1 Methods of Proof

Michael P. Allocca

“A proof tells us where to concentrate our doubts.” - Morris Kline

Formal proof is a concept that takes on new meaning when one achieves a
higher level of mathematical sophistication. It is the cornerstone of all branches
of mathematics and the standard by which we accept new ideas. It is not un-
common for students in precollegiate math classes to understand mathematical
proof to be a string of simple algebraic justifications. For example, you may be
quite familiar with arguments such as the following:

x3 − 8 = 0
so x3 = 8
√3
so x = 8
so x = 2

While this type of algebraic argument is computationally sound, it is hardly

illustrative of what mathematical proof really is. We will instead consider more
broadly the task of establishing the truth value of propositions, which you may
recall is a mathematically precise statement that is either true or false, but not
both, like the following.
Example 1 The square of any even integer is also an even integer.

Take some time to ponder this. Do you believe it is true? It is entirely

reasonable that you may be doing some mental calculations such as these:

02 = 0, which is even.
22 = 4, which is even.
42 = 16, which is even.
62 = 36, which is even.
(−2)2 = 4, which is even.

It certainly seems like this proposition is true, according to these examples.

How can we be sure, though? In earlier math classes, you may have accepted
this type of “proof by examples” as sufficient justification, but how can we be
sure that there is not some even number, hundreds of digits long, whose square
is not even? A proof of this proposition should convince us that it is true for
all even integers.
At this point, it might feel as though we are metaphorically using a bulldozer
to pick up a pencil. The above proposition may appear to be obviously true,
however there is no such thing as a proof by “it just has to be.” To further
illustrate the need for formal mathematical proof, consider the following (rather
famous) proposition.

Example 2 n2 − 3n + 43 is prime for all positive integers, n.

1
 You may recall that a positive integer (also called a natural number) is
prime if its only divisors are 1 and itself (otherwise, it is called composite). You
might also read this proposition with justifiable skepticism. Adopting a similar
strategy as before, consider a few quick computations:

(1)2 − 3(1) + 43 = 41, which is prime.

(2)2 − 3(2) + 43 = 41, which is prime.
(3)2 − 3(3) + 43 = 43, which is prime.
(4)2 − 3(4) + 43 = 47, which is prime.
(5)2 − 3(5) + 43 = 53, which is prime.
(6)2 − 3(6) + 43 = 61, which is prime.
(7)2 − 3(7) + 43 = 71, which is prime.
(8)2 − 3(8) + 43 = 83, which is prime.
(9)2 − 3(9) + 43 = 97, which is prime.
(10)2 − 3(10) + 43 = 113, which is prime.

This may be surprising at first, and it is reasonable to now think that the
proposition may actually be true. In fact, if you compute n2 − 3n + 43 replacing
n with the next thirty positive integers, you will end up with thirty more
prime numbers! This appears to be overwhelming evidence that the proposition
is true. However, if you continued to test examples, you would find a surprising
outcome when n = 42:

(42)2 − 3(42) + 43 = 1681 = 412 , which is NOT prime.

This example highlights the pitfalls of attempting to “prove” that something

is true for infinitely many variable values by simply illustrating examples. More
significantly, it advertises the need for carefully-constructed methods of proof
that leverage the formal logic established in earlier chapters.

1.1 Groundwork
One of the major challenges in understanding how a formal system of proof-
writing works is establishing a starting point based on reasonable assumptions.
We will define a proof that depends on this starting point as follows.

Definition 1 A statement that we accept as given is called an axiom. A proof

is a justification derived from axioms. A theorem is a proposition that is true
when the relevant axioms are true.

In other words, axioms are claims that we are unable to formally prove, but
we may communally accept as an evident “fact” and use them to justify further
claims. Loosely speaking, we take an “axiomatic approach” to proof-writing in
the sense that a core set of facts are accepted to be true, and they form building
blocks to proving theorems. A rather famous execution of this paradigm exists
in the study of Euclidean geometry, which has logical roots that trace back to
five axioms (or “postulates”):

2
 1. A straight line can be drawn to join any two points.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended continuously in a straight line.

3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be constructed using one
endpoint as its center and the segment itself as the radius.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Given any straight line and a point not on it, there is only one
straight line that passes through the point and never intersects
the line.
Every one of these axioms may be considered to be very reasonable, if not
a bit “obvious.” However, you will not be able to prove any of them using only
the other four. The boldfaced axiom is more commonly known as the “parallel
postulate,” which has an equivalent assertion that two parallel lines will never
intersect. For thousands of years, attempts were made to prove the parallel
postulate based on the other four, to no avail. The entire system of geometry
that you likely experienced in high school is based on the assumption that all
five of these are true. Yet, in reality, and in the context of contemporary work
such as Einstein’s special relativity, it was discovered that the parallel postulate
is, in fact, not always true. This creates an important logical distinction. If
you remove the parallel postulate from your system of axioms, an entirely new
system of “Non-Euclidean geometry” is formed with surprising consequences.
For example, in Non-Euclidean geometry, the sum of all angles in a triangle
need not be 180 degrees!
As we move forward in our study of proof methods, for our purposes we will
assume that a set of relevant axioms has been established and all subsequent
results can eventually be derived from these assumptions.
We now establish four main rules of proof writing. First, you may recall a
powerful form of logical deduction from an earlier chapter:

Modus Ponens

p ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ q

From a proof-writing perspective, this means if we know that if ‘p’ and

‘p ⇒ q’ are axioms (or even proved theorems), then ‘q’ must be true.

Example 3 Consider the following propositions:

p : You have a ticket

q : You can go to the concert

In a formal proof, you may state the following:

Suppose you have a ticket (p)
Also suppose that if you have a ticket, then you can go to the concert (q).
Therefore you can go to the concert (by Modus Ponens).

