Proof Techniques

Topics
● Proof by Construction (Direct Proof)
● Indirect proof techniques
○ Proof by Contraposition
○ Proof by Contradiction
○ Proof by Counterexample
Introduction to Proofs: Terminologies
● Formally, a theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true. In mathematical
writing, the term theorem is usually reserved for a statement that is considered at
least somewhat important. Less important theorems sometimes are called
propositions. (Theorems can also be referred to as facts or results.)
● A theorem may be the universal quantification of a conditional statement with one or
more premises and a conclusion. However, it may be some other type of logical
statement, as the examples later in this chapter will show.
● We demonstrate that a theorem is true with a proof. A proof is a valid argument that
establishes the truth of a theorem.
Introduction to Proofs: Terminologies
● The statements used in a proof can include
○ axioms (or postulates), which are statements we assume to be true (for example, the axioms for the
real numbers, given in Appendix 1, and the axioms of plane geometry),
○ the premises, if any, of the theorem,
○ and previously proven theorems.
● Axioms may be stated using primitive terms that do not require definition, but all
other terms used in theorems and their proofs must be defined.
● Rules of inference, together with definitions of terms, are used to draw conclusions
from other assertions, tying together the steps of a proof.
● In practice, the final step of a proof is usually just the conclusion of the theorem.
However, for clarity, we will often recap the statement of the theorem as the final
step of a proof.
Introduction to Proofs: Terminologies
● A less important theorem that is helpful in the proof of other results is called a
lemma (plural lemmas or lemmata).
● Complicated proofs are usually easier to understand when they are proved using a
series of lemmas, where each lemma is proved individually.
● A corollary is a theorem that can be established directly from a theorem that has
been proved.
● A conjecture is a statement that is being proposed to be a true statement, usually on
the basis of some partial evidence, a heuristic argument, or the intuition of an expert.
● When a proof of a conjecture is found, the conjecture becomes a theorem.
● Many times conjectures are shown to be false, so they are not theorems.
Direct Proof: procedure
● A direct proof of a conditional statement p → q is constructed when
○ the first step is the assumption that p is true;
○ subsequent steps are constructed using rules of inference,
○ with the final step showing that q must also be true.
● A direct proof shows that a conditional statement p → q is true by showing that if p is
true, then q must also be true, so that the combination p true and q false never occurs.
Direct Proof: examples
For this example, we need to define even and odd integers.
● The integer n is even if there exists an integer k such that n = 2k, and n is odd if there
exists an integer k such that n = 2k + 1.
● Note that every integer is either even or odd, and no integer is both even and odd.
● Two integers have the same parity when both are even or both are odd; they have
opposite parity when one is even and the other is odd.
Now, give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is an odd integer, then n2 is odd.”
Direct Proof: examples
Give a direct proof that if m and n are both perfect squares, then nm is also a perfect
square. (An integer a is a perfect square if there is an integer b such that a = b2.)
Solution: To produce a direct proof of this theorem, we assume that the hypothesis of this
conditional statement is true, namely, we assume that m and n are both perfect squares. By
the definition of a perfect square, it follows that there are integers s and t such that m = s2
and n = t2. The goal of the proof is to show that mn must also be a perfect square when m
and n are; looking ahead we see how we can show this by substituting s2 for m and t2 for n
into mn. This tells us that mn = s2t2. Hence, mn = s2t2 = (ss)(tt) = (st)(st) = (st)2, using
commutativity and associativity of multiplication. By the definition of perfect square, it
follows that mn is also a perfect square, because it is the square of st, which is an integer.
We have proved that if m and n are both perfect squares, then mn is also a perfect square.
Proof by Contraposition: procedure
● Proofs by contraposition make use of the fact that the conditional statement p → q is
equivalent to its contrapositive, ¬q → ¬p.
● This means that the conditional statement p → q can be proved by showing that its
contrapositive, ¬q → ¬p, is true.
