Concepts of Mathematics Assignment #1 Due May 25

Please solve the following problems and submit your solutions at the beginning of lecture on Wednesday,
May 23. If the question asks you to “prove” something, you must write a fully-rigorous argument. If you
are asked to explain or describe something, you don’t need to be as rigorous, but you still must make sure
that your ideas are clear.

Please staple this page to the front of your homework, and clearly write your name in the top-right corner.
You may either typeset your solutions using LATEX, or handwrite them. However, which ever you choose,
you must make sure that your solutions are legible. Illegible submissions may result in penalties including
deducted points, or the requirement that you typeset future assignments. Also note that it is possible for
both handwritten and typeset solutions to be illegible.
Some suggestions to increase legibility:

• Use plenty of paper (i.e. don’t try to cram everything into one sheet.)
• Use scratch paper for initial work, and only start writing down your final solutions once your ideas
have solidified.
• Make sure that your arguments don’t get too complicated, organizing your proof into multiple lemmas
or subclaims if necessary.

You may collaborate on this assignment, but you must follow the guidelines outlined in the syllabus for
writing up your solutions.

This homework is out of 100pts.

(1) [20pts] For each of the following claims, indicate a proof technique you think is appropriate, and prove
the claim using that technique, following the template given in lecture.
(a) If n is an integer, then 3n2 + n + 6 is even.
√
(b) If x and y are distinct positive real numbers, then x + y > 2 xy.
(2) [10 pts] Suppose that I told you that if you win the lottery, you will be rich. What can you conclude
in the following four scenarios?
(a) You win the lottery
(b) You do not win the lottery
(c) You will be rich
(d) You will not be rich
(3) [10 pts] Let p and q be propositions.
(a) Prove that ((p → q) ∧ p) → q is a tautology.
(b) Prove that ((p → q) ∨ p) → q is not a tautology.
(4) [10 pts] Let p, q, r, and s be propositions. A propositional formula is in negation normal form if the
only connectives used are ∨, ∧ and ¬, and the ¬ symbols only appear directly in front of propositions.
For example, (¬p ∨ q) ∧ ¬r is in negation normal form, but ¬(p ∨ q) and p → q are not.
(a) Put the following propositional formula in negation normal form:

((p ∨ ¬q) → r) → s
1
 2

(b) Put the negation of the following propositional formula in negation normal form:

(p → q) ∧ (r ∨ ¬q).

(5) [20 pts] Let’s consider propositional formulas constructed from propositions p, q and r. A ∧-clause is a
propositional formula which consists p, q, r, or their negations, connected by ∧. For example, p ∧ q ∧ ¬r
and ¬r are ∧-clauses, but (p ∨ q) ∧ r and p ∧ ¬(q ∧ r) are not.
A propositional formula is in conjunctive normal form (CNF) if it consists of a series of ∧-clauses
connected by ∨. For example, (p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (¬r ∧ q) ∨ (r ∧ ¬q), p ∨ r, p ∧ q, and ¬q are all in conjunctive
normal form, but (p ∨ q) ∧ r and ¬(p ∨ r) are not.
Write the following propositional formulae in CNF, and prove that each one is logically equivalent
to the original one. Briefly explain a method you can use to translate a given propositional formula to
CNF.
As an example, if we were to write (p ∨ q) ∧ r in CNF, we would get

(p ∧ q ∧ r) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ r) ∨ (¬p ∧ q ∧ r).

Note that this is not unique. We could change the order of the ∧-clauses, for example. Also, since
(p ∧ q ∧ r) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ r) is logically equivalent to p ∧ r, we could also write this as

(p ∧ r) ∨ (¬p ∧ q ∧ r)

and this would also be correct.

p q pq
T T F
F T T
T F T
F F T
Explain how every propositional formula involving the propositions p1 , p2 , ..., pn can be re-written to
only use the  connective (i.e. no ¬, ∨, ∧, →, or ↔). A fully rigorous proof that your method works
would require a tool we have not yet covered (induction). So it will be sufficient to show how you can
replace each propositional formula of the form ¬p, p ∨ q, and p ∧ q with propositional formulas that only
use the  connective, then write a sentence or two to explain how you would use this to translate the
entire propositional formula.
Next, use the method you outline to translate the following propositional formula:

¬(p ∨ q)

Show that the resulting propositional formula is logically equivalent.