Prepared By

Ramesh Rimal

22 May 2017 1
 Any of the mathematical statement must be
supported by arguments that make it correct.
 For this we need to know different techniques
and rules that can be applied in the
mathematical statements such that we can prove
the correctness of the given mathematical
statement.
 This method of understanding the correctness by
sequence of statements forming an argument is a
proof of the statement.
 A theorem is a mathematical statement that can
be shown to be true. Well founded proof is the
steps of mathematical statements that present
an argument that makes the theorem true.

22 May 2017 2
 By proving some mathematical problem we mean
that we solve that problem. For this purpose
valid steps are required such that as mentioned
above those steps aid on solving the problems.
 Problem solving or proving is not just a science
so there is no hard and fast rule that is applied
in problem solving.
 However, there are some guiding methods that
help us to solve different kinds of problems.
Here still we must note that the problem solving
is not just a science, so hard work and art is
needed.

22 May 2017 3
 Rules of Tautology Name
Inference
p (p  (p  q))  q Modus ponens
pq Or
q Law of Detachment
¬q (¬q  (p  q))  ¬p Modus tollens
pq Or
¬p Transitive Rule
pq ((p  q)  (q  r)) (p  r) Hypothetical syllogism
qr
p  r
pq ((pq)  (¬p))  q Disjunctive syllogism
¬p
q
p p  (pq) Addition
pq
pq (pq)  p Simplification
p
22 May 2017 4
 Rules of Tautology Name
Inference
p ((p)  (q))  pq Conjunction
q
pq
pq ((p q)  (¬p  r))  (q  Resolution
¬pr r)
qr
(pq)(rs) [((pq)(rs) Constructive
pr ) (pr)]  (q  s) Dilemma
q  s
(pq)(rs) [((pq)(rs))(¬p¬s Distructive Dilemma
¬p¬s )](¬p¬r)
¬p¬r

22 May 2017 5
 State which rule of inference is the basis of the
following argument: “Ram is hard working. If
Ram is hard working, then he is intelligent.”
 Let p be the proposition “Ram is hard working”
and q the proposition “Ram is intelligent.” Then
this argument is of the form
p
pq
q
 This is an argument that uses the Modus ponens.

22 May 2017 6
 State which rule of inference is the basis of
the following argument: “It is below freezing
now. Therefore, it is either below freezing or
raining now.”
 Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is
below freezing now” and q the proposition
“It is raining now.” Then this argument is of
the form
p
pq
This is an argument that uses the addition
rule.
22 May 2017 7
 State which rule of inference is the basis of
the following argument: “It is below freezing
and raining now. Therefore, it is below
freezing now.”
 Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is
below freezing now,” and let q be the
proposition “It is raining now.” This
argument is of the form
pq
p
This argument uses the simplification rule.

22 May 2017 8
 State which rule of inference is used in the argument:
If it rains today, then we will not have a barbecue
today. If we do not have a barbecue today, then we
will have a barbecue tomorrow. Therefore, if it rains
today, then we will have a barbecue tomorrow.
 Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is raining today,”
let q be the proposition “We will not have a barbecue
today,” and let r be the proposition “We will have a
barbecue tomorrow.” Then this argument is of the
form
pq
qr
p  r
 Hence, this argument is a hypothetical syllogism.
22 May 2017 9
 An argument is called valid if all hypotheses
are true and the conclusion is also true.
 We can conclude that the implication (p1 
p2  …  pn)  q is tautology.
 If all the propositions in the valid argument
are true then the conclusion is true.
 Sometime valid argument can lead to
incorrect conclusion if one or more of the
false premises are used in the argument.

22 May 2017 10
 When there are many premises, several rules of inference
are often needed to show that an argument is valid. This is
illustrated by Examples given below, where the steps of
arguments are displayed on separate lines, with the reason
for each step explicitly stated. These examples also show
how arguments in English can be analyzed using rules of
inference.
 Example: Show that the premises “It is not sunny this
afternoon and it is colder than yesterday,” “We will go
swimming only if it is sunny,” “If we do not go swimming,
then we will take a canoe trip,” and “If we take a canoe
trip, then we will be home by sunset” lead to the
conclusion “We will be home by sunset.”
 Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,” q be
the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,” r be the
proposition “We will go swimming”, s be the proposition
“We will take a canoe trip”, and t be the proposition “We
will be home by sunset.”

