CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 5 CSci 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discrete Mathematics University of Jazeera College of Information Technology & Design Khulood Ghazal Mathematical Reasoning Methods of Proof.
Advertisements

Introduction to Proofs
Announcements Grading policy No Quiz next week Midterm next week (Th. May 13). The correct answer to the quiz.
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional Equivalences 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4 Nested Quantifiers.
1 Valid and Invalid Arguments CS 202 Epp Section 1.3 Aaron Bloomfield.
Chapter 3. Mathematical Reasoning 3.1 Methods of proof A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true. A proof is to demonstrate that a theorem.
2009/91 Methods of Proof (§1.7) Methods of mathematical argument (proof methods) can be formalized in terms of rules of logical inference. Mathematical.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/31/12 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/11
Introduction to Proofs ch. 1.6, pg. 87,93 Muhammad Arief download dari
CS 202 Rosen section 1.5 Aaron Bloomfield
Fall 2002CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s proceed to… Mathematical Reasoning.
1 Predicates and Quantifiers CS 202, Spring 2007 Epp, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 Aaron Bloomfield.
CS 2210 (22C:019) Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Spring 2015 Sukumar Ghosh.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
Predicates and Quantifiers
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 CSci 2011.
CSCI 115 Chapter 2 Logic. CSCI 115 §2.1 Propositions and Logical Operations.
Introduction to Proofs
1 Georgia Tech, IIC, GVU, 2006 MAGIC Lab Rossignac Lecture 03: PROOFS Section 1.5 Jarek Rossignac CS1050: Understanding.
1 Methods of Proof CS/APMA 202 Epp, chapter 3 Aaron Bloomfield.
CS 103 Discrete Structures Lecture 07b
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
1 Basic Proof Methods I Basic Proof Methods II Proofs Involving Quantifiers.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 6
1 Methods of Proof. 2 Consider (p  (p→q)) → q pqp→q p  (p→q)) (p  (p→q)) → q TTTTT TFFFT FTTFT FFTFT.
10/17/2015 Prepared by Dr.Saad Alabbad1 CS100 : Discrete Structures Proof Techniques(1) Dr.Saad Alabbad Department of Computer Science
Section 1.5. Section Summary Nested Quantifiers Order of Quantifiers Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English Translating Mathematical Statements.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
1 Math/CSE 1019C: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science Fall 2011 Suprakash Datta Office: CSEB 3043 Phone: ext
Methods of Proof Lecture 3: Sep 9. This Lecture Now we have learnt the basics in logic. We are going to apply the logical rules in proving mathematical.
Discrete Structures (DS)
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 8 CSci 2011.
Discrete Mathematics. Predicates - the universal quantifier 11/28/2015 Suppose P(x) is a predicate on some universe of discourse. Ex. B(x) = “x is carrying.
Fall 2008/2009 I. Arwa Linjawi & I. Asma’a Ashenkity 11 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Introduction to Proofs.
1 Discrete Structures – CNS2300 Text Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H. Rosen (5 th Edition) Chapter 3 The Foundations: Logic and Proof,
Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs With Question/Answer Animations 1.
1 Course Summary CS 202 Aaron Bloomfield. 2 Outline A review of the proof methods gone over in class Interspersed with the most popular demotivators from.
Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs With Question/Answer Animations 1.
22C:19 Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Fall 2014 Sukumar Ghosh.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 CSci 2011.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Week 4 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Floor and ceiling  Proof by contradiction.
Introduction to Proofs
Section 1.7. Definitions A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using: definitions other theorems axioms (statements which are given as.
Proof Review CS 202 Aaron Bloomfield Spring 2007.
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1 By Dr. Dalia M. Gil, Ph.D.
Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs With Question/Answer Animations Copyright © McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Chapter 1 Logic and proofs
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
CS 2210:0001 Discrete Structures Logic and Proof
CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/17
Methods of Proof Aaron Bloomfield.
In this slide set… Rules of inference for propositions
Discrete Mathematics Logic.
Proof methods We will discuss ten proof methods: Direct proofs
Methods of proof Section 1.6 & 1.7 Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Methods of Proof CS 202 Epp, chapter 3.
Proof Techniques.
Module #10: Proof Strategies
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Mathematical Reasoning
Methods of Proof. Methods of Proof Definitions A theorem is a valid logical assertion which can be proved using Axioms: statements which are given.
Discrete Mathematics Logic.
Information Technology Department SKN-SITS,Lonavala.
Module #10: Proof Strategies
September 9, 2004 Prof. Marie desJardins (for Prof. Matt Gaston)
Valid and Invalid Arguments
Mathematical Reasoning
Presentation transcript:

CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 5 CSci 2011

Admin ^Groupwork 3 is due on Sep 28 th. ^Homework 2 is due on Sep 30 th.  Before class starts ^Quiz 1: Sep 23 rd.  1 page cheat sheet is allowed. ^  to  Put [2011] in front. ^Check class web site  Read syllabus  Use forum.

CSci 2011 Recap ^Propositional operation summary ^Check translation ^Definition  Tautology, Contradiction, not andorconditionalBi-conditional pq ppqqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq TTFFTTTT TFFTFTFF FTTFFTTF FFTTFFTT

CSci 2011 Logical Equivalences p  T  p p  F  p Identity Laws (p  q)  r  p  (q  r) (p  q)  r  p  (q  r) Associative laws p  T  T p  F  F Domination Law p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) Distributive laws p  p  p p  p  p Idempotent Laws  (p  q)   p   q  (p  q)   p   q De Morgan’s laws ( p)  p Double negation law p  (p  q)  p p  (p  q)  p Absorption laws p  q  q  p p  q  q  p Commutative Laws p   p  T p   p  F Negation lows pq  pq Definition of Implication p  q  (p  q)  (q  p) Definition of Biconditional

Recap ^Quantifiers  Universal quantifier: x P(x)  Negating quantifiers  ¬x P(x) = x ¬P(x)  ¬x P(x) = x ¬P(x) xy P(x, y)  Nested quantifiers  xy P(x, y): “For all x, there exists a y such that P(x,y)”  xy P(x,y): There exists an x such that for all y P(x,y) is true”  ¬  x P(x) =  x ¬P(x), ¬  x P(x) =  x ¬P(x) ^Rules of Inference CSci 2011 Modus Ponens p p  q  q Modus Tollens  q p  q   p

CSci 2011 Modus Tollens ^Assume that we know: ¬q and p → q  Recall that p → q  ¬q → ¬p ^Thus, we know ¬q and ¬q → ¬p ^We can conclude ¬p  q p  q   p

CSci 2011 Modus Tollens example ^Assume you are given the following two statements:  “you will not get a grade”  “if you are in this class, you will get a grade” ^Let p = “you are in this class” ^Let q = “you will get a grade” ^By Modus Tollens, you can conclude that you are not in this class

CSci 2011 Addition & Simplification ^Addition: If you know that p is true, then p  q will ALWAYS be true p  p  q ^Simplification: If p  q is true, then p will ALWAYS be true p  q  q

CSci 2011 Example Proof ^We have the hypotheses:  “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”  “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset” ^Does this imply that “we will be home by sunset”?  (( p  q)  (r  p)  ( r  s)  (s  t))  t ???  When  p = “ It is sunny this afternoon”  q = “it is colder than yesterday”  r = “We will go swimming”  s = “we will take a canoe trip”  t = “we will be home by sunset”

CSci 2011 Example of proof 1.¬p  q1 st hypothesis 2.¬pSimplification using step 1 3.r → p2 nd hypothesis 4.¬rModus tollens using steps 2 & 3 5.¬r → s3 rd hypothesis 6.sModus ponens using steps 4 & 5 7.s → t 4 th hypothesis 8.tModus ponens using steps 6 & 7

