I am trying to prove (by induction on k) that if $o(a_i) = n_i$ for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$ and $gcd(n_i,n_j)=1$ for all $i,j \in \mathbb{N}$ then $o(a_1a_2\dots a_k) = n_1n_2\dots n_k$. Where $o(n)$ denotes the order of the element $n$.
My base case is if $k=2$ then $o(a_1a_2) = n_1n_2$. This result was proven in an earlier exercise.
I let my inductive hypothesis be: $o(a_1a_2\dots a_m) = n_1n_2\dots n_m$ for all $1 \leq m \leq k$. However, I'm having trouble showing how:
$o(a_1a_2\dots a_ka_{k+1}) = n_1n_2\dots n_kn_{k+1}$.
I can start with $o(a_1a_2\dots a_k)o(a_{k+1}) = (n_1n_2\dots n_k)(n_{k+1}) = n_1n_2\dots n_kn_{k+1}$. But then I would have to prove that $o(a_1a_2\dots a_{k+1}) = o(a_1a_2\dots a_k)o(a_{k+1}).$
Would it be okay to to group $n_k$ and $n_{k+1}$ as one term so that I technically get $k$ terms instead of $k+1$ terms so that: $o(a_1a_2\dots a_k)o(a_{k+1}) = (n_1n_2\dots n_k)(n_{k+1}) = (n_1n_2\dots n_{k-1})(n_kn_{k+1}) = o(a_1 \dots (a_ka_{k+1}))$ by the inductive hypothesis?
All of this seems a bit pedantic, so I would like a little guidance on what would be good convention.