22 May 2017 11
 Then the premises become ¬p  q, r  p,¬r  s, and
s  t. The conclusion is simply t .
 We need to give a valid argument with premises ¬p 
q, r  p,¬r  s, and s  t and conclusion t .
 Step Reason
1. ¬p  q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r  p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using
(2) and (3)
5. ¬r  s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using
(4) and (5)
7. s  t Premise
8. t Modus ponens using
6) and (7)
22 May 2017 12
 Show that the premises “If you send me an e-
mail message, then I will finish writing the
program,” “If you do not send me an e-mail
message, then I will go to sleep early,” and “If I
go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling
refreshed” lead to the conclusion “If I do not
finish writing the program, then I will wake up
feeling refreshed.”
 Solution: Let p be the proposition “You send me
an e-mail message”, q be the proposition “I will
finish writing the program”, r be the proposition
“I will go to sleep early”, and s be the
proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”
Then the premises are p  q, ¬p  r, and r  s.
 The desired conclusion is ¬q  s. We need to
give a valid argument with premises p  q, ¬p
 r, and r  s and conclusion ¬q  s.
22 May 2017 13
 Step Reason
1. p  q Premise
2. ¬q  ¬p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ¬p  r Premise
4. ¬q  r Hypothetical syllogism using
(2) and (3)
5. r  s Premise
6. ¬q  s Hypothetical syllogism using
(4) and (5)

22 May 2017 14
 Show that the following argument is valid. If
today is Tuesday, I have a test in Mathematics or
Economics. If my Economics Professor is sick, I
will not have a test in Economics. Today is
Tuesday and my Economics Professor is sick.
Therefore I have a test in Mathematics.
 Solution:
Let t be proposition “Today is Tuesday”, m be
the proposition “I have a test in Mathematics”, e
be the proposition “I have a test in Economics”
and s be the proposition “My Economics
Professor is sick”.

22 May 2017 15
1. tme
2. s¬e
3. ts
m

4. t (From 3,Simplification)
5. s (From 3,Simplification)
6. m  e (From 4 & 1, Modus Ponens)
7. ¬ e (From 5 & 2, Modus Ponens)
8. m (From 6 & 7, Disjunctive syllogism)

22 May 2017 16
 Construct an argument using rules of inference to
show that the hypotheses “If it does not rain or if
it is not foggy, then the sailing race will be held
and the life saving demonstration will go on”, “If
the sailing race is held, then the trophy will be
awarded” and “The trophy was not awarded”
imply the conclusion “It rained”.
 Solution:
Let p = “It rains”, q = “It is foggy”, r = “the sailing
race is held”, s = “Life saving demonstration is
done”, and t = “Trophy is awarded”.
Then we have to show that the argument
[((¬p  ¬q)  (r  s))  (r  t)  ¬t]  p is valid.
22 May 2017 17
1. (r  t) [Premise]
2. ¬t [Premise]
3. ¬ r [Modus Tollens from steps 1
& 2]
4. ((¬p  ¬ q)  (r  s)) [Premise]
5. ¬(¬ p  ¬ q)  (r  s) [Implication of Step 4]
6. (p  q)  (r  s) [De Morgan’s Law in Step 5]
7. p  (r  s) [Simplification using step 6]
8. p  r [Simplification using step 7]
9. r  p [Commutative law in step 8]
10. p [Disjunctive Syllogism from
9 & 3]
Hence argument is valid. With conclusion “It rained”.

22 May 2017 18
 For the set of premises “If I play hockey, then I am
sore the next day.” “I use the whirlpool if I am sore.”
“I did not use the whirlpool”. What relevant
conclusion can be drawn? Explain the rules of
inference used to draw the conclusion.
 Solution:
Let p = “I play hockey”, q = “ I am sore”, r = “I use
the whirlpool” Then the above premises are
a. p q
b. q  r
c. ¬r
Using hypothetical syllogism in premises a and b we
have p  r i.e. “if I play hockey, then I use
whirlpool”
Using the modus tollens in premise c and inferred
proposition p  r we conclude ¬p is true i.e. p is
false. p is false means “ I did not play hockey”.

22 May 2017 19
 Show that the following argument is valid. If
Mohan is a layer, then he is ambitious. If
Mohan is an early riser, then he does not like
idlies. If Mohan is ambitious, then he is an
early riser. Then if Mohan is a lawyer, then he
does not likes idlies.
 Use rules of inference to show that the
hypotheses “Randy works hard,” “If Randy
works hard, then he is a dull boy,” and “If
Randy is a dull boy, then he will not get the
job” imply the conclusion “Randy will not get
the job.”

22 May 2017 20
 Find the argument form for the following
argument and determine whether it is valid. Can
we conclude that the conclusion is true if the
premises are true?
If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is human.
Socrates is mortal.
 Find the argument form for the following
argument and determine whether it is valid. Can
we conclude that the conclusion is true if the
premises are true?
If George does not have eight legs, then he is not
a spider.
George is a spider.
 George has eight legs.