3
 You will leverage Modus Ponens quite often as the primary form of deduc-
tive reasoning in a proof, and it will take on multiple forms, such as formal
conversation with your reader or algebraic logic.
The next rule is very reasonable, but worth singling out since it is commonly
invoked in any formal proof.

Given Rule
You can state assumptions, axioms, proved theorems, or established facts
at any time.

The next rule will be important when using different techniques later in this
chapter.

Replacement Rule

You can replace a statement at any time with any of its logical equiva-
lencies.

Example 4 It is not true that John or Jane will inherit the money. So neither
John, nor Jane will inherit the money.

From a conversational perspective, this is an example of a reasonable clari-

fication that one would make in order to avoid ambiguities in the English lan-
guage. However, in the context of formal justifications in a proof, this is a great
example of how one uses the replacement rule. Specifically, the underlying logic
in this example uses DeMorgan’s Law for a replacement as follows:

¬(p ∨ q)
so ¬p ∧ ¬q

The last rule is a bit unassuming, but powerful.

Tautology Rule

You can state a tautology at any time in a proof.

As a new proof writer, you might want to be careful in how you execute
the Tautology Rule. While precision is valuable in a proof, so is concision.
Tautologies should be relevant and advance your argument with a specific goal
in mind.
Example 5

n∈N
so n is odd or n is even

4
 In this example, your reader knows that n is a natural number. In the
universe of natural numbers, n’s “parity” can only be even or odd, never both.
So the second statement follows the logical form p ∨ ¬p, which is a tautology.
This is a common strategy in proof writing, which usually leads to arguing
different cases. In this example, the writer would likely list “Case 1: n is odd”
with appropriate justifications afterwards, followed by “Case 2: n is even” in
their proof.
With these rules of proof-writing established, we move on to examining the
major methods of proof.

1.2 Direct Proofs

Theorems are often stated as conditionals. You may recall the truth table for
the logical conditional as follows.
p q p⇒q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
A conditional statement is only false when the antecedent, p, is true, and the
consequent, q, is false. So in order to establish that the conditional statement
is true, it suffices to assume that p is true and then show that q can not be
false. This leads to a well-defined proof strategy.

Direct Proof of p ⇒ q

Assume p is true.
···
Conclude q is true.
Therefore, p ⇒ q is true.

Before we work through an example, it is worth recalling a basic definition

that will be used in common parity arguments.

Definition 2 An integer a is said to be even if it can be written as in the form

a = 2k, for some integer k. Otherwise it is said to be odd. That is, an odd
integer b can be written in the form b = 2l + 1, for some integer l.

Example 6 Prove that if a is an even integer, then a2 is even.

In order to construct a direct proof of this claim, we would have to assume

the antecedent is true, then leverage our well-defined rules of proof writing to
construct an argument that the consequent must be true. Let’s try it.

5
 Proof:

Assume that a is an even integer. (1)

Then a = 2k for some integer, k. (2)
2 2 2 2
So a = (2k) = 4k = 2(2k ). (3)
2 2
Since 2k is an integer, it follows that a is an even integer. (4)

A few comments are in order. Line (1) illustrates the standard way to begin
a direct proof, as we assumed that the antecedent is true. Line (2) illustrates the
replacement rule in effect. However, this was not a replacement of line (1) with a
sophisticated logical equivalency, but rather a simple one - the formal definition
of an even integer. This is an important part of proof-writing and illustrative of
a successful strategy in “definition-chasing.” The same can be said for line (3),
as steps in an algebraic argument are logical replacements of the expressions in
preceding steps. Finally, line (4) can be seen as another replacement (using the
definition of “even”), or also a type of execution of Modus Ponens to establish
the truth of the claim’s consequent. Specifically, the underlying logic of line (4)
is as follows:

a2 is an integer multiple of 2, and if a2 is an integer multiple of 2, then it is even.

Therefore a2 is even.

As a writer of mathematics, you do not have to be so formal as to cite which

rules of proof-writing you are using. They will guide your conversation with
your reader, but your specific prose can be as unique as your own fingerprint.
Since the claim in example 6 has been proven, we can now call this a theorem.
It is also worth noting that proof writers generally choose a mark to indicate
to their reader that their proof has ended. In this chapter, we will use the
symbol  for this, however it is also common to use , or //. Perhaps the
most famous proof-ender is the acronym ‘QED,’ which stands for “Quod Erat
Demonstrandum” and is loosely translated (from Latin) as “that which was to
be demonstrated.” As you expand your skills as a writer of mathematics, it is
also important to embrace your own style.
When first learning how to write proofs, try to avoid improperly combining
symbols and english phrases. As an example, consider a “bad version” of the
proof of Example 6.

Proof:

a = even = 2k
a2 = 4k2 = even

While this may resemble your scrap work when strategizing how to prove
the claim, it is an example of very poor proof prose. In deciphering the first

6
line, your reader will be saying “a equals even,” which has no mathematical
meaning. Further, the variable k is introduced without telling the reader what
it represents. The second line has similar issues, and even further glosses over
an important detail of explaining why 4k2 has to be an even number. An
even number must be written as a multiple of 2, which has not fully been
demonstrated by writing a2 as 4k2 .
Let’s try another direct proof.
Example 7 Show that if a + b is even and b + c is even, then a + c is even.

This is another conditional statement, and it is of the logical form (p ∧ q) ⇒

r. Our strategy for direct proof remains the same.

Proof: Suppose a + b is even and b + c is even. Then a + b = 2k and

b + c = 2l for some integers, k and l. So a = 2k − b and c = 2l − b.

