Using Induction to Design Algorithms: A Deep Dive

Reference: The article discussed is "Using Induction to Design Algorithms" by Udi Manber. All inline citations refer back to that paper, using the markers provided (e.g. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}).

Designing and teaching algorithms can be guided elegantly by mathematical induction, traditionally used just for proving correctness. In his paper, Udi Manber explores how the entire idea of induction can serve as a potent lens for creating algorithms, not merely verifying them. Below, we break down the primary proof techniques and algorithmic patterns he showcases, with notes on how they translate from mathematics to hands-on code.

---

1. Overview
2. Techniques by Proof Style
   1. Basic Induction
   2. Strengthening the Hypothesis
   3. Strong Induction (Dynamic Programming)
   4. Maximal Counterexample
3. Algorithmic Patterns
   1. Sorting-Oriented
   2. Searching & Elimination
   3. Dynamic Programming
   4. Graph Approaches
   5. Geometry
4. Mermaid Diagrams & Examples
5. Example Table of Techniques vs. Problems
6. Conclusion

---

Author: Udi Manber
Paper: http://akira.ruc.dk/~keld/teaching/ECII_f15/Manber88.pdf

Overview

Manber’s key premise is to treat the design process itself as an inductive proof. In combinatorial algorithm design, you rarely solve a large instance in one go. Instead, you pick a “simpler” subproblem (fewer elements, less structure, or partially solved states), solve that subproblem (often recursively), then grow your solution back to the full problem.

This approach yields both a blueprint for correctness and a blueprint for the final code. While this viewpoint may seem natural in recursion, Manber’s broader theme is that many algorithmic techniques — from divide and conquer to dynamic programming — can be interpreted as “variations of induction” :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}.

---

Techniques by Proof Style

Basic Induction

Idea: Show a base case; then reduce the main problem of size (n) to a solution for (n-1).

• Polynomial Evaluation
  Manber illustrates Horner’s Rule by noticing that removing either the first or last coefficient allows an inductive step. Evaluating a smaller polynomial plus a “small fix” leads to the entire solution. Specifically, the decision to factor out (x) (or not) influences the overall computation cost :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}.

• Intervals Containment
  Given a list of intervals, label any interval contained within another. Sorting the intervals by left endpoints (and further by right endpoints for ties) allows a near-constant-time inductive extension. Removing the “rightmost left endpoint” (or working from smallest to largest) is effectively the inductive step. Complexity drops to (O(n \log n)), dominated by sorting :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}.

• Finding One-to-One Mappings
  When a function (f) from a finite set to itself is not injective, we remove an element guaranteed not to belong to the largest one-to-one subset. Specifically, look for any element that has no preimage (i.e., no incoming edge in a functional digraph); it can safely be removed. This solves the problem for the reduced set by induction :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}.

Strengthening the Hypothesis

Idea: Make the inductive assumption stronger so that you carry extra information that simplifies the extension step.

• Binary Tree Balance Factors
  Merely knowing all children’s balance factors is insufficient for a parent’s balance factor. You also need the heights. So, store both heights and balance factors at each node (the “stronger” problem). This makes it trivial to compute the parent’s balance factor once the children’s data are known :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}.

• Closest Pair of Points
  A naive divide-and-conquer can lead to (O(n \log^2 n)) time if you re-sort subproblems repeatedly. Instead, at every division step, also return the points sorted by (y)-coordinate as part of the inductive “solution.” Then merging sorted lists takes only (O(n)). This trick cuts total time to (O(n \log n)) :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}.

Strong Induction (Dynamic Programming)

Idea: Keep solutions for all subproblems up to size (n) (or up to capacity (K), etc.). Then any new subproblem can be solved by combining or looking up smaller results.

• Knapsack Problem
  A naive method checks whether (P(n, K)) can be reduced to (P(n-1, K)) or (P(n-1, K - k_n)), but that might spawn exponential recursion. Strong induction plus a 2D table storing results for all ((i, j)) with (i \le n) and (j \le K) yields an (O(nK)) approach. This is exactly dynamic programming: each solution is built from previously filled entries :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}.

Maximal Counterexample

Idea: Assume the statement is false and consider the “largest” failing example. Then show it leads to an even larger one, a contradiction.

• Perfect Matching in Dense Graphs
  In a graph of (2n) vertices, each with degree (\ge n), a perfect matching must exist. If we assume no perfect matching, we start with a maximal (not maximum) matching and systematically enlarge it by a clever swap of edges. This contradiction-based argument can be turned into an algorithm: build a maximal matching quickly, then keep augmenting it until it becomes perfect :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}.

---

Algorithmic Patterns

Sorting-Oriented

• Interval Containment uses sorting by endpoints to reduce checks to constant time per interval :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}.
• Topological Sorting (also described by Manber) conceptually “removes” an in-degree zero vertex in each inductive step. Though not a numeric sort, it’s a linearization of tasks in a partial order :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}.

Searching & Elimination

• Celebrity Problem: If Alice knows Bob, discard Alice as a celebrity candidate; otherwise discard Bob. This single question per iteration reduces (n) to (n-1). After linear time, only one person might be a celebrity. Verify in (O(n)) (or even less if you track known answers). Total time is (O(n)) :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}.

Dynamic Programming

• Knapsack: The classical example of storing partial solutions in a table. This exemplifies a robust strong-induction viewpoint. The method extends to many optimization problems in combinatorics and scheduling, etc. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}.

Graph Approaches

• Perfect Matching: Achieved via repeated augmentation.
• Topological Sorting: Again, remove an easy “base” vertex (indegree zero) and solve the smaller graph.

Geometry

• Closest Pair: A shining example of divide-and-conquer augmented by sorting. The geometry-specific logic about bounding boxes (“strips”) and limited neighbors per row is a hallmark of the technique :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}.

---

Mermaid Diagrams & Examples

Example: Celebrity Elimination