DOCSLIB.ORG

A Refutation of the Equivalence Between the Multiplication, Pigeonhole, Induction, and Well- Ordering Principles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Refutation of the Equivalence Between the Multiplication, Pigeonhole, Induction, and Well- Ordering Principles A refutation of the equivalence between the multiplication, pigeonhole, induction, and well- ordering principles -with a main focus on the often claimed equivalence between the induction principle and the well-ordering principle when studying the natural numbers. Malene Sandvær Lunnergård Vt 2016 Kandidatexamensarbete i matematik, 15 hp Handledare: Lars-Daniel Öhman A refutation of the equivalence between the multiplication, pigeonhole, induction, and well-ordering principles -with a main focus on the often claimed equivalence between the induction principle and the well-ordering principle when studying the natural numbers. Malene Sandvær Lunnerg˚ard June 21, 2016 Bachelor's Thesis in Mathematics, 15 hp. Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics Ume˚aUniversity 1 Sammanfattning Att induktionsprincipen och v¨alordningsprincipen ¨arekvivalenta ¨arett vanligt p˚ast˚aenden¨arde naturliga talen studeras. Utg˚angspunktenf¨ordetta examensarbete ¨arartikeln The equivalence of the multiplication, pigeonhole, induction, and well ordering principles, av Swanson och Hansen. D¨arp˚ast˚asatt multiplikationsprincipen , l˚adprincipen, induktionsprincipen och v¨alordningsprincipen ¨arekvivalenta. Detta bevisas g¨allaf¨orde naturliga talen i Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem m¨angdl¨ara,d¨aralla dessa principer ¨arsatser. Detta examensarbete inneh˚alleren presentation av generella axiomatiska system, och den logiska strukturen i s˚adanasystem. Syftet med denna presentation ¨aratt redog¨oraf¨orvad det inneb¨arf¨orprinciper, som ¨arsatser i ett axiomatiskt system, att vara ekvivalenta, samt att se p˚askillnaden mellan denna typ av ekvivalens och ekvivalens relativt till ett axiomatiskt system d¨arprinciperna inte ¨arsatser. De naturliga talen, Peano axiomen och Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem m¨angdl¨arapresenteras som ett underlag f¨orforts¨attningenp˚aexamensarbetet. Huvudsyftet med detta examensarbete ¨aratt motbevisa ekvivalens mellan in- duktionsprincipen och v¨alordninsprincipen relativt till ett axiomatiskt system d¨ar dessa principer inte ¨arsatser. D¨armedmotbevisas ¨aven ekvivalens mellan alla de fyra principerna i artikeln av Swanson och Hansen relativt ett s˚adant system. Detta utf¨orsgenom att konstruera ett axiomatiskt system d¨arvarken induktionsprincipen eller v¨alordningsprincipen ¨arsatser, och d¨areftervisa att induktionsprincipen och v¨alordninsprincipen inte ¨arekvivalenta relativt detta system. Abstract It is a common claim that the induction principle and the well-ordering principle are equivalent to each other when the natural numbers are studied. The starting point for this thesis is the article The equivalence of the multiplication, pigeonhole, in- duction, and well ordering principles, by Swanson and Hansen, in which it is claimed that all of these four principles are equivalent. This equivalence is proven for the nat- ural numbers in Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem set theory, in which all of these principles are theorems. This thesis contains a presentation of axiomatic systems in general, and the logical structure of such systems. The purpose of this presentation is to account for what equivalence between theorems of an axiomatic system entails, and look at the distinction between this kind of equivalence and equivalence relative to an axiomatic system in which the principles are not theorems. The natural numbers, the Peano axioms and the Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem system are presented as a foundation for the continuation of the thesis. The main purpose of this thesis is to refute the equivalence between the induction principle and the well-ordering principle relative to an axiomatic system where the principles are not theorems, and thereby refute the equivalence of all four principles in the article by Swanson and Hansen relative to such a system. This refutation proceeds by constructing an axiomatic system where neither the induction principle nor the well-ordering principle are theorems, and showing that the induction principle and the well-ordering principle are not equivalent relative to this system. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Lars-Daniel Ohman,¨ for suggesting the subject of this thesis, and for being my sounding board throughout the process of writing this thesis. Thanks to Joel Larson for providing me with a good template and for some additional help regarding writing a thesis in LATEX. A big part of the work behind this thesis has been to gain knowledge on the subject of logic, and in particular the logic of an axiomatic system. It would have been beneficial to have taken a course on the basics of logics before starting working on this thesis, as I have used a lot of time to gain a decent understanding of this. It would have been preferred to have that time to focus on the more specific topics of the subject. 3 Contents Contents 1Introduction 5 1.1 Aim and objectives . 6 1.2 The structure of the thesis . 6 2 Thestructureofaxiomaticsystems 8 2.1 The logic of an axiomatic system . 9 2.2 Different kinds of equivalence . 10 2.3 On the logical equivalence relative to an axiomatic system . 11 2.4 The notion of equivalence relative to an axiomatic system illustrated by axiomatic geometry . 13 3Naturalnumbers 18 3.1 The Peano axioms . 18 4 TheZermelo-Fraenkel-Skolemsystem 20 4.1 The natural numbers defined in ZFS set theory . 22 5Whatisorder? 25 6 An axiomatic system, P , weak enough for the principles inquestionnottobetheoremsofthesystem 28 6.1 The axiomatic system P with the induction principle added as an axiom 30 6.2 The axiomatic system P with the well-ordering principle added as an axiom 32 6.3 Ordinal numbers . 33 6.4 The refutation of equivalence between the induction principle and the well-ordering principle relative to a theory where non of the principles are theorems . 34 7Discussion 37 References 40 4 1 Introduction There seems to be a widespread misconception relating to the equivalence between the induction principle and the well-ordering principle. The so called Peano axioms constitute an axiomatic system founding the natural numbers [5, pp. 22]. In this axiomatic system the induction principle is one of the axioms. The claim that these two principles are equivalent relative to the Peano axioms is for example stated on Wikipedia [20]. The point of departure of this thesis was the article The equivalence of the multiplica- tion, pigeonhole, induction, and well ordering principles which was published by Leonard G. Swanson and Rodney T. Hansen in 1988 [15]. In this article the authors work in Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem (ZFS) set theory, and claim to prove the equivalence of the four principles mentioned in the title of the article. In different axiomatic systems different principles may apply all depending on the axioms of the system. This might cause some difficulties in certain matters, in particular when it comes to the concept of equivalence between principles. The principles, as stated in the article by Swanson and Hansen, are as follows: The multiplication principle (MP). If there exist n ways of performing one operation and m ways of performing another operation (independent of the first), then there exist mn ways of performing both operations, one followed by the other. The pigeonhole principle (PH). Suppose that m pigeons are to be distributed into n pigeonholes. If m > n, then at least one pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon. The well-ordering principle (WO). Every non-empty subset of the natural numbers has a least element. The principle of mathematical induction (MI). If S is a subset of the natural numbers such that: (a) 1 2 S, and (b) n + 1 2 S whenever n 2 S, then S is the set of natural numbers. Swanson and Hansen claim to prove the equivalence between the four principles working in ZFS set theory and using the natural numbers defined in this particular axiomatic structure. Within this theory all of the principles in question are theorems, as they point out themselves in the article. They claim to prove the equivalence of the four principles by proving (MP) ) (PH) ) (WO) ) (MI) ) (MP). In the introduction of the article by Swanson and Hansen they write the following: It is interesting to note that these two basic concepts(the MP and PH) are really more basic than they might at first appear. They are, in fact, equivalent to each other and they are a part of the axiomatic structure of the natural numbers in the sense that they are equivalent to the following principles(the WO and MI). [15] 5 1.1 Aim and objectives This is a sentence that is to imprecise to be completely sure of what is meant by it, but when they mention "the axiomatic structure of the natural numbers" it is assumed in this thesis that it is the Peano axiomatic system they refer to. If looking at the Peano axiomatic system independently from ZFS set theory the induction principle, which in ZFS theory is a deduced theorem, is not a deduced theorem but is one of the axioms of the system. Where a theorem of a system is called a deduced theorem if it is deducible from the axioms of the system. This means that if a theorem of a system is not a deduced theorem it must be an axiom of the system that is not deducible from the remaining