Therefore, a + c = (2k − b) + (2l − b)

= 2k + 2l − 2b
= 2(k + l − y)

Hence, a + c is even, since k + l − y is an integer. 

A few comments are in order. Take note that we again use the replacement
rule by simply reciting definitions. This is usually the best place to start if you
are unsure of how to begin a proof. Ask yourself questions like “What does it
mean if this number is even?” Also, after you suppose the antecedent is true
and establish any information relevant to it, you should feel free to “stick your
head above the water” and remind yourself (and your reader) what your goal
is. For example, after the second sentence in this proof, we could have written
“We aim to show that a + c = 2m for some integer, m” with no ill effects on
the proof’s validity or style.
Finally, an effective writing style often entails rotating words that connect
each line of logical reasoning. A proof that reads “So.. then.. therefore.. hence..
thus.. ” is far more legible than one that overuses the same words, like “then..
then.. then.. then.. then.. ”.
It is also worth noting that the underlying logic ((p ∧ q) ⇒ r) in the claim in
Example 7 is also equivalent to p ⇒ (q ⇒ r), we could have followed the direct
proof method for this pair of conditionals and arrived at a similar argument.
Specifically, in the former, we would start off by supposing p and q. In the latter,
we would first suppose p, then we would suppose q. This would essentially lead
to the same proof.
Let’s work through some more examples of direct proofs.
Example 8 Suppose a and b are integers. Prove that a − b is an odd integer
if one of a and b is even and the other one is odd.

You should note that the antecedent here is not stated first, but it is still
attached to the word ‘If.’ Thus, the claim in Example 8 is worded “r, if p and
q, and the underlying logic is again of the form (p ∧ q) ⇒ r.

Proof: Assume that a is an even integer and b is an odd integer. Then

for some k1 , k2 ∈ Z, a = 2k1 and b = 2k2 + 1. Thus,

7
 a − b = 2k1 − (2k2 + 1)
= 2k1 − 2k2 − 1
= 2k1 − 2k2 − 1 + 2 − 2
= 2(k1 − k2 − 1) + 1

The last statement shows that a − b is odd, as a − b = 2(k1 − k2 − 1) + 1,

where k1 − k2 − 1 is an integer. A similar argument follows when a is odd and
b is even. In either case, a − b is odd as needed. 

You might note that the preceding proof began in a surprising way. To
satisfy the assumption that one of the two integers is even, we simply supposed
a was the even one and b was the odd one. It’s important to circle back and
address the situation in which a is the odd one and b is the even one. Since
the justifications are the same in this case, only with different variables, your
reader does not need to see it duplicated. In situations like this, we sometimes
simply write “Without loss of generality, assume a is even and b is odd.” This
communicates to your reader that you are maintaining concision with your proof
while acknowledging that an identical argument can cover the second case.

Example 9 Prove that if a is an even integer and b is an odd integer then ab

is an even integer.

Proof: Suppose that a is an even integer and b is an odd integer. Then,

by definition, a = 2k1 and b = 2k2 + 1 for some integers k1 , k2 . Then

ab = (2k1 )(2k2 + 1)
= 4k1 k2 + 2k1
= 2(2k1 k2 + k1 )

We have shown that ab is even since it has the form 2s + 1, where s =

2k1 k2 + k1 ∈ Z. 

Example 10 Show that if a is an odd integer, then a2 is also an odd integer.

Proof: Assume that a is an odd integer. Then a = 2k + 1 for some integer

k. We will use this fact to prove that a2 is odd. We have

a2 = (2k + 1)2
= (2k + 1)(2k + 1)
= 4k2 + 2k + 2k + 1
= 4k2 + 4k + 1
= 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1

Hence a2 is odd, since it has the form 2s + 1, where s = 2k2 + 2k, which is
an integer since k ∈ Z. 

8
 Just as parity arguments are common in proofs, divisibility is an invaluable
definition to a proof writer.

Definition 3 Let a and b be integers, with a 6= 0. We say a divides b (written

a|b) if b = ak for some integer, k.

It is worth noting that this definition does not change if a and b, and k are
natural numbers.
The following example is considered to be a “Lemma” to many other proofs.
That is, it is a theorem that is usually proven separately and used axiomatically
in a larger proof.
Example 11 Prove that if a|b and b|c, then a|c.

Note that the claim did not establish a certain universe, but the context
(using the definition of “divides”) makes it clear that a, b and c should not
be assumed to be real numbers, or complex numbers. Since there is still an
ambiguity regarding whether they should be natural numbers or integers, we
will proceed by proving the result for integers, which is a more general (and
stronger) result.

Proof: Suppose a|b and b|c. Then b = ak and c = bl for some integers
k and l. So c = (ak)l = a(kl). Since kl ∈ Z, a|c. 

Exercises for Section 1.2

A Exercises
Exercise 1 Prove the following claims directly.
1. The sum of two even integers is even.
2. The sum of two odd integers is even.

3. The sum of an even integer and an odd integer is odd.

4. If a|b and a|c then a|b + c, where a, b, c ∈ Z.
5. If a|b and a|c then a|bx + cy, where a, b, c, x, y ∈ Z.

B Exercises
Exercise 2 Prove directly that if gcd(a, 65) = 1 then a12 ≡ x(mod65).

Exercise 3 Prove that if an − 1 is prime then a = 2 and n is prime.

C Exercises
Exercise 4 Prove directly that the polynomial x2 + 1 does not have a root in R.