CSci 2011 More Rules of Inference ^Conjunction: if p and q are true separately, then pq is true ^Disjunctive syllogism: If pq is true, and p is false, then q must be true ^Resolution: If pq is true, and ¬pr is true, then qr must be true ^Hypothetical syllogism: If p → q is true, and q → r is true, then p → r must be true

CSci 2011 Summary: Rules of Inference Modus ponens p p  q  q Modus tollens  q p  q   p Hypothetical syllogism p  q q  r  p  r Disjunctive syllogism p  q  p  q Addition p  p  q Simplification p  q  p Conjunction p q  p  q Resolution p  q  p  r  q  r

CSci 2011 Example Proof  “If it does not rain or if it is not foggy, then the sailing race will be held and the lifesaving demonstration will go on”  ( r   f)  (s  d)  “If the sailing race is held, then the trophy will be awarded”  s  t  “The trophy was not awarded”   t ^Can you conclude: “It rained”?

CSci 2011 Example of proof 1.¬t3 rd hypothesis 2.s → t2 nd hypothesis 3.¬sModus tollens using steps 2 & 3 4.(¬r¬f) → (sl)1 st hypothesis 5.¬(sl) → ¬(¬r¬f) Contrapositive of step 4 6.(¬s¬l) → (rf)DeMorgan’s law and double negation law 7.¬s¬lAddition from step 3 8.rfModus ponens using steps 6 & 7 9.rSimplification using step 8

CSci 2011 Rules of inference for the universal quantifier ^Assume that we know that x P(x) is true  Then we can conclude that P(c) is true  Here c stands for some specific constant  This is called “universal instantiation” ^Assume that we know that P(c) is true for any value of c  Then we can conclude that x P(x) is true  This is called “universal generalization”

CSci 2011 Rules of inference for the existential quantifier ^Assume that we know that x P(x) is true  Then we can conclude that P(c) is true for some value of c  This is called “existential instantiation” ^Assume that we know that P(c) is true for some value of c  Then we can conclude that x P(x) is true  This is called “existential generalization”

CSci 2011 Example of proof ^Given the hypotheses:  “Linda, a student in this class, owns a red convertible.”  “Everybody who owns a red convertible has gotten at least one speeding ticket” ^Can you conclude: “Somebody in this class has gotten a speeding ticket”? C(Linda) R(Linda)  x (R(x)→T(x))  x (C(x)  T(x))

CSci 2011 Example of proof 1.x (R(x) → T(x))3 rd hypothesis 2.R(Linda) → T(Linda)Universal instantiation using step 1 3.R(Linda)2 nd hypothesis 4.T(Linda)Modes ponens using steps 2 & 3 5.C(Linda)1 st hypothesis 6.C(Linda)  T(Linda)Conjunction using steps 4 & 5 7.x (C(x)T(x))Existential generalization using step 6 Thus, we have shown that “Somebody in this class has gotten a speeding ticket”

CSci 2011 How do you know which one to use? ^Experience! ^In general, use quantifiers with statements like “for all” or “there exists”

ch1.7 Introduction to Proofs CSci 2011

Terminology ^Theorem: a statement that can be shown true. Sometimes called facts.  Proposition: less important theorem ^Proof: Demonstration that a theorem is true. ^Axiom: A statement that is assumed to be true. ^Lemma: a less important theorem that is useful to prove a theorem. ^Corollary: a theorem that can be proven directly from a theorem that has been proved. ^Conjecture: a statement that is being proposed to be a true statement.

