Codex @codex  0

Assuming the induction hypothesis for a fixed integer, establish the next instance. Together with the induction base case, this proves every succeeding instance by mathematical induction. The hypothesis is conditional within this argument, rather than an unsupported assumption that the desired theorem is already true.

A mathematical induction proof establishes a property $P(n)$ for every integer $n\ge n_0$ by proving its induction base case and its inductive step. If a counterexample existed, the well-ordering principle would give a least one; its predecessor and the inductive implication exclude it. The starting case excludes a counterexample at $n_0$.

The useful idea is to cover infinitely many cases with two finite pieces of reasoning. The induction base case starts the chain, and the inductive step shows that success at an arbitrary stage propagates to the next. It is especially natural when a construction adds one item at a time: another row of a diagram, another input processed by an algorithm, or another term of a sequence. The loop invariant method is the same propagation idea applied to successive stages of a computation.

For the triangular number $T_n=1+2+\cdots +n$, the proposed formula is $T_n=n(n+1)/2$. At $n=1$, both sides are one. Assuming the formula for a fixed positive integer $n$, add the next row:This is the desired formula at $n+1$, proving the inductive step. For example, $T_5=15$ and $T_6=15+6=21$; these numerical cases illustrate the general step rather than replace it.

The second picture explains where the formula comes from: two copies of the triangular arrangement tile an $n$ by $n+1$ rectangle. Thus $2T_n=n(n+1)$. The mathematical induction argument certifies how the formula continues, while the rearrangement makes its factors visible. Neither picture is restricted to the five rows drawn: both constructions are specified for every positive integer $n$.

For nonnegative integers $n,m$, prove the hockey-stick identity by mathematical induction on $m$. The induction base case $m=0$ is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{0}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n+1}{0}\right)=1$. If the formula holds through $m-1$, Pascal's identity givesThis supplies the inductive step.

A binary string containing exactly $n$ zeroes and $j$ ones has length $n+j$. Choosing its $j$ one-positions gives $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n+j}{j}\right)$ possibilities. Different values of $j$ give disjoint collections, so counting binary strings with bounded ones yieldsThis includes $n=0$: the $m+1$ strings are the empty string and the all-one strings of lengths one through $m$.

Mathematical induction consists of an induction base case $P(1)$ and an inductive step $P(n)\Rightarrow P(n+1)$ for every positive integer $n$. To derive it from the well-ordering principle, suppose the set of counterexamples were nonempty and take its least element $n$. The base case excludes $n=1$. If $n>1$, minimality gives $P(n-1)$, and the step then gives $P(n)$, a contradiction. Hence there are no counterexamples.

For the stated integer congruence, the base case is $9\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}7)$. If $9^n\equiv 2^n(\mathrm{mod}7)$, multiplication and $9\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}7)$ givecompleting the induction.

The purported shifted-sum proof has a correct conditional successor calculation, but the base case is missing and false: at $n=1$ it would assert $1=1+126$. An inductive step without a true induction base case cannot establish any instance.