9
1.3 A Note on Quantifiers
One of the most important skills to develop in reading and writing proofs is
the ability to ascertain unspecified context in some statements. Quantifiers, in
particular, are often hiding in plain sight, even when phrases such as “for all”
and “there exists” are absent. You may recall from a previous chapter that we
typically work with three quantifiers for predicates:
∀x − for all (Universal quantifier) x
∃x − there exists (Existential quantifier) x
∃!x − there exists a unique x

To illustrate how quantifiers are often hidden in theorem statements, let us

revisit Example 6:
If a is an even integer, then a2 is even.
Note how the statement places no restrictions on what a is, other than it
has to be even. Without any restrictions, we can reasonably conclude that the
claim is being made for any even integer. We may then rephrase the claim as
follows.
∀a ∈ Z, If a is an even integer, then a2 is even.
In order to argue that a universally quantified statement is true, it must be
true for every element in its universe. Strategically, we may accomplish this by
choosing an arbitrary element in this universe, U with no restrictions.

Proof of (∀x) p(x)

Let x ∈ U be arbitrary. Now show p(x) is true.

We now formally establish Examples 6, 7, and 11 as quantified claims and

re-prove them accordingly.
Theorem 1 ∀a ∈ Z, If a is an even integer, then a2 is even.
Proof: Let a ∈ Z be arbitrary. Suppose a is even. Then a = 2k for some
integer, k. So a2 = (2k)2 = 4k2 = 2(2k2 ), which is an even integer since 2k2 is
an integer. Since a was arbitrary, it follows that if a is an even integer, then a2
is even. 

Theorem 2 ∀a, b, c ∈ Z, If a + b is even and b + c is even, then a + c is even.

Proof: Let a, b, and c be arbitrary integers. Suppose a + b is even and
b + c is even. Then a + b = 2k and b + c = 2l for some integers, k and l. So
a = 2k − b and c = 2l − b.
Therefore, a + c = (2k − b) + (2l − b)
= 2k + 2l − 2b
= 2(k + l − y)

10
Hence, a+c is even, since k+l−y is an integer. Since a, b, and c were arbitrary,
it follows that if a + b is even and b + c is even, then a + c is even. 

Theorem 3 ∀a, b, c ∈ Z, if a|b and b|c, then a|c.

Proof: Let a, b, c ∈ Z. Suppose a|b and b|c. Then b = ak and c = bl

for some integers k and l. So c = (ak)l = a(kl). Since kl ∈ Z, a|c. Since a, b,
and c were arbitrary, it follows that if a|b and b|c, then a|c. 

From a style perspective, it is not always necessary to restate the theorem’s

claim at the end of the proof, as illustrated above. You may choose to do this
at the end of a longer proof, where you feel it is necessary to remind your reader
that you have chosen arbitrary values, thus satisfying the requirements of a
universally quantified claim. Further, take note of the first statement in each
of these proofs. There are multiple ways to express that arbitrary values have
been chosen. You will find many phrases like this that fit your own unique style
of writing.
Just as universally quantified statements require a specific rule for proof, so
do existentially quantified statements. You may recall that when a statement
features the phrase “there exists” (or anything analogous to it), it means that
there is at least one element that makes the statement true. This lends itself to
a simple proof strategy for statements with existential quantifiers.

Proof of (∃x) p(x)

Argue for the existence of a specific x. Now show p(x) is true.

Proofs of this nature are often called “constructive proofs” in the sense that
you are constructing a particular x that makes p true. In practice this is usually
accomplished by choosing a particular value for x from the universe in which
you are working, but sometimes it suffices to just argue that one exists, even if
you haven’t chosen its value. This is illustrated by two separate proofs of the
following claim.
Example 12 There is a real root of f(x) = x2 − 1 between x = 0 and x = 2.

Note that the phrase “there is” tells us to read this claim as “∃ x ∈ (0, 2) 3
f(x) = 0,” where the symbol 3 is shorthand for “such that.” The context of the
claim also implies that we are working over the universe of real numbers, R.
Proof: Let f(x) = x2 − 1. Now let x = 1. f(1) = 12 − 1 = 0, so
∃ x ∈ (0, 2) 3 f(x) = 0. 

Proof: Let f(x) = x2 − 1. Note that f(0) = −1 < 0, and f(2) = 3 > 0.
Hence, by the intermediate value theorem, since f is a continuous function on
(0, 2), ∃ x ∈ (0, 2) 3 f(x) = 0. 

The first proof shows existence by example, illustrating the only acceptable
type of “proof by example” that is logically sound (note that our earlier attempts

11
to “prove by example” were erroneously attempted on universally quantified
claims). The second proof leverages a well-known theorem in Calculus; It shows
existence without illustrating a specific example. This is sometimes necessary
in more advanced proofs, but generally if you can construct a specific example,
then you might make a more clear argument to your reader.
Finally, the third quantifier, ∃!, establishes a truth set with only one element.
To prove a statement with this type of quantifier, we may extend our strategy
for proving existentially quantified statements by adding an extra condition:
uniqueness.

Proof of (∃!x) p(x)

1. Prove that ∃ x 3 p(x) is true (existence)

2. Prove that ∀ y, z, if p(y) and p(z) are true, then y = z (uniqueness)

Note that the uniqueness condition is established by effectively arguing that

any “distinct candidates” that you can produce that make the statement true
end up having to be equal.
Example 13 Every real number has a unique additive inverse.

If we parse this claim, we will find that there are actually two quantifiers.
Logically, it reads
∀x ∈ R, ∃! y ∈ R 3 x + y = 0
We may address proofs with multiple quantifiers by adhering to our rules,
addressing them in order of left to right. The first quantifier is universal, so
we must choose an arbitrary value. Then, based on this arbitrarily chosen
value, x, we must show there exists a unique y that satisfies the claim.

Proof: Let x ∈ R.
(Existence) Let y = −x. Then x + y = x + (−x) = 0, which is the additive
identity. Therefore, x has an additive inverse.
(Uniqueness) Suppose y and z are additive inverses of x. Then x + y = 0 and
x + z = 0. So x + y = x + z, which implies that (x + y) − (x + z) = 0. Thus,
y − z = 0, which means that y = z. 