axioms of the system. The claim by Swanson and Hansen that the multiplication prin- ciple and the pigeonhole principle are "part of the axiomatic structure of the natural numbers" in the sense that they are equivalent to the well-ordering principle and the induction principle is interpreted in this thesis as a claim that the three first mentioned principles could each separately replace the induction principle in the Peano axioms with no alterations to the resulting axiomatic system. If this is what is meant by that statement, they seem to draw the conclusion, based on equivalence between the four principles in one specific axiomatic system in which all of the principles are theorems, that this implies equivalence between the same four principles in another axiomatic system in which the principles are not theorems.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1. Combinatorial Theory 1.3: No More Counting Please 1.3.1
    Chapter 1. Combinatorial Theory 1.3: No More Counting Please Slides (Google Drive) Alex Tsun Video (YouTube) In this section, we don't really have a nice successive ordering where one topic leads to the next as we did earlier. This section serves as a place to put all the final miscellaneous but useful concepts in counting. 1.3.1 Binomial Theorem n We talked last time about binomial coefficients of the form k . Today, we'll see how they are used to prove the binomial theorem, which we'll use more later on. For now, we'll see how they can be used to expand (possibly large) exponents below. You may have learned this technique of FOIL (first, outer, inner, last) for expanding (x + y)2. We then combine like-terms (xy and yx). (x + y)2 = (x + y)(x + y) = xx + xy + yx + yy [FOIL] = x2 + 2xy + y2 But, let's say that we wanted to do this for a binomial raised to some higher power, say (x + y)4. There would be a lot more terms, but we could use a similar approach. 1 2 Probability & Statistics with Applications to Computing 1.3 (x + y)4 = (x + y)(x + y)(x + y)(x + y) = xxxx + yyyy + xyxy + yxyy + ::: But what are the terms exactly that are included in this expression? And how could we combine the like-terms though? Notice that each term will be a mixture of x's and y's. In fact, each term will be in the form xkyn−k (in this case n = 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 6: Entropy
    Matthew Schwartz Statistical Mechanics, Spring 2019 Lecture 6: Entropy 1 Introduction In this lecture, we discuss many ways to think about entropy. The most important and most famous property of entropy is that it never decreases Stot > 0 (1) Here, Stot means the change in entropy of a system plus the change in entropy of the surroundings. This is the second law of thermodynamics that we met in the previous lecture. There's a great quote from Sir Arthur Eddington from 1927 summarizing the importance of the second law: If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observationwell these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of ther- modynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Another possibly relevant quote, from the introduction to the statistical mechanics book by David Goodstein: Ludwig Boltzmann who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. There are many ways to dene entropy. All of them are equivalent, although it can be hard to see. In this lecture we will compare and contrast dierent denitions, building up intuition for how to think about entropy in dierent contexts. The original denition of entropy, due to Clausius, was thermodynamic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle
    The Pigeonhole Principle The pigeonhole principle is the following: If m objects are placed into n bins, where m > n, then some bin contains at least two objects. (We proved this in Lecture #02) Why This Matters ● The pigeonhole principle can be used to show a surprising number of results must be true because they are “too big to fail.” ● Given a large enough number of objects with a bounded number of properties, eventually at least two of them will share a property. ● The applications are extremely deep and thought-provoking. Using the Pigeonhole Principle ● To use the pigeonhole principle: ● Find the m objects to distribute. ● Find the n < m buckets into which to distribute them. ● Conclude by the pigeonhole principle that there must be two objects in some bucket. ● The details of how to proceeds from there are specific to the particular proof you're doing. Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. 1 11 111 1111 11111 There are 10 objects here. 111111 1111111 11111111 111111111 1111111111 Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. 0 1 11 1 111 2 1111 11111 3 111111 4 1111111 11111111 5 111111111 6 1111111111 7 8 Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s.
