In this section weβll combine everything weβve done so far in the book to introduce the idea of mathematical proof. We will take statements about numbers, functions, or sets, decompose them into quantified statements and reason using argumentation and rules of logic to draw conclusions. We will do this by writing complete English and mathematical sentences that take us from beginning to end, telling the story of the argument.
A number \(n\) is said to be odd if it is not a multiple of 2. That is, if there exists an integer \(k\) such that \(n = 2k + 1\text{,}\) then \(n\) is odd.
A number \(n\) is said to be rational if there exist integers \(a, b\) with \(b \not=0 \) such that \(n = \dfrac{a}{b}\text{.}\) If a number is not rational, we say that it is is irrational.
Note that every integer is a rational number, since if \(n\) is an integer, then we can write \(\frac{n}{1}\) which is a rational number. Not every rational number is an integer, for example, \(\frac{1}{2}\) is not an integer.
A direct proof is used when proving a proposition of the form \(p \to q\text{.}\) The goal is to show \(q\) is true when we assume \(p\) is true. Hereβs the model:
We still want to show a statement is true, but perhaps thatβs difficult to approach directly. There are several different indirect proofs. The most frequent indirect approaches are proofs by contraposition and proofs by contradiction.
A proof by contradiction allows us to prove a statement \(p\) which is not necessarily conditional. We accomplish this by assuming \(\neg p\) is true, and finding a contradiction. This works because
\begin{equation*}
\neg p \to (q \wedge \neg q) \equiv p
\end{equation*}
The claim of an existence theorem is that there is some object that has a property. A constructive proof is one which, during the argumentation, tells the reader specifically how to come up with the object in question. A nonconstructive proof merely confirms the existence of an object, but doesnβt give any detail as to how to find it.
Let me get you started on it, and we can discuss below. Notice that the two numbers are one apart from eachother. Theyβre massive, so we donβt necessarily know whether theyβre square, but we need only show that not more than one of them is square.
Letβs imagine that I have a square number, namely \(n^2\text{.}\) Is it possible that \(n^2 - 1\) or \(n^2 + 1\) is also a square number? What condition on \(n\) is required?
If we have two rational numbers \(a/b\) and \(c/d\) with \(a, b, c, d \in \Z\) and \(b, d \ne 0\text{,}\) then we can construct \(\frac{a+c}{b+d}\text{.}\) Show that this is a rational number which is contained between the two original numbers.
The claim of a uniqueness theorem is that there exists an element that has a desired property, and that no other element has this property. The outline of our proof is often:
Prove the existence of \(x\text{,}\) some element that has the property we want.
Similar to above, show that \(k\) satisfies this equation, and then show that if you have another number, say \(l\) that also does, it must be the case that \(k = l\text{.}\)
Since I wonβt ever play in the Super Bowl, it doesnβt matter what the truth value of the touchdown statement is. \(F\to T \equiv T\) and \(F \to F \equiv T\) just the same.
Since we know that \(x^2 \ge 0\) for any real number, \(x^2 + 1 \ge x^2 \ge 0\text{.}\) We didnβt need the hypothesis \(x \gt 0\text{.}\) This is a trivial proof.
Recall in math propositions, the universal quantifier is implied and is usually omitted. To show a statement is false, we need only find a single counterexample.
True. Let \(a\) and \(b\) be integers. Assume both are even. Then \(a = 2k\) and \(b = 2j\) for some integers \(k\) and \(j\text{.}\) But then \(a+b = 2k + 2j = 2(k+j)\) which is even.
Let \(n\) be an integer. Assume \(n\) is even. Then \(n = 2k\) for some integer \(k\text{.}\) Thus \(8n = 16k = 2(8k)\text{.}\) Therefore \(8n\) is even.
The converse is false. That is, there is an integer \(n\) such that \(8n\) is even but \(n\) is odd. For example, consider \(n = 3\text{.}\) Then \(8n = 24\) which is even but \(n = 3\) is odd.
I claim that \(1 = 3\text{.}\) Of course we can do anything to one side of an equation as long as we also do it to the other side. So subtract 2 from both sides. This gives \(-1 = 1\text{.}\) Now square both sides, to get \(1 = 1\text{.}\) And we all agree this is true.