Note that x was selected to be arbitrary at the beginning of this proof. It

is “available” for use at any part of the proof. Also note that in the uniqueness
portion of this proof, y was “reset” in the sense that it was no longer the same
y that was chosen in the existence part of this proof. In order to avoid potential
confusion to your reader, feel free to select different variables.
With the ability to handle (potentially hidden) quantifiers, we continue our
examination of various proof strategies.

12
Exercises for Section 1.3
A Exercises
Exercise 5 Rewrite Examples 8, 9, and 10 as claims with quantifiers and re-
prove them.

B Exercises
Exercise 6 Prove that for every positive real number, there exists another pos-
itive real number less than it.

Exercise 7 Prove that, in the universe of differentiable functions, there exists

a function, f(x), whose first derivative is x3 + 2.

C Exercises
Exercise 8 Prove that, in the universe of differentiable functions, there exists
a unique function, f(x), whose first derivative is x3 + 2 and has the property
that f(0) = 3.

1.4 Proofs by Contrapositive

Since many claims take the form of conditionals, it makes sense to explore
multiple ways to establish a conditional’s truth value. Fortunately, we may
rely on our understanding of the contrapositive of an ‘if..then’ statement as
an alternative proof method. Specifically, p ⇒ q and ¬q ⇒ ¬p are logically
equivalent, so it suffices to prove a conditional’s contraposition in lieu of the
conditional itself.

Proof of p ⇒ q by Contrapositive

Assume ¬q is true.
···
Conclude ¬p is true.
Hence, ¬q ⇒ ¬p is true.
Therefore p ⇒ q is true.

Functionally, this type of proof is a proof of a conditional’s contrapositive

via the direct proof method.
Example 14 Prove that if a2 is an even integer, then a is even.

Again we see a claim with an invisible quantifier and an implied universe.

We can really view this claim as:

∀a ∈ Z, If a2 is even, then a is even.

We naturally would begin our proof by selecting a to be an arbitrary integer,

satisfying the requirement established by the universal quantifier. Proving the
conditional part of the claim directly is surprisingly troublesome. Consider the
following direct “proof” attempt.

13
 Proof:
√ Let a ∈ Z. Suppose a2 is even. Then a2 = 2k for some k ∈ Z. So
a= 2k, which should be even. 

Can you spot anything wrong with this proof?

Most people who are used to a high degree of mathematical

√ precision would
be uncomfortable with the phrase “should be even.” Is 2k always even? This
proof amounts to a proof by “it just has to be.”
The more insidious flaw √ in this√ proof
√ is actually√related to the universe
of disclosure,
√ which is Z. 2k = 2 k, and while k may very well be an
integer, 2 most certainly is not. In the universe of integers, we cannot make
an argument using a number that is not an element of the universe. The author
of this proof would have effectively been “breaking the fourth wall” in order to
make an argument. This is a significant lesson in proof-writing - stay in-bounds!
This argument also applies to using fractions in the universe of integers with
a notable exception: dividing a numerator by 2 that is guaranteed to be even.
However, many would still consider that to be poor form if it is avoidable.
Example 14 illustrates why a proof by contrapositive is sometimes not only
easier, but necessary, as illustrated by a correct proof below.

Proof: Let a ∈ Z. Suppose a is odd. Then a = 2k + 1 for some k ∈ Z.

So

a2 = (2k + 1)2
= 4k4 + 4k + 1
= 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1

Since 2(2k2 + 2k) ∈ Z, it follows that a2 is odd. Thus, by contraposition, if a2

is even, then a is even. 

Example 15 Let a, b ∈ Z. Prove that if 7 - ab then 7 - a and 7 - b.

This claim has the logical form ¬p ⇒ (¬q ∧ ¬r). With so many negations
in this conditional, it seems natural to instead prove its contrapositive, ¬(¬q ∧
¬r) ⇒ ¬¬p, or equivalently, (q ∨ r) ⇒ p.

Proof: Let a, b ∈ Z. To prove the claim by contraposition, we aim to

show that if 7 | a or 7 | b then 7 | ab. Suppose 7 | a or 7 | b. We may then
proceed by cases.

Case 1: Assume 7 | a. Then a = 7s, for some integer s. Then

ab = (7s)b
= 7sb
= 7(sb)

From the last line, we conclude that 7 | ab, since sb ∈ Z.

14
Case 2: Assume 7 | b. Then b = 7t, for some integer t. then

ab = a(7t)
= 7at
= 7(at)

From the last line, we conclude that 7 | ab, since at ∈ Z.

In either case, we have shown that 7 | ab. Therefore, by contraposition, if

7 - ab then 7 - a and 7 - b. 

You may have noticed that in this proof, we assume (q ∨ r) is true, yet we
only explored two cases. You may recall that in order for (q ∨ r) to be true, q
must be true (case 1), r must be true (case 2), or both q AND r must be true.
We did not, however, need to explore this third case, because the arguments
presented in case 1 and case 2 do not change based on whether 7 divides the
other integer.
By now you may realize that the contrapositive method really shines when
the negation of statements are simpler to work with. Other times, however, its
necessity can be quite subtle.
Example 16 Let a ∈ Z. Prove that if a2 + 2a − 3 is even then a is odd.

