Endnote on history
Aristotle's contribution to philosophy was made two millenia and more ago. One might well expect errors in the work of a theorist who was clearing the ground and could know nothing of the Stoic, Scholastic, let alone post-Fregean developments in logic.
But that is not the problem here. Aristotle distinguishes between sullogismos and epagoge. The first is, without regard for historical nicety, translated as 'deduction', the second as 'induction'. My whole point is that Aristotelian epagoge is not induction in the sense which the question 'How did Aristotle define induction so incorrectly?' assumes. The question and accompanying text employ 'induction' in a post-Baconian sense. Compare the Aristotlian references above with Francis Bacon's Novum Organon (1620) and the fact is patent.