|
|
|
|
|
|
by smohare
1652 days ago
|
|
|
That’s not the issue at all, since the base case of n=1 is established trivially and so the quoted statement is merely the inductive hypothesis. But the inductive argument relies on n>2 to invoke transitivity on a non-empty intersection necessitating a separate justification for n=2. |
|
|