This seems like a straightforward direct proof. Let’s assume that a2 + 2a − 3

is even. Then a2 +2a−3 = 2k, for some integer k. We must show that a = 2l+1
for some integer l. However, it is not clear how to solve this quadratic equation
and isolate a. This would suggest that proving the contrapositive of the claim
might be easier.
Proof: Let a ∈ Z. Suppose a is even. Then a = 2k for some integer k.
Hence

a2 + 2a − 3 = (2k)2 + 2(2k) − 3
= 4k2 + 4k − 3
= 4k2 + 4k − 4 + 1
= 2(2k2 + 2k − 2) + 1

Since 2k2 + 2k − 2 ∈ Z, it follows that a2 + 2a − 3 is odd. Therefore, by

contraposition, if a2 + 2a − 3 is even then a is odd. 

Exercises for Section 1.4

A Exercises
Exercise 9 Prove Example 9 by contraposition.

Exercise 10 Prove the following by contraposition.

1. Let a ∈ Z. Prove that if 5a + 7 is odd, then a is even.

15
 2. Let a ∈ Z. Prove that if 5a + 1 is even, then a is odd.
3. Let a ∈ Z. Prove that if a2 + 3a + 7 is even then a is odd.
4. Let a ∈ Z. Prove that if a3 + 3a2 − 9 is odd then a is even.
B Exercises
Exercise 11 Let a, b ∈ Z. Prove that if a + b ≥ 21 then a ≥ 10 or b ≥ 10.
Exercise 12 Let x, y ∈ R. Prove that if y3 + yx2 ≥ x3 + xy2 then y ≥ x.

1.5 Biconditional Proofs

Our familiarity with proving conditional statements can be further extended
to biconditional statements. Specifically, recall that the biconditional sentence
p ⇔ q is logically equivalent to (p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ p). This suggests a sensible
proof strategy.

Proof of Proof of p ⇔ q

1. Prove p ⇒ q

2. Prove q ⇒ p

To prove a biconditional sentence, it then suffices to prove two conditional

sentences separately. This is a boon to the proof-writer, as they may use any
strategy deemed appropriate (e.g. contrapositive). For the novice proof-writer,
it is sometimes helpful to let your reader know which “direction” you are proving,
by explicitly stating so, or by using symbols such as [⇒] and [⇐].
Example 17 Show that for any integer, a, a is even ⇔ a2 is even.
Again we have a universally quantified claim, so we would begin any proof of
this claim by selecting an arbitrary integer, a. Further, this claim is a stronger
version of proofs we already constructed, so we can leverage them separately as
we break this proof down into two conditionals.

Proof: Let a ∈ Z.
[⇒] Suppose a is even. Then a = 2k for some integer, k. So a2 = (2k)2 =
4k2 = 2(2k2 ), which is an even integer since 2k2 is an integer. Since a was
arbitrary, it follows that if a is an even integer, then a2 is even.
[⇐] Suppose a is odd. Then a = 2k + 1 for some k ∈ Z. So a2 = (2k + 1)2 =
4k4 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1. Since 2(2k2 + 2k) ∈ Z, it follows that a2 is odd.
Thus, by contraposition, if a2 is even, then a is even. 

Note that we recycled both proofs of Example 6 and Example 14 to form

this biconditional proof.
Biconditional proofs can sometimes be simplified, depending on the similar-
ities of each conditional direction. That is, if each conditional “sub proof” is a
mirror image of the other, the proof-writer may condense the proof into a single
string of biconditional statements. To illustrate this, consider the following.

16
Example 18 Let a be an integer. Show that a is even ⇔ a + 1 is odd.

Proof: Let a ∈ Z.
[⇒] Suppose a is even. Then a = 2k, k ∈ Z. So a + 1 = 2k + 1. Since k ∈ Z,
a + 1 is odd.
[⇐] Suppose a + 1 is odd. Then a + 1 = 2k + 1, k ∈ Z. So a = 2k, by right
cancellation. Since k ∈ Z, a is even. 

Although this is a short proof, you may feel as though there’s some redun-
dancy in effect. If we examine the underlying logic, the proof really looks like
this:
Proof: Let a ∈ Z.

[⇒] a is even ⇒ a = 2k, k ∈ Z

⇒ a + 1 = 2k + 1, k ∈ Z
⇒ a is odd
[⇐] a is odd ⇒ a = 2k + 1, k ∈ Z
⇒ a = 2k, k ∈ Z
⇒ a is even

The second condition is, in fact, a reversal of the first. That really means
that each conditional could more simply be justified as a biconditional. Thus,
we may condense the proof as follows.
Proof: Let a ∈ Z.

a is even ⇔ a = 2k, k ∈ Z
⇔ a + 1 = 2k + 1, k ∈ Z
⇔ a is odd

Not all biconditional proofs can be argued with a single string of bicondi-
tionals, but when it is possible it is usually preferable as it adds much-valued
concision to a mathematical argument.

Exercises for Section 1.5

A Exercises
Exercise 13 Let a be an integer.
1. Prove that a is even ⇔ a3 is even.
2. Prove that a is odd ⇔ a3 is odd.

Exercise 14 Show that a positive integer, n, is even if, and only if, 4 | n2 .

17
1.6 Proofs by Contradiction
Regardless of mathematical background or familiarity with formal logic, many
people still rely on the efficacy of contradictions in every day reasoning and
informal arguments. For example, consider returning from a walk where you
were unexpectedly caught in the rain. Let’s suppose a friend of yours does
not believe that it is raining, noting that it was just sunny a few minutes ago.
You might ask this friend to suppose that it’s not raining outside. Then, your
clothes would be dry. This is an obvious “contradiction,” as the friend can
plainly see that your clothes are soaking wet. Therefore, your original claim
that it is raining outside must be true.
The underlying logic in this scenario reflects a powerful proof technique,
highlighted by inviting your audience to “suppose not.” Surprisingly, the rigor
of this proof method lies behind the logical equivalency of any statement, p, to
the statement (¬p) ⇒ (q ∧ ¬q), regardless of what q is. This can be verified by
truth table, as explored in an earlier chapter. More significantly, it means that
the proof of p can be accomplished by a direct proof of yet another conditional
statement!

