including direct proof, proof using contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction. The authors also discuss existence and uniqueness proofs and the role of counter examples. (shrink)

We characterize the proof-theoretic strength of systems of explicit mathematics with a general principle asserting the existence of least fixed points for monotone inductive definitions, in terms of certain systems of analysis and set theory. In the case of analysis, these are systems which contain the Σ12-axiom of choice and Π12-comprehension for formulas without set parameters. In the case of set theory, these are systems containing the Kripke-Platek axioms for a recursively inaccessible universe together with the existence of a stable (...) ordinal. In all cases, the exact strength depends on what forms of induction are admitted in the respective systems. (shrink)

In this paper, I have attempted to make the role of mathematical thinking clear in Husserl’s theory of sciences. Husserl believed that phenomenology could afford to provide a safe foundation for individual sciences. Hence, the first task of the project was reorganizing the system of sciences and to show the possibility of apodictic knowledge regarding the world. Husserl was inspired by the progress of mathematics at that time because mathematics is the most logical discipline and deals with abstract objects. (...) It was the most suitable model for Husserl’s project. In fact, we can find structural similarities between his project and F. Klein’s Erlangen Program; further, the procedure of the essence intuition can be explained by a mathematical induction. Mathematics is certainly a new path for understanding Husserl’s phenomenology. In order to clarify the relation between Husserl’s theory of sciences and mathematics, this study focused on the problem of classification. Lastly, another implication of Husserl’s phenomenology as a theory of sciences is that his work is still meaningful for today’s dynamic reality of sciences. (shrink)

The aim of this contribution is to provide a rather general answer to Hume’s problem. To this end, induction is treated within a straightforward formal paradigm, i.e., several connected levels of abstraction. Within this setting, many concrete models are discussed. On the one hand, models from mathematics, statistics and information science demonstrate how induction might succeed. On the other hand, standard examples from philosophy highlight fundamental difficulties. Thus it transpires that the difference between unbounded and bounded inductive steps (...) is crucial: while unbounded leaps of faith are never justified, there may well be reasonable bounded inductive steps. In this endeavour, the twin concepts of information and probability prove to be indispensable, pinning down the crucial arguments, and, at times, reducing them to calculations. Essentially, a precise study of boundedness settles Goodman’s challenge. Hume’s more profound claim of seemingly inevitable circularity is answered by obviously non-circular hierarchical structures. (shrink)