22 May 2017 21
What rule of inference is used in each of these
arguments?
a)Alice is a mathematics major. Therefore, Alice is
either a mathematics major or a computer science
major.
b)Jerry is a mathematics major and a computer science
major. Therefore, Jerry is a mathematics major.
c)If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed. It is rainy.
Therefore, the pool is closed.
d)If it snows today, the university will close. The
university is not closed today. Therefore, it did not
snow today.
e)If I go swimming, then I will stay in the sun too long.
If I stay in the sun too long, then I will sunburn.
Therefore, if I go swimming, then I will sunburn.

22 May 2017 22
 What rule of inference is used in each of these
arguments?
a. Kangaroos live in Australia and are marsupials.
Therefore, kangaroos are marsupials.
b. It is either hotter than 100 degrees today or the
pollution is dangerous. It is less than 100 degrees outside
today. Therefore, the pollution is dangerous.
c. Linda is an excellent swimmer. If Linda is an excellent
swimmer, then she can work as a lifeguard. Therefore,
Linda can work as a lifeguard.
d. Steve will work at a computer company this summer.
Therefore, this summer Steve will work at a computer
company or he will be a beach bum.
e. If I work all night on this homework, then I can answer
all the exercises. If I answer all the exercises, I will
understand the material. Therefore, if I work all night on
this homework, then I will understand the material.
22 May 2017 23
 For each of these collections of premises, what relevant
conclusion or conclusions can be drawn? Explain the rules of
inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises.
a. “If I take the day off, it either rains or snows.” “I took Tuesday
off or I took Thursday off.” “It was sunny on Tuesday.” “It did not
snow on Thursday.”
b) “If I eat spicy foods, then I have strange dreams.” “I have strange
dreams if there is thunder while I sleep.” “I did not have strange
dreams.”
c) “I am either clever or lucky.” “I am not lucky.” “If I am lucky,
then I will win the lottery.”
d) “Every computer science major has a personal computer.” “Ralph
does not have a personal computer.” “Ann has a personal
computer.”
e) “What is good for corporations is good for the United States.”
“What is good for the United States is good for you.” “What is
good for corporations is for you to buy lots of stuff.”
f ) “All rodents gnaw their food.” “Mice are rodents.” “Rabbits do
not gnaw their food.” “Bats are not rodents
22 May 2017 24
 For each of these sets of premises, what relevant conclusion or
conclusions can be drawn? Explain the rules of inference used to
obtain each conclusion from the premises.
a) “If I play hockey, then I am sore the next day.” “I use the
whirlpool if I am sore.” “I did not use the whirlpool.”
b) “If Iwork, it is either sunny or partly sunny.” “Iworked last
Monday or Iworked last Friday.” “Itwas not sunny on Tuesday.” “It
was not partly sunny on Friday.”
c) “All insects have six legs.” “Dragonflies are insects.” “Spiders
do not have six legs.” “Spiders eat dragonflies.”
d) “Every student has an Internet account.” “Homer does not
have an Internet account.” “Maggie has an Internet account.”
e) “All foods that are healthy to eat do not taste good.” “Tofu is
healthy to eat.” “You only eat what tastes good.” “You do not eat
tofu.” “Cheeseburgers are not healthy to eat.”
f ) “I am either dreaming or hallucinating.” “I am not dreaming.”
“If I am hallucinating, I see elephants running down the road.”

22 May 2017 25
 Fallacies are arguments that are convincing but
not correct. So fallacies produce faulty
inferences.
 Fallacies resemble rules of inference, but are
based on contingencies rather than tautologies.
 Following are the fallacies that we may
encounter.
a. Fallacy of affirming the conclusion
b. Fallacy of denying the hypothesis
c. The non sequitur fallacy
d. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

22 May 2017 26
 It has the form
q
pq
p i.e.(q  (p  q))  p. This is not a tautology
hence it is a fallacy.
 Is the following argument valid?
If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn discrete
mathematics. You learned discrete mathematics.
Therefore, you did every problem in this book.
Solution:
 Let p be the proposition “You did every problem in this book.”
Let q be the proposition “You learned discrete mathematics.”
Then this argument is of the form: if p  q and q, then p.
 This is an example of an incorrect argument using the fallacy of
affirming the conclusion.
 Indeed, it is possible for you to learn discrete mathematics in
someway other than by doing every problem in this book. (You
may learn discrete mathematics by reading, listening to lectures,
doing some, but not all, the problems in this book, and so on.)
22 May 2017 27
 This kind of fallacy has the form
p
pq
 q i.e. (p  (p  q))  q
This is not a tautology. Hence it is a fallacy.
 Example:
If today is Sunday, then it rains today. Today
is not Sunday. Therefore, it does not rain
today. This argument is not true since even if
today is not Sunday and it is raining today
then the first premise is true and second
premise is also true but not the conclusion.
22 May 2017 28
 Non sequitur mean “does not follow”.
Generally all logical errors are the cases of
non sequitur fallacy. For e.g.
p
q , if p is true and q is false then
what happens?
 Example:
I am a teacher therefore Ram is a doctor.
(how is this valid? No, it is not i.e. if Ram is
not a doctor then what?).