Proof of p by Contradiction

Suppose not. Suppose that ¬p is true

···
Conclude q ∧ ¬q is true.
| {z }
contradiction
Therefore p is true.

Regardless of what q is, q ∧ ¬q is always false (a contradiction), so this

proof method means that if you can arrive at any contradiction as a result of
assuming your claim is false, then you have proven it must be true. In practice,
we usually contradict indisputable facts in mathematics (e.g. 2 is even, 5 > 0,
· · · ), or something directly established as a result of supposing p is false.
This is best illustrated by example.
Example 19 Show that there is no greatest even integer.

Proof: Suppose not. Suppose there is a greatest even integer, a. Then

a is greater than every other even integer. Now let b = a + 2. b is even since
a = 2k for some k ∈ Z, and a + 2 = 2k + 2 = 2(k + 1). But a + 2 > a, so
b is greater than a, which contradicts out assumption. Therefore there is no
greatest even integer. 

Note that in this proof, q turned out to be the statement “a is the greatest
even integer”, and we showed that, as a consequence of supposing the claim, p,
is false, a is the greatest even integer and a is NOT the greatest even integer
(q ∧ ¬q), which is a contradiction.
Proofs by contradiction can be quite intuitive when you know in your gut
that something is true and make it a habit of asking yourself “what are the
consequences of this statement NOT being true?” If those consequences are an
obvious contradiction, then you have formed a proof.

18
 Stylistically, many writers prefer to use the symbol ⇒⇐ to inform their
reader that they have arrived at a contradiction.
Now consider a rather famous proof by contradiction, dating back to ancient
Greek times when it was believed that all numbers were rational. That is, a
rational number must be expressed as the ratio of one integer to another, a b.
√
Theorem 4 2 is an irrational number.
√ √
Proof: Suppose not. Suppose 2 is rational. Then 2 = a b for some
a2
a, b ∈ Z, b 6= 0 and a, b have no common factors. So 2 = b2 , therefore 2b2 = a2 .
Hence a2 is even. So, by Example 14, a is even. So there exists k ∈ Z such that
a = 2k. Hence

2b2 = a2
= (2k)2
= 4k2

Hence, b2 = 2k2 , which shows that b2 is even. By Example 14, b is even. But
√ even, 2 is a common factor of a and b ⇒⇐.
since a is also
Therefore, 2 is irrational. 

Contradiction is a powerful proof technique that is not limited to proving

single propositions, p. It can be used to prove a claim involving any of the
logical constructs with which we are familiar, provided we properly negate it.
For example, as we have seen in this chapter, many mathematical claims take
the form of the conditional, p ⇒ q. In proving p ⇒ q by contradiction, you may
simply start by supposing ¬(p ⇒ q), which we know to be logically equivalent
to p ∧ ¬q! Consider the following as an illustrative example.

Example 20 Prove that if a is an integer, then a cannot be both even and odd.

There are multiple ways to parse out the logic of this claim, but at its core
it is a simple conditional statement. To use contradiction, we would suppose
that the implication is NOT true, so we suppose the antecedent and NOT the
consequent.
Proof: Suppose not. Suppose a is an integer and a is both even and odd.
Then a = 2k and a = 2l + 1 for some integers, k and l. So 2k = 2l + 1. Thus,
2k − 2l = 1, which means 2(k − l) = 1. Since k − l ∈ Z, it follows that 1 is even,
which is a contradiction. Hence, If a is an integer, then a cannot be both even
and odd. 

√
Example 21 Let x ∈ R. Prove that if x2 < 5 then |x| < 5.
√ √
√ Suppose not. Suppose x < 5 and |x| ≥ 5. Then either x ≥ 5
2
Proof:
or x ≤ − √ 5. √
If x ≥ 5, then x2 ≥ 5. If x ≤ − 5 then x2 ≥ 5. In either √ case we have
x2 ≥ 5 which contradicts our assumption that x2 < 5. Thus |x| < 5. 

19
Exercises for Section 1.6
A Exercises
Exercise 15 Let a ∈ Z. Prove, by contradiction, that if 5a + 7 is odd, then a
is even.

B Exercises

Exercise 16 Prove, by contradiction, that 2 is the only even prime number.

C Exercises

Exercise 17 Prove, by contradiction, that the polynomial x2 + 1 does not have

a root in R.

Exercise 18 In set theory, the well-ordering principle guarantees that every

nonempty set of positive integers has a smallest element. Use the well-ordering
principle to write a proof by contradiction that any integer greater than 1 has at
least one prime divisor.

Exercise 19 Use Exercise 18 to prove that the set of prime numbers is infinite.

1.7 Inductive Proofs

We conclude our examination of proof methods with a completely different type
of reasoning. Up until now, all of your arguments were made through some form
of “deductive reasoning”. That is, you deduced conclusions from established
facts, leveraging Modus Ponens with regularity. Yet despite the effectiveness of
the proof methods we have uncovered, there are still plenty of situations where
they are ineffective. To illustrate this, consider the following example involving
the power set (the set of all subsets) of a set.
Example 22 Claim: If A is a set with n elements, then P(A), the power set
of A, has 2n elements.

In order to convince yourself this claim is true, you may jot down some quick
notes such as the following.

If A = {a1 }, then P(A) = {∅, A}

If A = {a1 , a2 }, then P(A) = {∅, {a1 }, {a2 }, A}
If A = {a1 , a2 , a2 }, then P(A) = {∅, {a1 }, {a2 }, {a3 }.{a1 , a2 }, {a1 , a3 }, {a2 , a3 }, A}
.
.
.

