**Robert M. Corless**

**today**

When I first wrote ``Chaos and Continued Fractions'', I thought
that nobody would be interested in the details of the induction
used to prove the connection between **G** and the shift map.
Indeed, I didn't write out the induction formally myself, just
doing it `in my head'.

But Julian Palmore was disappointed in me for not giving the
details, and likewise Heinz Bauschke. Neither of these people
has the slightest need for the details, being well able to fill
them in, but it's clear that they * wanted* to see them.

In retrospect, I agree: inductive proofs are among the prettiest there are, and a short induction proving something interesting, or a delicate induction showing something difficult, are both welcome items in a mathematical paper. This is a lesson in expository writing of mathematics, which I have now taken to heart.

For this particular example, I don't think induction is really
necessary---at least, the induction part is trivial, so I really
shouldn't have used the word (and got my readers' hopes up).
But here we use induction to establish * something*, anyway.

Remember that in our notation, .

Theorem: If , then
for every possible integer (i.e. if **x** is rational, then where **N** is the order of the continued fraction, but if **x** is irrational, then **m** is not bounded).

Proof: The statement is true for **m = 0**. Assume that it is true
for **m = k** and consider . By
the inductive hypothesis,

** Remark.** The proof relies on the fact that the objects being
manipulated are well-defined. That this is so follows from the
convergence of infinite continued fractions, and is trivial in the
case of finite continued fractions.