    [Show full text]
  • Formalization of Some Central Theorems in Combinatorics of Finite
    Kalpa Publications in Computing Volume 1, 2017, Pages 43–57 LPAR-21S: IWIL Workshop and LPAR Short Presentations Formalization of some central theorems in combinatorics of finite sets Abhishek Kr Singh School of Technology and Computer Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai [email protected] Abstract We present fully formalized proofs of some central theorems from combinatorics. These are Dilworth’s decomposition theorem, Mirsky’s theorem, Hall’s marriage theorem and the Erdős-Szekeres theorem. Dilworth’s decomposition theorem is the key result among these. It states that in any finite partially ordered set (poset), the size of a smallest chain cover and a largest antichain are the same. Mirsky’s theorem is a dual of Dilworth’s decomposition theorem, which states that in any finite poset, the size of a smallest antichain cover and a largest chain are the same. We use Dilworth’s theorem in the proofs of Hall’s Marriage theorem and the Erdős-Szekeres theorem. The combinatorial objects involved in these theorems are sets and sequences. All the proofs are formalized in the Coq proof assistant. We develop a library of definitions and facts that can be used as a framework for formalizing other theorems on finite posets. 1 Introduction Formalization of any mathematical theory is a difficult task because the length of a formal proof blows up significantly. In combinatorics the task becomes even more difficult due to the lack of structure in the theory. Some statements often admit more than one proof using completely different ideas. Thus, exploring dependencies among important results may help in identifying an effective order amongst them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle
    Prof. Jim Loveys Rosalie Bélanger-Rioux MATH 352 : Problem Seminar 260235216 The Pigeonhole Principle The pigeonhole principle, also known as Dirichlet’s box or drawer principle, is a very straightforward principle which is stated as follows : Given n boxes and m > n objects, at least one box must contain more than one object. This was first stated in 1834 by Dirichlet. The proof is very easy : assume we are given n boxes and m > n objects. Then suppose, to the contrary, that no box contains more than one object, i. e., all n boxes contain either 0 or 1 object. This implies that the total number of objects, m, is smaller than or equal to n. This contradicts our hypothesis, and so the pigeonhole principle is true. Of course, this principle has many formulations and variations. For example, if n objects are put into n boxes, then at least one box is empty iff one box contains more than one object. Let us now give a more formal statement of Dirichlet’s box principle : There exists a one-one correspondence between two finite sets A and B, f : A -> B iff their number of elements is the same, i. E., |A| = |B|. No matter how we state the pigeonhole principle, using it in a problem solving situation implies two things : finding your “boxes” and finding your “objects”. The nice thing about this is that just about anything in mathematics can be made a “box” (a polygon, a volume in space, an edge, a color, a distance, an interval, a value…) or an “object” (a point, a polynomial, a vertex, a line…) to one’s liking.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2002.06990V1 [Quant-Ph] 17 Feb 2020 and Postselected Quantum Systems
    Footprints of quantum pigeons Gregory Reznik,1 Shrobona Bagchi,1 Justin Dressel,2, 3 and Lev Vaidman1, 2 1Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel 2Institute for Quantum Studies, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA 3Schmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA (Dated: February 18, 2020) We show that in the mathematical framework of the quantum theory the classical pigeonhole principle can be violated more directly than previously suggested, i.e., in a setting closer to the traditional statement of the principle. We describe how the counterfactual reasoning of the paradox may be operationally grounded in the analysis of the tiny footprints left in the environment by the pigeons. After identifying the drawbacks of recent experiments of the quantum pigeonhole effect, we argue that a definitive experimental violation of the pigeonhole principle is still needed and propose such an implementation using modern quantum computing hardware: a superconducting circuit with transmon qubits. I. INTRODUCTION A somewhat weaker failure of the classical pigeonhole principle can be obtained when the holes are also quan- Quantum paradoxes describe phenomena that would tum (e.g. spin states), since it is less surprising that be impossible if Nature strictly obeyed classical intrinsically quantum features do not follow classical physics. Quantum mechanics presents many para- rules. doxes. A particular class of quantum paradoxes arises Even if the \holes" in such a scenario are classical, when we consider quantum systems between an initial we still have to clarify the meaning of a \quantum pi- preparation and final measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Cardinal Numbers and the Axiom of Choice Equinumerosity March 18 & 20, 2014