22 May 2017 29
 If the statement that is used for proof is
equivalent to the statement that is being
proved then it is called circular reasoning.
 Example:
a. The square root of 2 is irrational since it is
not rational.
b. Man is mortal because man dies.
c. Ram is black because he is black.

22 May 2017 30
 Universal Instantiation is the rule of inference used
to conclude that P(c) is true, where c is a particular
member of the domain, given the premise xP(x).
 In other words, If the proposition of the form xP(x)
is supposed to be true then the universal quantifier
can be dropped out to get P(c) is true for arbitrary c
in the universe of discourse. This can be written as
xP(x)
P (c), for all c
 Universal instantiation is used when we conclude
from the statement “All women are wise” that “Lisa
is wise,” where Lisa is a member of the domain of all
women.
 In universe of discourse of all man every man is
mortal implies ram is mortal where ram is a man.

22 May 2017 31
 Universal generalization is the rule of inference that
states that xP(x) is true, given the premise that P(c) is
true for all elements c in the domain.
 Universal generalization is used when we show that xP(x)
is true by taking an arbitrary element c from the domain
and showing that P(c) is true.
 The element c that we select must be an arbitrary, and not
a specific, element of the domain. That is, when we assert
from xP(x) the existence of an element c in the domain,
we have no control over c and cannot make any other
assumptions about c other than it comes from the domain.
 Universal generalization is used implicitly in many proofs
in mathematics and is seldom mentioned explicitly.
However, the error of adding unwarranted assumptions
about the arbitrary element c when universal
generalization is used is all too common in incorrect
reasoning.

22 May 2017 32
 Existential instantiation is the rule that
allows us to conclude that there is an
element c in the domain for which P(c) is
true if we know that xP(x) is true.
 We cannot select an arbitrary value of c
here, but rather it must be a c for which P(c)
is true.
 Usually we have no knowledge of what c is,
only that it exists. Because it exists, we may
give it a name (c) and continue our
argument.

22 May 2017 33
 Existential generalization is the rule of
inference that is used to conclude that
xP(x) is true when a particular element c
with P(c) true is known.
 That is, if we know one element c in the
domain for which P(c) is true, then we know
that xP(x) is true.

22 May 2017 34
 Rule of Inference Name
xP(x) Universal instantiation
P(c)
P(c) for an arbitrary c Universal generalization
xP(x)
xP(x) Existential instantiation
P(c) for some element c
P(c) for some element c Existential generalization
xP(x)

22 May 2017 35
 Show that the premises “Everyone in this
discrete mathematics class has taken a course in
computer science” and “Marla is a student in
this class” imply the conclusion “Marla has taken
a course in computer science.”
Solution:
 Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete
mathematics class,” and let C(x) denote “x has
taken a course in computer science.”
 Then the premises are x(D(x)  C(x)) and
D(Marla).
 The conclusion is C(Marla).

22 May 2017 36
Step Reason
1. x(D(x)  C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla)C(Marla) Universal instantiation
from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise
4. C(Marla) Modus ponens from (3)
and (2)

22 May 2017 37
 Show that the premises “A student in this
class has not read the book” and “Everyone
in this class passed the first exam” imply the
conclusion “Someone who passed the first
exam has not read the book”.
 Solution:
 Let C(x) be “x is in this class,” B(x) be “x has
read the book,” and P(x) be “x passed the
first exam.”
 The premises are x(C(x)¬B(x)) and x(C(x)
 P(x)).
 The conclusion is x(P(x)¬B(x)).

