I am trying to use mathematical induction to prove the multiplication rule:
If there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$ for $k=1,\dots,m$, then there are $n_1n_2\dots n_m$ ways to perform all $m$ tasks.
In attempting to prove this, I used the advice from Brian M. Scott's answer in this thread.
Proof
Let $P(m)$ represent the above statement.
$P(1)$ is obviously true, since, if there are $n_1$ ways to perform task $T_1$, then there are $n_1$ ways to perform the single task.
$P(2)$ is assumed to be true by the statement.
Now assume that $P(m)$ is true for some $m \ge 2$.
To prove that $P(m + 1)$ is true, we start with the two tasks $T$ and $T_k$, where $T$ represents all tasks $T_1, T_2, \dots , T_m$, and $k = m + 1$. Using the induction hypothesis, we have that there are $n_1 n_2 \dots n_m$ ways to perform task $T$. And since there are $n_k$ ways to perform task $T_k$, where $k = m + 1$, and since $P(2) = n_1 n_2$ ways to perform two tasks, we can conclude that there are $(n_1 n_2 \dots n_m)(n_k) = n_1 n_2 \dots n_m n_{m + 1}$ ways to perform $m + 1$ tasks (task $T$ and $T_k$, $k = m + 1$, together).
I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof for correctness.
I think this proof is correct, but I feel like sometimes you are using the same variable in multiple different ways. Therefore, I would try to reword your last paragraph into something more natural, like this:
Notice how I wrote out $P(2)$ in words instead of as an equation. This meant I didn't have to reuse the variables $n_1, n_2$, which made the proof less ambiguous. Also, instead of using $k$, I just used $m+1$, which cuts down on the number of variables, making the proof easier to follow.