● In a proof by contraposition of p → q, we take ¬q as a premise, and using axioms,
definitions, and previously proven theorems, together with rules of inference, we
show that ¬p must follow.
Proof by Contraposition: examples
Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.
Solution: We first attempt a direct proof. To construct a direct proof, we first assume that
3n + 2 is an odd integer. From the definition of an odd integer, we know that 3n + 2 = 2k +
1 for some integer k. Can we use this fact to show that n is odd? We see that 3n + 1 = 2k,
but there does not seem to be any direct way to conclude that n is odd. Because our
attempt at a direct proof failed, we next try a proof by contraposition.
Proof by Contraposition: examples
Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.
Because our attempt at a direct proof failed, we next try a proof by contraposition.
The first step in a proof by contraposition is to assume that the conclusion of the
conditional statement “If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd” is false; namely, assume that n is
even. Then, by the definition of an even integer, n = 2k for some integer k. Substituting 2k
for n, we find that 3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 = 6k + 2 = 2(3k + 1). This tells us that 3n + 2 is even
(because it is a multiple of 2), and therefore not odd. This is the negation of the premise of
the theorem. Because the negation of the conclusion of the conditional statement implies
that the hypothesis is false, the original conditional statement is true. Our proof by
contraposition succeeded; we have proved the theorem “If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.”
Proof by Contraposition: examples
Prove that if n = ab, where a and b are positive integers, then a ≤ √n or b ≤ √n.
Because there is no obvious way of showing that a ≤ √n or b ≤ √n directly from the
equation n = ab, where a and b are positive integers, we attempt a proof by contraposition.
The first step in a proof by contraposition is to assume that the conclusion of the
conditional statement “If n = ab, where a and b are positive integers, then a ≤ √n or b ≤
√n” is false. That is, we assume that the statement (a ≤ √n) ∨ (b ≤ √n) is false. Using the
meaning of disjunction together with De Morgan’s law, we see that this implies that both a
≤ √n and b ≤ √n are false. This implies that a > √n and b > √n.
Proof by Contraposition: examples
Prove that if n = ab, where a and b are positive integers, then a ≤ √n or b ≤ √n.
We can multiply these inequalities together (using the fact that if 0 < s < t and 0 < u < v,
then su < tv) to obtain ab > √n ⋅ √n = n. This shows that ab ≠ n, which contradicts the
statement n = ab. Because the negation of the conclusion of the conditional statement
implies that the hypothesis is false, the original conditional statement is true. Our proof by
contraposition succeeded; we have proved that if n = ab, where a and b are positive
integers, then a ≤ √n or b ≤ √n.
Proof strategy: examples
For this example, we need to define rational and irrational numbers.
● The real number r is rational if there exist integers p and q with q ≠ 0 such that r =
p/q. A real number that is not rational is called irrational.
Now prove that the sum of two rational numbers is rational. (Note that if we include the
implicit quantifiers here, the theorem we want to prove is “For every real number r and
every real number s, if r and s are rational numbers, then r + s is rational.)
Solution: We first attempt a direct proof. To begin, suppose that r and s are rational
numbers. From the definition of a rational number, it follows that there are integers p and
q, with q ≠ 0, such that r = p/q, and integers t and u, with u ≠ 0, such that s = t/u.
Proof strategy: examples
Can we use this information to show that r + s is rational? That is, can we find integers v
and w such that r + s = v/w and w ≠ 0? With the goal of finding these integers v and w, we
add r = p/q and s = t/u, using qu as the common denominator. We find that r + s = p/q + t/u
= (pu + qt)/qu .
Because q ≠ 0 and u ≠ 0, it follows that qu ≠ 0. Consequently, we have expressed r + s as
the ratio of two integers, v = pu + qt and w = qu, where w ≠ 0. This means that r + s is
rational. We have proved that the sum of two rational numbers is rational; our attempt to
find a direct proof succeeded.