22 May 2017 38
Step Reason
1. x(C(x)¬B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)¬B(a) Existential instantiation
from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. x(C(x)  P(x)) Premise
5. C(a)  P(a) Universal instantiation
from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3)
and (5)
7. ¬B(a) Simplification from (2)
8. P(a)¬B(a) Conjunction from 6 & 7
9. x(P(x)¬B(x)) Existential
generalization from (8)
22 May 2017 39
 Combination of rules of inferences for propositions
and quantified statements can be used.
 Universal instantiation and modus ponens are used
so often together, this combination of rules is called
Universal Modus Ponens.
 Universal Modus Ponens states that if x(P (x) 
Q(x)) is true, and if P(a) is true for a particular
element a in the domain of the universal quantifier,
then Q(a) must also be true.
 We can describe universal modus ponens as follows:
x(P (x)  Q(x))
P(a), where a is a particular element in the domain
Q(a)
22 May 2017 40
 Assume that “For all positive integers n, if n is
greater than 4, then n2 is less than 2n” is true.
Use universal modus ponens to show that 1002 <
2100.
Solution:
 Let P(n) denote “n > 4” and Q(n) denote “n2 <
2n”.
 The statement “For all positive integers n, if n is
greater than 4, then n2 is less than 2n” can be
represented by n(P (n)  Q(n)), where the
domain consists of all positive integers.
 We are assuming that n(P (n)  Q(n)) is true.
Note that P(100) is true because 100 > 4. It
follows by universal modus ponens that Q(100) is
true, namely that 1002 < 2100.

22 May 2017 41
 It combines universal instantiation and
modus tollens and can be expressed in the
following way:
x(P (x)  Q(x))
¬Q(a), where a is a particular element in the
domain
 ¬P(a)

22 May 2017 42
 A proof is a valid argument that establishes the
truth of a mathematical statement.
 A proof can use the hypotheses of the theorem,
if any, axioms and previously proven theorems.
 We move from formal proofs of theorems toward
more informal proofs.
 In formal proofs all steps are supplied and rules
for each step in the argument are given.
 The arguments we used to show that statements
involving propositions and quantified statements
are true were formal proofs.

22 May 2017 43
 Formal proofs of useful theorems can be
extremely long and hard to follow.
 So, informal proofs can be used where more than
one rule of inference may be used in each step,
where steps may be skipped, where the axioms
being assumed and the rules of inference used
are not explicitly stated.
 Applications of methods of proving theorems
include verifying that computer programs are
correct, establishing that operating systems are
secure, making inferences in artificial
intelligence, showing that system specifications
are consistent and so on.

22 May 2017 44
 Theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true.
Theorems can also be referred to as facts or results.
 Proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a
mathematical statement.
 Axioms(Postulates) are statements which we assume to be
true. 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.
 A less important theorem that is helpful in the proof of
other results is called lemma(lemmas or lemmata).
 Corollary is a theorem that can be established directly
from a theorem that has been proved.
 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.
22 May 2017 45
 We prove the implication p  q, where we start
assuming that the hypothesis i.e. p is true and
using information already available (rules of
inferences, theorems, etc.), if q becomes true,
then the argument becomes valid. This is direct
proof.
 Definition: 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.
22 May 2017 46
 If a and b are odd integers, then a + b is an
even integer.
Proof:
 We know the fact that if a number is even
then we can represent it as 2k, where k is an
integer and if the number is odd then it can
be written as 2l + 1, where l is an integer.
 Assume that a = 2k + 1 and b = 2l + 1, for
some integers k and m. then a + b = 2k + 1 +
2l + 1 = 2(k + l + 1), here (k + l + 1) is an
integer. Hence a + b is even integer.
22 May 2017 47
 Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is an
odd integer, then n2 is odd.”
 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)

22 May 2017 48
 An extremely useful type of indirect proof is
known as proof by contraposition.
 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.
 Examples given below show that proof by
contraposition can succeed when we cannot
easily find a direct proof.

22 May 2017 49
 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. This means 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.
 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.”
22 May 2017 50
 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.
Because a proof by contradiction does not prove a
result directly, it is another type of indirect proof.

22 May 2017 51
 Give a proof by contradiction of the theorem “If 3n + 2 is
odd, then n is odd.”
 Solution:
 Let p be “3n + 2 is odd” and q be “n is odd.” To construct a
proof by contradiction, assume that both p and ¬q are
true. That is, assume that 3n + 2 is odd and that n is not
odd.
 Because n is not odd, we know that it is even. Because n is
even, there is an integer k such that n = 2k. This implies
that 3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 = 6k + 2 = 2(3k + 1). Because 3n + 2
is 2t , where t = 3k + 1, 3n + 2 is even.
 Note that the statement “3n + 2 is even” is equivalent to
the statement ¬p, because an integer is even if and only if
it is not odd. Because both p and ¬p are true, we have a
contradiction.
 This completes the proof by contradiction, proving that if
3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.
22 May 2017 52
 We can quickly prove that a conditional
statement p  q is true when we know that
p is false, because p  q must be true when
p is false.
 Consequently, if we can show that p is false,
then we have a proof, called a vacuous
proof, of the conditional statement p  q.
 Vacuous proofs are often used to establish
special cases of theorems that state that a
conditional statement is true for all positive
integers [i.e., a theorem of the kind nP (n),
where P(n) is a propositional function].

