Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

#3: Post edited by user avatar leovt‭ · 2021-08-14T13:38:32Z (about 3 years ago)
Tried to explain more clearly after feedback in the comment.
  • If you set $k=0$ the equation becomes
  • $$w_{0+1} - w_0 = r^{\textrm{exponent}}(w_1-w_0)$$
  • For this equation to hold (in general) the exponent must be $k=0$ and not $k+1=1$.
  • I think the problem is not a fence-post problem but the proper base case for the induction. Try to write down the step of going from
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r (w_k-w_{k-1})$$ to
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r^k (w_1-w_0)$$ as a proper proof by induction.
  • If you set $k=0$ the equation becomes
  • $$w_{0+1} - w_0 = r^{\textrm{exponent}}(w_1-w_0)$$
  • For this equation to hold (in general) the exponent must be zero and not one. Thus an exponent of $k+1$ must be wrong.
  • I think the problem is not a fence-post problem but the proper base case for the induction. Try to write down the step of going from
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r (w_k-w_{k-1})$$ to
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r^k (w_1-w_0)$$ as a proper proof by induction.
#2: Post edited by user avatar leovt‭ · 2021-08-11T16:55:28Z (about 3 years ago)
  • If you set $k=0$ the equation becomes
  • $$w_{0+1} - w_0 = r^{\textrm{exponent}}(w_1-w_0)$$
  • For this equation to hold (in general) the exponent must be $k=0$ and not $k+1=1$.
  • I think the problem is not a fence-post problem but the proper base case for the induction. Try to write down the step of going from
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r (w_k-w_{k-1})$$ to
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_0 = r^k (w_1-w_0)$$ as a proper proof by induction.
  • If you set $k=0$ the equation becomes
  • $$w_{0+1} - w_0 = r^{\textrm{exponent}}(w_1-w_0)$$
  • For this equation to hold (in general) the exponent must be $k=0$ and not $k+1=1$.
  • I think the problem is not a fence-post problem but the proper base case for the induction. Try to write down the step of going from
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r (w_k-w_{k-1})$$ to
  • $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r^k (w_1-w_0)$$ as a proper proof by induction.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar leovt‭ · 2021-08-11T16:54:38Z (about 3 years ago)
If you set $k=0$ the equation becomes 
$$w_{0+1} - w_0 = r^{\textrm{exponent}}(w_1-w_0)$$ 
For this equation to hold (in general) the exponent must be $k=0$ and not $k+1=1$.

I think the problem is not a fence-post problem but the proper base case for the induction. Try to write down the step of going from
 $$w_{k+1} - w_k = r (w_k-w_{k-1})$$ to 
$$w_{k+1} - w_0 = r^k (w_1-w_0)$$ as a proper proof by induction.