The whole thing is a rather appalling mess; I might have given it as much as $7$ points out of $10$ if it had come from a weak student. As Ross Millikan points out in the comments, $P(n)$ should be simply $n\le 3^{n/3}$; the statement given as $P(n)$ is not in fact a function of $n$ at all.
$C$ is apparently supposed to be the set of non-negative integers for which the proposition fails, the goal being to show that $C$ must be empty. What is actually ‘defined’ is something called $C(n)$ that apparently depends on $n$ and yet is defined as $\{n\in\Bbb N:n\ne 3^{n/3}\}$, something that does not depend on $n$ and is not what is wanted for $C$ anyway, since we’re not trying to prove that $n=3^{n/3}$ for all $n\in\Bbb N$.
Presumably $c$ is supposed to be the least element of $C$, not ‘the lesser’ element of $C$.
The two lines immediately below $(13)$ do not follow from $(13)$. The argument is probably intended to be that $c\le\sqrt[3]3(c-1)$, since $c-1\ge 4$, so $c^3\le 3(c-1)^3$, and $P(c)$ now follows from $(12)$.