22 May 2017 53
 Show that the proposition P(0) is true, where
P(n) is “If n > 1, then n2 > n” and the domain
consists of all integers.
 Solution:
Note that P(0) is “If 0 > 1, then 02 > 0.” We
can show P(0) using a vacuous proof. Indeed,
the hypothesis 0 > 1 is false. This tells us that
P(0) is automatically true.

22 May 2017 54
 We can also quickly prove a conditional
statement p  q if we know that the
conclusion q is true.
 By showing that q is true, it follows that p  q
must also be true.
 A proof of p  q that uses the fact that q is
true is called a trivial proof.
 Trivial proofs are often important when special
cases of theorems are proved and in
mathematical induction.

22 May 2017 55
 Let P(n) be “If a and b are positive integers
with a  b, then an  bn,” where the domain
consists of all nonnegative integers. Show
that P(0) is true.
 Solution:
 The proposition P(0) is “If a  b, then a0 
b0.” Because a0 = b0 = 1, the conclusion of
the conditional statement “If a  b, then a0 
b0” is true.
 Hence, this conditional statement, which is
P(0), is true.
 Note that the hypothesis, which is the
statement “a  b,” was not needed in this
proof.
22 May 2017 56
 The implication of the form (p1  p2  …  pn)
 q can be prove by using the tautology (p1  p2
 …  pn)  q  [(p1  q)  (p2  q)  …  (pn
 q)], i.e. we can show every implication (pi 
q) true for i =1, 2, …, n.
 Example:
If |x| > 3, then x2 > 9, where x is a real number.
Proof:
Here, we have to consider two cases -x >3 and x
> 3 since |x|, is an absolute value of x, is x when
x  0 and –x when x  0. If –x > 3, then x2 > 9.
Similarly, if x > 3, then x2 > 9.
22 May 2017 57
 A proof of a proposition of the form xP(x) is called
an existence proof. There are different ways of
proving a theorem of this type. Sometime some
element a is found to show P(a) to be true, this is
called constructive existence proof.
 In other method we do not provide a such that P(a)
is true but prove that xP(x) is true in different way,
this is called nonconstructive existence proof.
 Example: Constructive
Prove that there are 100 consecutive positive integers
that are not perfect squares.
 Proof:
Lets consider 2500 this is a perfect square of 50, and
take 2601 this is a perfect square of 51. In between
2601 and 2500 there are 100 consecutive positive
integers. Hence the proof.
22 May 2017 58
 We can prove the equivalence i.e. p  q by showing p  q
and q  p both.
 Example:
Prove that if n is a positive integer, then n is even if and
only if 7n + 4 is even.
 Proof:
 Assume n is even then we have an integer k such that n =
2k, so 7n + 4 = 7*2k +4 = 2(7k +2) here 7k + 4 is an integer
so that 7n + 4 = 2l, where l =7k + 2 i.e. 7n + 4 is even.
 By direct proof it is proved that if n is even, then 7n + 4 is
even.
 Assume n is odd then we have an integer m such that n =
2m + 1, then 7n + 4 = 14m +7 + 4 = 2(7m + 5) +1here since
7m + 5 is an integer 7n + 4 is an odd number by indirect
proof it is proved that if 7n + 4 is even, then n is even.
 Hence proved.

22 May 2017 59
 We stated that 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.
 Example:
 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 02 = 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.
22 May 2017 60
 There are many common errors made in
constructing mathematical proofs. We will
briefly describe some of these here.
 Among the most common errors are mistakes in
arithmetic and basic algebra. Even professional
mathematicians make such errors, especially
when working with complicated formulae.
 Whenever you use such computations you should
check them as carefully as possible.
 Each step of a mathematical proof needs to be
correct and the conclusion needs to follow
logically from the steps that precede it.
 Many mistakes result from the introduction of
steps that do not logically follow from those that
precede it.
22 May 2017 61
 What is wrong with this famous supposed “proof”
that 1 = 2?

Proof: We use these steps, where a and b are two equal positive
integers.
Step Reason
1. a = b Given
2. a2 = ab Multiply both sides of (1) by a
3. a2 − b2 = ab − b2 Subtract b2 from both sides of (2)
4. (a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b) Factor both sides of (3)
5. a + b = b Divide both sides of (4) by a − b
6. 2b = b Replace a by b in (5) because a = b
and simplify
7. 2 = 1 Divide both sides of (6) by b
Solution: Every step is valid except for one, step 5 where we
divided both sides by a − b. The error is that a − b equals zero;
division of both sides of an equation by the same quantity is valid
as long as this quantity is not zero.