    Elements of Set Theory Chapter 6: Cardinal Numbers and The Axiom of Choice Equinumerosity March 18 & 20, 2014 Lecturer: Fan Yang 1/28 2/28 What is the size of a set? X = f , , , g Y = f , , , , g ! = f0; 1; 2; 3; 4;::: g Do A and B have the same size? Does A have more elements than B? Are there exactly as many houses as people? Y has more elements than X. Yes, since there are 5 houses and 5 people. The infinite set ! has more elements than the finite sets X and Y . Yes, since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two Do ! and Z have the same size? What about Q and Z? sets. 0 1 2 3 ! Definition 6.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Z A set A is said to be equinumerous or equipotent to a set B (written 3 1 11 − 2 2 4 A ≈ B) iff there is a bijection from A onto B. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Q A bijection from A onto B is also called a one-to-one correspondence Given two infinite sets A and B, how to compare their sizes? between sets A and B. 3/28 4/28 Example 6.1: Let A = fa; b; c; dg and B = fa; b; cg. Then A 6≈ B, since there is no bijection from A onto B. In general, for any two finite sets X and Y , if Y ⊂ X, then X 6≈ Y . Consider the following infinite sets. Clearly, Even ⊂ !.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mathematical Infinite As a Matter of Method
    Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science Vol.20 (2012) 1～13 1 The Mathematical Infinite as a Matter of Method Akihiro Kanamori∗ Abstract I address the historical emergence of the mathematical infinite, and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. The thesis is that the mathe- matical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. The infinite, of course, is a large topic. At the outset, one can historically dis- cern two overlapping clusters of concepts: (1) wholeness, completeness, universality, absoluteness. (2) endlessness, boundlessness, indivisibility, continuousness. The first, the metaphysical infinite, I shall set aside. It is the second, the mathematical infinite, that I will address. Furthermore, I will address the mathematical infinite by con- sidering its historical emergence in set theory and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. Insofar as physics and, more broadly, science deals with the mathematical infinite through mathematical language and techniques, my remarks should be subsuming and consequent. The main underlying point is that how the mathematical infinite is approached, assimilated, and applied in mathematics is not a matter of “ontological commitment”, of coming to terms with whatever that might mean, but rather of epistemological articulation, of coming to terms through knowledge. The mathematical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. How we deal with the specific individual is- sues involving the infinite turns on the narrative we present about how it fits into methodological mathematical frameworks established and being established. The first section discusses the mathematical infinite in historical context, and the second, set theory and the emergence of the mathematical infinite.
    [Show full text]
  • Math and Proofs Class 5
    Math and Proofs Class 5 October 24th, 2017 Recap of Last Class We looked at equivalence relations, functions, and bijections. At the very end, we started to talk about cardinality. This class: more about cardinality Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 2 / 9 Recap: Functions and Bijections Let A and B be sets A function from A to B is a set of ordered pairs where the first element in each pair is in A and the second is in B AND each input element appears exactly once. A bijection is a function where each output element appears exactly once too. Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 3 / 9 Cardinality Two sets A and B are equivalent if there's a bijection between them. Remember what this means: A and B are equivalent if they have the same number of elements Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 4 / 9 Application of Cardinality for Finite Sets: Pigeonhole Principle Pigeonhole Principle: If you put n pigeons in m pigeonholes and n > m, then there must be a hole with more than one pigeon. Examples: Prove that in any room with at least 8 people, at least two of them were born on the same day of the week. Minneapolis has 413,000 people. Humans have no more than 300,000 hairs of their heads. Prove that there are (at least) two people in Minneapolis with the same number of hairs on their heads. Suppose 5 points are chosen in (or on) the equilateral triangle of side length 1 inch. Prove that there are two points in the triangle that are 1 no farther than 2 inch apart.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle Functions