CSci 2011 Direct proofs ^Consider an implication: p → q  If p is false, then the implication is always true  Thus, show that if p is true, then q is true ^To perform a direct proof, assume that p is true, and show that q must therefore be true ^Show that the square of an even number is an even number  Rephrased: if n is even, then n 2 is even (Proof) Assume n is even Thus, n = 2k, for some k (definition of even numbers) n 2 = (2k) 2 = 4k 2 = 2(2k 2 ) As n 2 is 2 times an integer, n 2 is thus even

CSci 2011 Indirect proofs ^Consider an implication: p → q  It’s contrapositive is ¬q → ¬p  Is logically equivalent to the original implication!  If the antecedent (¬q) is false, then the contrapositive is always true  Thus, show that if ¬q is true, then ¬p is true ^To perform an indirect proof, do a direct proof on the contrapositive

CSci 2011 Indirect proof example ^If n 2 is an odd integer then n is an odd integer ^Prove the contrapositive: If n is an even integer, then n 2 is an even integer ^Proof: n=2k for some integer k (definition of even numbers) ^ n 2 = (2k) 2 = 4k 2 = 2(2k 2 ) ^Since n 2 is 2 times an integer, it is even ^When do you use a direct proof versus an indirect proof?

CSci 2011 Example of which to use ^Prove that if n is an integer and n 3 +5 is odd, then n is even ^Via direct proof  n 3 +5 = 2k+1 for some integer k (definition of odd numbers)  n 3 = 2k-4  Umm… ??? ^So direct proof didn’t work out. So: indirect proof  Contrapositive: If n is odd, then n 3 +5 is even  Assume n is odd, and show that n 3 +5 is even  n=2k+1 for some integer k (definition of odd numbers)  n 3 +5 = (2k+1) 3 +5 = 8k 3 +12k 2 +6k+6 = 2(4k 3 +6k 2 +3k+3)  As 2(4k 3 +6k 2 +3k+3) is 2 times an integer, it is even

CSci 2011 Proof by contradiction ^Given a statement p, assume it is false  Assume ¬p ^Prove that ¬p cannot occur  A contradiction exists ^Given a statement of the form p → q  To assume it’s false, you only have to consider the case where p is true and q is false

CSci 2011 Proof by contradiction example 1 ^Theorem (by Euclid): There are infinitely many prime numbers. ^Proof. Assume there are a finite number of primes ^List them as follows: p 1, p 2 …, p n. ^Consider the number q = p 1 p 2 … p n + 1  This number is not divisible by any of the listed primes  If we divided p i into q, there would result a remainder of 1  We must conclude that q is a prime number, not among the primes listed above  This contradicts our assumption that all primes are in the list p 1, p 2 …, p n.

CSci 2011 Proof by contradiction example 2 ^Prove that if n is an integer and n 3 +5 is odd, then n is even ^Rephrased: If n 3 +5 is odd, then n is even ^Assume p is true and q is false  Assume that n 3 +5 is odd, and n is odd ^n=2k+1 for some integer k (definition of odd numbers) ^n 3 +5 = (2k+1) 3 +5 = 8k 3 +12k 2 +6k+6 = 2(4k 3 +6k 2 +3k+3) ^As 2(4k 3 +6k 2 +3k+3) is 2 times an integer, it must be even ^Contradiction!

CSci 2011 Vacuous proofs ^Consider an implication: p → q ^If it can be shown that p is false, then the implication is always true  By definition of an implication ^Note that you are showing that the antecedent is false

CSci 2011 Vacuous proof example ^Consider the statement:  All criminology majors in CS 2011 are female  Rephrased: If you are a criminology major and you are in CS 2011, then you are female  Could also use quantifiers! ^Since there are no criminology majors in this class, the antecedent is false, and the implication is true

CSci 2011 Trivial proofs ^Consider an implication: p → q ^If it can be shown that q is true, then the implication is always true  By definition of an implication ^Note that you are showing that the conclusion is true

CSci 2011 Trivial proof example ^Consider the statement:  If you are tall and are in CS 2011 then you are a student ^Since all people in CS 2011 are students, the implication is true regardless

CSci 2011 Proof by cases ^Show a statement is true by showing all possible cases are true ^Thus, you are showing a statement of the form:  (p 1  p 2  …  p n )  q ^is true by showing that:  [(p 1 p 2 …p n )q]  [(p 1 q)(p 2 q)…(p n q)]