22 May 2017 62
 What is wrong with this “proof?”
Theorem: If n2 is positive, then n is positive.
Proof: Suppose that n2 is positive. Because the
conditional statement “If n is positive, then n2 is
positive” is true, we can conclude that n is positive.
 Solution: Let P(n) be “n is positive” and Q(n) be “n2
is positive.” Then our hypothesis is Q(n).
 The statement “If n is positive, then n2 is positive” is
the statement n(P (n)  Q(n)).
 From the hypothesis Q(n) and the statement n(P(n)
 Q(n)) we cannot conclude P(n), because we are
not using a valid rule of inference.
 Instead, this is an example of the fallacy of affirming
the conclusion.
 A counterexample is supplied by n = −1 for which n2 =
1 is positive, but n is negative.
22 May 2017 63
 What is wrong with this “proof?”
“Theorem:” If n is not positive, then n2 is not positive.
“Proof:" Suppose that n is not positive. Because the
conditional statement “If n is positive, then n2 is positive”
is true, we can conclude that n2 is not positive.
 Solution: Let P(n) be “n is positive” and Q(n) be “n2 is
positive.” Then our hypothesis is ¬P(n) and the statement
“If n is positive, then n2 is positive” is the statement n(P
(n)  Q(n)).
 From the hypothesis ¬P(n) and the statement n(P (n) 
Q(n)) we cannot conclude ¬Q(n), because we are not using
a valid rule of inference.
 Instead, this is an example of the fallacy of denying the
hypothesis. A counterexample is supplied by n = −1, as in
previous example.
22 May 2017 64
 Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical
proof typically used to establish a given statement
for all natural numbers.
 It is a form of direct proof, and it is done in two
steps.
 The first step, known as the basis step, is to prove
the given statement holds for the first natural
number i.e. 1.
 The second step, known as the inductive step, is to
prove that if the given statement holds for any one
natural number then the given statement must also
hold for the next natural number.
 From these two steps, mathematical induction is the
rule from which we infer that the given statement is
established for all natural numbers.
22 May 2017 65
 To prove that P(n) is true for all positive
integers n, where P(n) is a propositional
function, we complete two steps:
 BASIS STEP: We verify that P(1) is true.
 INDUCTIVE STEP: We show that the
conditional statement P(k) $ P(k + 1) is
true for all positive integers k.

22 May 2017 66
 Show that if n is a positive integer, then
1 + 2 + ··· + n =n(n + 1)/2.
 Solution: Let P(n) be the proposition that the
sum of the first n positive integers, 1 + 2 + ·· · n
= n(n+1)/2 , is n(n + 1)/2.
 We must do two things to prove that P(n) is true
for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . . Namely, we must show that
P(1) is true and that the conditional statement
P(k) implies P(k + 1) is true for k = 1, 2, 3, . . . .
 BASIS STEP: P(1) is true, because 1 =1(1 + 1)/2
 INDUCTIVE STEP: For the inductive hypothesis
we assume that P(k) holds for an arbitrary
positive integer k. That is, we assume that
1 + 2 + ··· + k =k(k + 1)/2.
22 May 2017 67
 Under this assumption, it must be shown that P(k + 1) is
true, namely, that
1 + 2 + ··· + k + (k + 1) = (k + 1)[(k + 1) + 1]/2
=(k + 1)(k + 2)/2
is also true.
When we add k + 1 to both sides of the equation in P(k),
we obtain
1 + 2 + ··· + k + (k + 1) = k(k + 1)/2 + (k + 1)
=[k(k + 1) + 2(k + 1)]/2
=(k + 1)(k + 2)/2.
 This last equation shows that P(k + 1) is true under the
assumption that P(k) is true. This completes the
inductive step.
 We have completed the basis step and the inductive
step, so by mathematical induction we know that P(n) is
true for all positive integers n.
 That is, we have proven that 1 + 2 + ··· + n = n(n + 1)/2
for all positive integers n.
22 May 2017 68
 Conjecture a formula for the sum of the first n positive odd integers. Then
prove your conjecture using mathematical induction.
 Solution: The sums of the first n positive odd integers for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
are
1 = 1, 1 + 3 = 4, 1 + 3 + 5 = 9, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25.
 From these values it is reasonable to conjecture that the sum of the first n
positive odd integers is n2, that is, 1 + 3 + 5 + ··· + (2n − 1) = n2. We need a
method to prove that this conjecture is correct, if in fact it is.
 Let P(n) denote the proposition that the sum of the first n odd positive
integers is n2. Our conjecture is that P(n) is true for all positive integers.
 BASIS STEP: P(1) states that the sum of the first one odd positive integer is
12. This is true because the sum of the first odd positive integer is 1. The
basis step is complete.
 INDUCTIVE STEP: To complete the inductive step we must show that the
proposition P(k)  P(k + 1) is true for every positive integer k. To do this,
we first assume the inductive hypothesis. The inductive hypothesis is the
statement that P(k) is true for an arbitrary positive integer k, that is,
1 + 3 + 5 + ··· + (2k − 1) = k2.
Note that P(k + 1) is the statement that
22 May 2017 69
 1 + 3 + 5 + ··· + (2k − 1) + (2k + 1) = (k + 1)2.
So, assuming that P(k) is true, it follows that
1 + 3 + 5 + ··· + (2k − 1) + (2k + 1) = [1 + 3 + ··· + (2k − 1)]
+ (2k + 1)
= k2 + (2k + 1)
= k2 + 2k + 1
= (k + 1)2.
This shows that P(k + 1) follows from P(k).
 We have now completed both the basis step and the inductive
step. That is, we have shown that P(1) is true and the conditional
statement P(k)  P(k + 1) is true for all positive integers k.
 Consequently, by the principle of mathematical induction we can
conclude that P(n) is true for all positive integers n.
 That is, we know that 1 + 3 + 5 + ··· + (2n − 1) = n2 for all positive
integers n.
22 May 2017 70
 Use mathematical induction to show that 20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2n = 2n+1 − 1 for all
nonnegative integers n.
 Solution: Let P(n) be the proposition that 20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2n = 2n+1 − 1 for the
integer n.
 BASIS STEP: P(0) is true because 20 = 1 = 21 − 1. This completes the basis step.
 INDUCTIVE STEP: For the inductive hypothesis, we assume that P(k) is true for an
arbitrary nonnegative integer k. That is, we assume that
20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2k = 2k+1 − 1.
 To carry out the inductive step using this assumption, we must show that when we
assume that P(k) is true, then P(k + 1) is also true. That is, we must show that
20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2k + 2k+1 = 2k+1 +1 − 1 = 2k+2 − 1
assuming the inductive hypothesis P(k).
 Under the assumption of P(k), we see that
20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2k + 2k+1 = (20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2k )+ 2k+1
= (2k+1 − 1) + 2k+1
= 2 · 2k+1 − 1
= 2k+2 − 1.
 We have completed the inductive step. Because we have completed the basis step
and the inductive step, by mathematical induction we know that P(n) is true for all
nonnegative integers n. That is, 20 + 21 + 22 + ··· + 2n = 2n+1 − 1 for all nonnegative
integers n.

