Techniques of Proof III: Contradiction
Techniques of Proof III: Contradiction
Techniques of Proof III: Contradiction
The law of the excluded middle asserts that a statement is true or it is false, it cannot
be anything in between. We can use this as another method of proof. We assume that
the statement is false and proceed logically to show that this gives a statement that we
definitely know is false such as 1 = 0 or the Moon is made of cheese. Thus our assumption
must be wrong, the statement can’t be false – it leads to something ridiculous – so the
statement is true.
This method is called proof by contradiction. The name comes from the fact that assum-
ing that the statement is false is later contradicted by some other fact. It is also known by
the name reductio ad absurdum which when translated means reduction to the absurd.
Example 23.1
Suppose that n is an odd integer. Then n2 is an odd integer.
Proof. Assume the contrary. That is, we suppose that n is an odd integer but that the
conclusion is false, i.e. n2 is an even integer.
As n is odd, n = 2k + 1 for some k ∈ Z. Thus n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k + 2k + 1 which
contradicts that n2 is even. Thus our assumption that n2 is even must be wrong, i.e. n2
must be odd.
The statement above has the form A =⇒ B. In general, if we assume such a statement
is false, then we are assuming that ‘A and not(B)’ as this is the negation of A =⇒ B
(see page 66). To use contradiction we then have to show that ‘A and not(B)’ leads to
something false.
The second example solves a harder problem.
161
162 CHAPTER 23 Techniques of proof III: Contradiction
Example 23.2
There are no positive integers x and y such that x 2 − y 2 = 1.
Proof. We assume the contrary, i.e. we assume that positive integers exist such that x 2 −
y 2 = 1. Thus we have (x + y)(x − y) = 1. Since x and y are integers, then x + y and
x − y are integers too, so we have two cases:
Case 1: x + y = 1 and x − y = 1. Solving this pair of equations gives x = 1 and y = 0.
This contradicts that x and y are positive. This leaves the second case.
Case 2: x + y = −1 and x − y = −1. Solving these we find that x = −1 and y = 0,
again contradicting that the two integers are positive.
As you can see, the statement was ‘ ∃ x, y ∈ N(x 2 − y 2 = 1)’. We assumed that the result
was false, in other words, that its negation ‘∃ x, y ∈ N(x 2 − y 2 = 1)’ is true.
Example 23.3
The sum of a rational and an irrational number is an irrational number.
We can see this better if we explicitly write the statement as an implication. In other words,
‘If x is rational and y is irrational, then x + y is irrational.’ Using the fact that ‘A =⇒ B’
has negation ‘A and not(B)’ we assume that x is rational, y is irrational, and x + y is not
irrational are all true.
Exercise 23.4
Consider the statement ‘The product of a rational and an irrational number is an irrational
number.’ Prove this statement or give a counterexample. If you give any counterexamples,
can you change the statement slightly so that you do have a true statement?
Example 23.5
The equation x 7 + 3x 3 + 5 has no rational roots.
Assume to the contrary that x is a root and is rational. Thus x = p/q where p and q are
integers and this quotient is in its simplest terms. (That is, we can’t divide top and bottom
by the same number greater than 1.)
The irrationality of the square root of 2 163
Then we have
7 3
p p
+3 +5 = 0
q q
p 7 + 3p 3 q 4 + 5q 7 = 0.
We can consider what happens when p and q are odd and even. There are four cases to
consider.
Case 1: If p and q are both even, then p/q is not in its simplest form. Thus, we get a
contradiction.
Case 2: If p and q are both odd, then the left-hand side of p7 + 3p 3 q 4 + 5q 7 = 0 is odd,
while the right-hand side is even. (Check this with an exercise from Chapter 20.)
This is a contradiction.
Case 3: If p is even and q is odd, then the left-hand side of the above equation is odd,
while the right is even. Again, this is a contradiction.
Case 4: If p is odd and q is even, then, again, the left-hand side is odd and the right-hand
side is even. A contradiction.
Theorem 23.6
The square root of 2 is irrational, i.e. cannot be written in the form m/n where m and n
are integers.
√
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that 2 = m/n where m and n are integers. Without loss
of generality we can assume that this quotient is in its simplest terms. Then we have,
√ m
2=
n
m 2
2= , by squaring both sides,
n
m2
2= 2
n
2n = m2 .
2
This implies that m2 is even since it is the product of 2 and n2 . We now have two choices
for m: it can be even or it can be odd. If m is odd, then m2 is also odd, by Theorem 23.1.
(Did you look back to check that the referenced theorem gives this?) Hence we must have
m even.
164 CHAPTER 23 Techniques of proof III: Contradiction
So, m = 2k for some integer k. Then using the equation 2n2 = m2 we get
2n2 = (2k)2
= 22 k 2
= 4k 2
n2 = 2k 2 .
By reasoning similar to that above we conclude that n has to be even as well, i.e. n = 2j
for some integer j . However, we assumed that the quotient m/n was in its lowest form;
this has been shown to be not the case:
√ m 2k k
2= = = .
n 2j j
√
Thus we conclude that 2 cannot be written as a quotient of integers.
Exercises 23.7
√
(i) Show that 3 is irrational.
√
(ii) Show that 5 is irrational. √
(iii) Apply the proof to the non-example ‘ 4 is irrational’. What happens? Where does
the proof go ‘wrong’ in this case.
√
(iv) Can you generalize the method to p is irrational where p is a prime?
Exercises
Exercises 23.8
(i) Show that the solutions of the equation x 5 − 2x 3 − 3 = 0 are all less than 2. (Hint:
It is easier to find roots less than 0 so change to a different variable.)
(ii) Prove that for all integers x and y if xy is odd, then x and y are both odd.
(iii) Prove by contradiction that there exists an infinite number of rational numbers
between 0 and 1. (Hint: Consider Theorem 20.4.)
(iv) Show that proof by contradiction for P is, logically speaking,
Summary
In proof by contradiction we assume that the negation of the statement is true and from
that deduce something that is obviously false.
The square root of 2 is irrational.
Write statements such as ‘The sum of a rational and an irrational number is an irrational
number’ as implications.