CHAPTER 23

Techniques of proof III:

Contradiction

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that

I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journal entry, 8 November 1838

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.

Simple examples of proof by contradiction

The first example is just to show you the idea of proof by contradiction. The statement is
easier to prove by a direct method as we have seen in Theorem 20.1.

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.

Proof. Assume to the contrary, that is x is rational, y is irrational and x + y is rational.

Since x is rational x = p/q for some integers p and q. Similarly, x + y rational implies
that x + y = r/s for some integers r and s.
We see
r
x+y =
s
p r
=⇒ + y =
q s
r p
=⇒ y= −
s q
rq − ps
=⇒ y= .
sq
rq − ps
But ∈ Q which contradicts that y is irrational. Hence the statement is true. 
sq

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.

Thus, x is not rational.

The irrationality of the square root of 2

Now
√ we use proof by contradiction to show a classic theorem and proof of mathematics:
2 is an irrational number. That is, it cannot
√ be written as the quotient of two integers.
The negation of this statement is that 2 is rational. We proceed to show that this
assumption leads to an impossible statement.

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?

How to spot a proof by contradiction

We do not spot proofs by contradiction as such but automatically turn to the method if we
cannot prove the statement directly.
For example, to prove that something does not exist, we assume that it does and aim
for a contradiction. And vice versa.
The point is that it is difficult to do operations with something that does not exist.
Assuming something exists means we can apply operations. For example, to show some-
thing is irrational, it is easier to assume it is rational because then we can write it in the
form p/q for integers p and q.

How to write a proof by contradiction

(i) State that you are assuming the statement is false. Seasoned mathematicians will
recognize that the proof will be by contradiction.
(ii) Write out what the statement being false means using negation.
(iii) Work out what this would imply until you find a contradiction.
(iv) Announce that a contradiction has been found.
 Summary 165

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,

P is equivalent to (not P =⇒ (Q and not Q)).

(v) Prove that there are no positive integer solutions to x 2 +√x + 1 = y 2 .

(vi) Prove that there is no greatest rational number less than 2.
(vii) For all rational numbers x and y with x < y prove that there exists an irrational
number z such that x < z < y.
(viii) Prove the above but with x, y irrational and z rational. √ √
(ix) Give an example of a sum of two irrational numbers that is rational. Is 2 + 3
rational or irrational? Explain.
(x) Show that log2 3 is irrational. (Hint: By definition, log2 3 is the number x such that
2x = 3.)
√
(xi) Prove√ or disprove: If x is irrational, then x is irrational.
(xii) Is 3 2 irrational or rational? Either way, can you generalize
 your statement?
(xiii) Suppose that x and y are positive integers. Show that x 2 + y 2  = x + y.

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.