22 May 2017 71
 Use mathematical induction to prove the
inequality n < 2n for all positive integers n.
 Solution: Let P(n) be the proposition that n < 2n.
 BASIS STEP: P(1) is true, because 1 < 21 = 2. This
completes the basis step.
 INDUCTIVE STEP: We first assume the inductive
hypothesis that P(k) is true for an arbitrary
positive integer k. That is, the inductive
hypothesis P(k) is the statement that k < 2k.
 To complete the inductive step, we need to show
that if P(k) is true, then P(k + 1), which is the
statement that k + 1 < 2k+1, is true. That is, we
need to show that if k < 2k, then k + 1 < 2k+1.

22 May 2017 72
 that this conditional statement is true for
the positive integer k, we first add 1 to both
sides of k < 2k, and then note that 1  2k.
 This tells us that
k + 1 < 2k +1  2k + 2k = 2 · 2k = 2k+1.
 This shows that P(k + 1) is true, namely, that
k + 1 < 2k+1, based on the assumption that
P(k) is true. The induction step is complete.
 Therefore, because we have completed both
the basis step and the inductive step, by the
principle of mathematical induction we have
shown that n < 2n is true for all positive
integers n.

22 May 2017 73
 When we cannot easily prove a result using mathematical
induction then we use strong mathematical induction.
 It is also known as second principal of mathematical induction or
complete induction.
 The basis step of a proof by strong induction is the same as a proof
of the same result using mathematical induction. That is, in a
strong induction proof that P(n) is true for all positive integers n,
the basis step shows that P(1) is true.
 However, the inductive steps in these two proof methods are
different.
 In a proof by mathematical induction, the inductive step shows
that if the inductive hypothesis P(k) is true, then P(k + 1) is also
true.
 In a proof by strong induction, the inductive step shows that if P(j)
is true for all positive integers not exceeding k, then P(k + 1) is
true. That is, for the inductive hypothesis we assume that P(j ) is
true for j = 1, 2, . . . , k.
22 May 2017 74
 To prove that P(n) is true for all
positive integers n, where P(n) is a
propositional function, we complete
two steps:
 BASIS STEP: We verify that the
proposition P(1) is true.
 INDUCTIVE STEP: We show that the
conditional statement [P(1)  P(2) 
· · ·  P(k)]P(k + 1) is true for all
positive integers k.
22 May 2017 75