While this should increase your confidence that the claim is true, as we
have established earlier there no way to do an exhaustive proof of a universally
quantified statement like this, similar to what we saw in Example 2. We see a
similar quandaries with innocent-looking algebraic claims.

20
 n(n+1)
Example 23 Claim: ∀n ∈ N, 1 + 2 + 3 + · · · + n = 2 .

You may be again tempted to see if the equation holds true for some randomly-
chosen values for n, but that hardly counts as a proof. While there are many
ways to prove this claim, it is a great example of the effectiveness of a new
type of reasoning called inductive reasoning. The idea is as follows. To show a
statement p(n) is true for all n ∈ N, you want to show that p(1) is true, and
p(2) is true, and p(3) is true, etc. Since this is an exhastive task with no end
in sight, we might wonder whether we can “automate” the verification of each
with the effectiveness of logical implication. That is, what if we showed p(1)
is true, but p(1) is true implies p(2) is true, and p(2) is true implies p(3)
is true, and in general p(k) is true implies p(k + 1) is true? If k were to be
arbitrary, this would effectively set up an infinite string of “dominoes” that all
fall in perpetual sequence, assuring us that every single statement p(n) would
be true. This powerful argument is the heart of proof by induction.

Proof of p(n) by Induction

Show that:
1. p(1) is true.
2. ∀k ∈ N, p(k) ⇒ p(k + 1)
Then p(n) is true ∀n ∈ N

We generally refer to step 1 as proving the “base case,” methaphorically

establishing the first domino in an infinite string that we set up to fall. The
antecedent in step 2 is what we call the “inductive hypothesis,” and is the most
important part of this proof method. You are trying to show that the next
domino will always fall, by illustrating that the consequence of assuming the
inductive hypothesis (p(k) is true) is that p(k + 1) is true, regardless of what k
is. Let’s see this in action to prove Example 23.

Proof: By induction on n:
1(2)
1= 2 , so the claim is true for n = 1.
k(k+1)
Now let k ∈ N and suppose that 1 + 2 + 3 + · · · + k = 2 . That is, suppose
that the claim is true for n = k. Then
k(k + 1)
1 + 2 + 3 + · · · + k + (k + 1) = + (k + 1)
2
k(k + 1) 2k + 2
= +
2 2
k2 + 3k + 2 (k + 1)(k + 2)
= =
2 2
Hence, the claim is true for n = k + 1. Therefore the claim is true for all n by
induction. 

21
 As this proof illustrates, arithmetic can be very helpful in transitioning from
the inductive hypothesis to the main result in your inductive step. Let’s try
another one.
Example 24 Claim: ∀n ∈ N, 1 + 2 + 22 + 23 + · · · + 2n = 2n+1 − 1.

Again, you may be tempted to check whether this pattern holds for n =
1, 2, 3, 4, · · · , but an exhaustive proof is not possible. This is precisely the type
of claim that induction is most suited to proving.

Proof: By induction on n:
1+1
1+2=2 − 1, so the claim is true for n = 1.
Now let k ∈ N and suppose that 1 + 2 + 22 + 23 + · · · + 2k = 2k+1 − 1. That is,
suppose that the claim is true for n = k. Then

1 + 2 + 22 + 23 + · · · + 2k + 2k+1 = 2k+1 − 1 + 2k+1

= 2 · 2k+1 − 1
= 2k+2 − 1

Hence, the claim is true for n = k + 1. Therefore the claim is true for all n by
induction. 

The proof of Example 22 is left as an exercise at the end of this section.

Induction often proves useful when noticing patterns in mathematics and
computer science and affirming their ongoing occurrence. However, sometimes
these patterns are not necessarily true for every single natural number, but they
are true for most of them. For example, consider the number n2 compared to
2n + 1. Observe the following.

12 < 2(1) + 1
22 < 2(2) + 1
32 > 2(3) + 1
42 > 2(4) + 1
52 > 2(5) + 1
.
.
.

While at first the number on the left is smaller, If we were to continue this
pattern, we would find that the number on the left seems to be larger most of
the time. We now have reason to make the following claim.
Example 25 Claim: ∀n ≥ 3, n2 > 2n + 1.

This seems like a situation that calls for inductive reasoning, but the claim
is clearly not true for all natural numbers. However, it appears that once n
passes a “tipping point,” the inequality always holds. So why not apply the

22
same inductive logic, but begin with a different “base case?” This is precisely
the idea behind the generalized principle of induction.

Proof of p(n) by Generalized Induction

Show that:
1. p(n0 ) is true.
2. ∀k ∈ N, (k ≥ n0 ∧ p(k)) ⇒ p(k + 1)
Then p(n) is true ∀n ≥ n0

Functionally, this is simply an inductive proof where the base case can refer
to any natural number that acts as the tipping point. Let’s use this to prove
Example 25.

Proof: 32 > 2(3) + 1, so the claim is true for n = 3.

Now suppose k ≥ 3 is a positive integer such that k2 > 2k + 1.

(k + 1)2 = k2 + 2k + 1
> (2k + 1) + 2k + 1 (by the inductive hypothesis)
= 4k + 2
> 2k + 3

Hence, the claim is true for n = k + 1. Therefore the claim is true for all n ≥ 3
by generalized induction. 

Exercises for Section 1.7

B Exercises
{x},
S
Exercise 20 Consider the following lemma: If S is a finite set and K = S
with x ∈
/ S, then P(K) has twice as many elements as P(S).

1. Prove the lemma, if you have completed the chapter on Sets.

2. Use this lemma, along with induction, to prove the claim in Example 22.

Exercise 21 Prove the Archimedian Principle: ∀a, b ∈ N, ∃s ∈ N 3 sb > a

23