Proof by Contradiction: procedure
Suppose we want to prove that a statement p is true. Furthermore, suppose that we can
find a contradiction q such that ¬p → q is true. Because q is false, but ¬p → q is true, we
can conclude that ¬p is false, which means that p is true. How can we find a contradiction
q that might help us prove that p is true in this way?
Because the statement r ∧ ¬r is a contradiction whenever r is a proposition, we can prove
that p is true if we can show that ¬p → (r ∧ ¬r) is true for some proposition r. Proofs of
this type are called proofs by contradiction.
Proof by Contradiction: examples
Show that at least four of any 22 days must fall on the same day of the week.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “At least four of 22 chosen days fall on the same day of
the week.” Suppose that ¬p is true. This means that at most three of the 22 days fall on the
same day of the week. Because there are seven days of the week, this implies that at most
21 days could have been chosen, as for each of the days of the week, at most three of the
chosen days could fall on that day. This contradicts the premise that we have 22 days
under consideration. That is, if r is the statement that 22 days are chosen, then we have
shown that ¬p → (r ∧ ¬r). Consequently, we know that p is true. We have proved that at
least four of 22 chosen days fall on the same day of the week.
Proof by Contradiction: examples
Prove that √2 is irrational by giving a proof by contradiction.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “√2 is irrational.” To start a proof by contradiction, we
suppose that ¬p is true. Note that ¬p is the statement “It is not the case that √2 is
irrational,” which says that √2 is rational. We will show that assuming that ¬p is true leads
to a contradiction.
If √2 is rational, there exist integers a and b with √2 = a/b, where b ≠ 0 and a and b have
no common factors (so that the fraction a/b is in lowest terms). (Here, we are using the
fact that every rational number can be written in lowest terms.) Because √2 = a/b, when
both sides of this equation are squared, it follows that 2 = a2/b2 . Hence, 2b2 = a2.
Proof by Contradiction: examples
Prove that √2 is irrational by giving a proof by contradiction.
By the definition of an even integer it follows that a2 is even. We next use the fact that if
a2 is even, a must also be even (which follows by Exercise 18).
Furthermore, because a is even, by the definition of an even integer, a = 2c for some
integer c. Thus, 2b2 = 4c2. Dividing both sides of this equation by 2 gives b2 = 2c2. By the
definition of even, this means that b2 is even. Again using the fact that if the square of an
integer is even, then the integer itself must be even, we conclude that b must be even as
well.
Proof by Contradiction: examples
Prove that √2 is irrational by giving a proof by contradiction.
We have now shown that the assumption of ¬p leads to the equation √2 = a/b, where a and
b have no common factors, but both a and b are even, that is, 2 divides both a and b. Note
that the statement that √2 = a/b, where a and b have no common factors, means, in
particular, that 2 does not divide both a and b. Because our assumption of ¬p leads to the
contradiction that 2 divides both a and b and 2 does not divide both a and b, ¬p must be
false. That is, the statement p, “√2 is irrational,” is true. We have proved that √2 is
irrational.
Proof by Counterexample: procedure
● To show that a statement of the form ∀xP(x) is false, we need only find a
counterexample, that is, an example x for which P(x) is false.
● When presented with a statement of the form ∀xP(x), which we believe to be false or
which has resisted all proof attempts, we look for a counterexample.
Proof by Counterexample: examples
Show that the statement “Every positive integer is the sum of the squares of two integers”
is false.
Solution: To show that this statement is false, we look for a counterexample, which is a
particular integer that is not the sum of the squares of two integers. It does not take long to
find a counterexample, because 3 cannot be written as the sum of the squares of two
integers. To show this is the case, note that the only perfect squares not exceeding 3 are 0 2
= 0 and 12 = 1. Furthermore, there is no way to get 3 as the sum of two terms each of
which is 0 or 1. Consequently, we have shown that “Every positive integer is the sum of
the squares of two integers” is false.