Informal Proofs

→
proof where we may omit some steps and
A or use some

accepted results ( statements ) in the proof .

e.
g
axioms
,
theorems
etc .

→ axiom : a statement that is

accepted as true as the
basis for an
argument
Direct Proofs

→ A direct proof is when we move

through a set of
intermediate conclusions until we reach the final
conclusion for the
,

argument
Proof by contradiction

→ To prove A → B
,
construct a proof of An > B → 0
( A → BE > Av B = ( An B) 1
> >

Proof by contraposition
To A B show that B >A
①
→
prove →

, you
can - →

( TB → 7 A ± B N>A = 7AM BE A → B)
Proof by cases

An ) B show that
To
prove ( A , ✓ Air you
→ ✓ .
→ can
,
. .

( A → B) a ( As B) n
,
n ( An B) →
. . . .
→

( Basically prove every case

)
Fallacies
→ A
fallacy
valid
resembles correct inference/
argument
a
,
but it is
not
leading
to incorrect reasoning
→
Fallacy of affirming the conclusion
the book ( P) then will
If do
every problem
"
in
e-
g you you ,

learn discrete Math (M) You learned discrete .

math LM) therefore you did every problem in the book ( P) !

P : Do all problems in book

M : learn discrete math
P→ M M F P should be valid but is not
,

this because the consequent of the

is does not
implication
guarantee the truth of its antecedent P As in the valuation .

v (P ) -0 and u (m)
-

1 makes all assumptions of the

=

argument true but its conclusion false

if we make it into formula

a

(M n @ → m) ) p →

we see that is a
contingency and not a
tautology
→
Fallacy of denying the hypothesis
"
If do
every problem in the book ( P) then you will
you
learn discrete Math (M) You did not do all
,

problems
inthe book C P) therefore did not learn
you
-

discrete math GM )
"

P → M a P f- 7M should be valid but is not

,

Denying the antecedent of the implication P→m

does not guarantee the
falsity of its consequent so it is
fallacy
we see that the valuation v (P ) -0 and
-

u @1--1
makes all assumptions true but the conclusion false

if we make it into a formula

( (P → M) a P) → am
which is not a contingency
tautology but a
 Forward Reasoning Rules

→ consider the following argument

p
Rv S
T

P¥
→
If we use a truth table ,
it would need 25 rows ,
which
will
long However if look at the argument
take too .
,
we we

see that
can
only two premises ( P and P d) needed for →
are

making this quite straightforward

the conclusion .

Formal proof
→ A proof ( or deduction ) of a formula B from a set of
premises A , ,
A , , . . . .

. An is a finite sequence of formulas

B such that each is either
ending in
formula in the sequence
a
premise ,
axiom or
previously proven
→ this is denoted as
A 1 An 1- B
) A2 ) . _
. . .

,
% this defines a consequence relation
between a set of formulas and formula a

Although sy tactical process

→ 1- seems same as I it is a as =
,

opposed to its semantical counterpart / F)