    The Pigeonhole Principle & Functions ProblemProblem SetSet TwoTwo duedue inin thethe boxbox upup front.front. The pigeonhole principle is the following: If m objects are placed into n bins, where m > n, then some bin contains at least two objects. (We sketched a proof in Lecture #02) Why This Matters ● The pigeonhole principle can be used to show results must be true because they are “too big to fail.” ● Given a large enough number of objects with a bounded number of properties, eventually at least two of them will share a property. ● Can be used to prove some surprising results. Using the Pigeonhole Principle ● To use the pigeonhole principle: ● Find the m objects to distribute. ● Find the n < m buckets into which to distribute them. ● Conclude by the pigeonhole principle that there must be two objects in some bucket. ● The details of how to proceeds from there are specific to the particular proof you're doing. A Surprising Application Theorem: Suppose that every point in the real plane is colored either red or blue. Then for any distance d > 0, there are two points exactly distance d from one another that are the same color. Proof: Consider any equilateral triangle whose side lengths areThought:Thought: d. Put ThereThere this are aretriangle twotwo colorscolors anywhere here,here, soso if ifin we wethe plane. By startthestart pigeonhole pickingpicking points,points, principle, we'llwe'll bebe droppingdropping because themthem there are three vertices,intointo oneone two ofof two twoof bucketsthebuckets vertices (red(red oror must blue).blue). have the same color. These vertices are at distance d from each other, asHowHow required.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Counting, Pigeonholing, Permutations 1 Counting By
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology Course Notes 8 6.042J/18.062J, Fall ’02: Mathematics for Computer Science Professor Albert Meyer and Dr. Radhika Nagpal Basic Counting, Pigeonholing, Permutations 1 Counting by Matching Counting is a theme throughout discrete mathematics: how many leaves in a tree, minimal color­ ings of a graph, trees with a given set of vertices, five-card hands in a deck of fifty-two, consistent rankings of players in a tournament, stable marriages given boy’s and girl’s preferences, and so on. A good way to count things is to match up things to be counted with other things that we know how to count. We saw an example of this early in the term when we counted the size of a powerset of a set of size n by finding an exact matching between elements of the powerset and the 2n binary strings of length n. The matching doesn’t have to be exact, i.e., a bijection, to be informative. For example, suppose we want to determine the cardinality of the set of watches in the 6.042 classroom on a typical day. The set of watches can be correlated with the set of people in the room; specifically, for each person there is at most one watch (at least, let’s assume this). Now we know something about the cardinality of the set of students, since there are only 146 people signed up for 6.042. There are also three lecturers and eight TA’s, and these would typically be the only nonstudents in the room.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Combinatorics University of Toronto Scarborough Lecture Notes
    Introduction to Combinatorics University of Toronto Scarborough Lecture Notes Stefanos Aretakis July 4, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Introduction . .2 1.2 The prisoners' Problem . .3 1.3 Solution to the prisoners' Problem . .3 1.4 Combinatorial Principles: Contradiction, Reduction and Induction . .5 2 The Pigeonhole Principle 5 2.1 Theory . .5 2.2 Systematic approach . .6 2.3 Solved Problems . .6 2.4 Ramsey Theory . 12 2.5 Erd¨os{Szekeres Theorem . 14 2.6 Diophantine Approximations . 16 2.7 Practice Problems . 18 3 The Principle of Extremals 19 3.1 Theory . 19 3.2 Solved Problems . 19 3.3 Practice Problems . 22 4 The Principle of Invariants 23 4.1 Theory . 23 4.2 Solved Problems . 23 4.3 Semi-invariants . 26 4.4 Practice Problems . 26 5 Permutations and Combinations 27 5.1 Additive and Multiplicative Principle . 27 5.2 Solved Problems . 28 5.3 Permutations . 29 5.4 Combinations . 30 1 5.5 Identities of the binomial coefficients . 31 5.6 Practice Problems . 33 6 Combinations with Repetition 33 6.1 Solutions to linear equations . 35 6.2 The Path Problem . 36 6.3 Practice Problems . 37 7 Inclusion{Exclusion principle 37 7.1 Theory . 37 7.2 Solved Problems . 38 7.3 Practice Problems . 39 8 Recurrence Relations 40 8.1 Theory . 40 8.2 Solved Problems . 41 8.3 Practice Problems . 45 9 Generating Functions 46 9.1 Theory . 46 9.2 Solved Problems . 51 9.3 Applications in recurrence relations . 56 9.4 Practice Problems . 58 10 Partitions of Natural Numbers 59 10.1 Theory .
    [Show full text]