What is going on here? Is your friendβs argument valid? Is the argument a proof of the claim \(1=3\text{?}\) Carefully explain using what we know about logic.
You do not need to provide details for the proofs (since you do not know what solitary means). However, make sure that you provide the first few and last few lines of the proofs so that we can see that logical structure you would follow.
Assume that \(n\) is a prime number and is not solitary. \(\dots\) This contradicts our assumption. Thus if \(n\) is a prime number, \(n\) is solitary.
For each of the statements below, say what method of proof you should use to prove them. Then say how the proof starts and how it ends. Pretend bonus points for filling in the middle.
There are no integers \(x\) and \(y\) such that \(x\) is a prime greater than 5 and \(x = 6y + 3\text{.}\)
Proof by contradiction. Start of proof: Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there are integers \(x\) and \(y\) such that \(x\) is a prime greater than 5 and \(x = 6y + 3\text{.}\) End of proof: β¦ this is a contradiction, so there are no such integers.
Direct proof. Start of proof: Let \(n\) be an integer. Assume \(n\) is a multiple of 3. End of proof: Therefore \(n\) can be written as the sum of consecutive integers.
Proof by contrapositive. Start of proof: Let \(a\) and \(b\) be integers. Assume that \(a\) and \(b\) are even. End of proof: Therefore \(a^2 + b^2\) is even.
If a number isnβt a multiple of three, then itβs either 1 more than a multiple of three or 2 more than a multiple of three, that is, youβll have two cases, either \(n=3k+1\) or \(3k+2\text{.}\)
Suppose \(\sqrt{3}\) were rational. Then \(\sqrt{3} = \frac{a}{b}\) for some integers \(a\) and \(b \ne 0\text{.}\) Without loss of generality, assume \(\frac{a}{b}\) is reduced. Now
(this is a direct proof): Assume that \(a\) is even \(b\) is a multiple of three. Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(a=2k\) and \(b=3l\text{.}\) Then \(ab = (2k)(3l) = 6kl\text{.}\) Thus \(ab\) is a multiple of six.
Let \(n\) be an arbitrary integer, and suppose \(n\) is even. Then \(n = 2k\) for some integer \(k\text{.}\) Thus \(5n = 5\cdot 2k = 10k = 2(5k)\text{.}\) Since \(5k\) is an integer, we see that \(5n\) must be even. This completes the proof.
Prove: \(x=y\) if and only if \(xy=\dfrac{(x+y)^2}{4}\text{.}\) Note, you will need to prove two βdirectionsβ here: the βifβ and the βonly ifβ part.
Suppose, contrary to stipulation that \(\log(7)\) is rational. Then \(\log(7) = \frac{a}{b}\) with \(a\) and \(b \ne 0\) integers. By properties of logarithms, this implies
Letβs say you are presented with a conditional statement \(p \to q\) that you want to prove by contradiction. This exercise has you structure a model for contradiction of conditional statements like we saw in the model.
Assume that \(a\) and \(b\) are both odd and that \(a^2 +b^2 = c^2\text{.}\) Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(a=2k+1\) and \(b=2k+1\text{.}\)
This is a contradiction as we have a multiple of four being equal to something which is not a multiple of four. Thus, our original assumption was incorrect and therefore if \(a^2 + b^2 = c^2\text{,}\) we conclude that one of \(a\) or \(b\) is even.
Assume, to the contrary, that there is an integer solution, \((a, b)\text{,}\) to the equation \(x^2 = 4y + 3\) Weβll split this into four cases:
Case 1: \(x\) is odd and \(y\) is even. Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(x=2k+1\) and \(y = 2l\text{.}\) Plugging this into the equation, we have:
Case 2: \(x\) is even and \(y\) is odd. Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(x=2k\) and \(y = 2l+1\text{.}\) Plugging this into the equation, we have:
Case 3: \(x\) and \(y\) are both even. Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(x=2k\) and \(y = 2l\text{.}\) Plugging this into the equation, we have:
Case 4: \(x\) and \(y\) are both odd. Then there exist integers \(k\) and \(l\) such that \(x=2k\) and \(y = 2l\text{.}\) Plugging this into the equation, we have:
Since weβve exhausted every possible combination of integer solutions, we conclude that there is no integer solution to the equation \(x^2 = 4y+3\text{.}\)