I read an example inductive proof as follows:
In the source document, it says this is flawed and has some subtlety that hides the flaw. I am not able to identify the same. What's hidden here?
I read an example inductive proof as follows:
In the source document, it says this is flawed and has some subtlety that hides the flaw. I am not able to identify the same. What's hidden here?
It's not very subtle: the equality does not hold when $n=1$.