CSci 2011 Proof by cases example ^Prove that  Note that b ≠ 0 ^Cases:  Case 1: a ≥ 0 and b > 0  Then |a| = a, |b| = b, and  Case 2: a ≥ 0 and b < 0  Then |a| = a, |b| = -b, and  Case 3: a 0  Then |a| = -a, |b| = b, and  Case 4: a < 0 and b < 0  Then |a| = -a, |b| = -b, and

CSci 2011 The think about proof by cases ^Make sure you get ALL the cases  The biggest mistake is to leave out some of the cases

CSci 2011 Proofs of equivalences ^This is showing the definition of a bi- conditional ^Given a statement of the form “p if and only if q”  Show it is true by showing (p → q)(q → p) is true

CSci 2011 Proofs of equivalence example ^Show that m 2 =n 2 if and only if m=n or m=-n ^Rephrased: (m 2 =n 2 ) ↔ [(m=n)(m=-n)]  [(m=n)(m=-n)] → (m 2 =n 2 )  Proof by cases!  Case 1: (m=n) → (m 2 =n 2 ) –(m) 2 = m 2, and (n) 2 = n 2, so this case is proven  Case 2: (m=-n) → (m 2 =n 2 ) –(m) 2 = m 2, and (-n) 2 = n 2, so this case is proven  (m 2 =n 2 ) → [(m=n)(m=-n)]  Subtract n 2 from both sides to get m 2 -n 2 =0  Factor to get (m+n)(m-n) = 0  Since that equals zero, one of the factors must be zero  Thus, either m+n=0 (which means m=-n)  Or m-n=0 (which means m=n)

CSci 2011 Existence proofs ^Given a statement: x P(x) ^We only have to show that a P(c) exists for some value of c ^Two types:  Constructive: Find a specific value of c for which P(c) is true.  Nonconstructive: Show that such a c exists, but don’t actually find it  Assume it does not exist, and show a contradiction

CSci 2011 Constructive existence proof example ^Show that a square exists that is the sum of two other squares  Proof: = 5 2 ^Show that a cube exists that is the sum of three other cubes  Proof: = 6 3

CSci 2011 Non-constructive existence proof example ^Prove that either 2* or 2* is not a perfect square  A perfect square is a square of an integer  Rephrased: Show that a non-perfect square exists in the set {2* , 2* } ^Proof: The only two perfect squares that differ by 1 are 0 and 1  Thus, any other numbers that differ by 1 cannot both be perfect squares  Thus, a non-perfect square must exist in any set that contains two numbers that differ by 1  Note that we didn’t specify which one it was!

CSci 2011 Uniqueness proofs ^A theorem may state that only one such value exists ^To prove this, you need to show:  Existence: that such a value does indeed exist  Either via a constructive or non-constructive existence proof  Uniqueness: that there is only one such value

CSci 2011 Uniqueness proof example ^If the real number equation 5x+3=a has a solution then it is unique ^Existence  We can manipulate 5x+3=a to yield x=(a-3)/5  Is this constructive or non-constructive? ^Uniqueness  If there are two such numbers, then they would fulfill the following: a = 5x+3 = 5y+3  We can manipulate this to yield that x = y  Thus, the one solution is unique!

CSci 2011 Counterexamples ^Given a universally quantified statement, find a single example which it is not true ^Note that this is DISPROVING a UNIVERSAL statement by a counterexample ^x ¬R(x), where R(x) means “x has red hair”  Find one person (in the domain) who has red hair ^Every positive integer is the square of another integer  The square root of 5 is 2.236, which is not an integer

CSci 2011 What’s wrong with this proof? ^If n 2 is an even integer, then n is an even integer. Proof) Suppose n 2 is even. Then n 2 = 2 k for some integer k. Let n = 2 l for some integer l. Then n is an even integer.

CSci 2011 Proof methods ^We will discuss ten proof methods: 1.Direct proofs 2.Indirect proofs 3.Vacuous proofs 4.Trivial proofs 5.Proof by contradiction 6.Proof by cases 7.Proofs of equivalence 8.Existence proofs 9.Uniqueness proofs 10.Counterexamples