Discrete Math Methods of proof 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Methods of Proof. Methods of Proof The Vicky Pollard Proof Technique Prove that when n is even n2 is even. Assume n is 0, then n2 is 0, and that is.
Advertisements

Lecture 3 – February 17, 2003.
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3
With examples from Number Theory
Introduction to Proofs
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
1 Section 1.5 Rules of Inference. 2 Definitions Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true Proof: demonstration of truth of theorem –consists of.
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
– Alfred North Whitehead,
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/31/12 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/11
Logic: Connectives AND OR NOT P Q (P ^ Q) T F P Q (P v Q) T F P ~P T F
CMSC 250 Discrete Structures Number Theory. 20 June 2007Number Theory2 Exactly one car in the plant has color H( a ) := “ a has color”  x  Cars –H(
So far we have learned about:
Copyright © Zeph Grunschlag,
1 Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2.1 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Introduction to Proofs ch. 1.6, pg. 87,93 Muhammad Arief download dari
1 Number Theory and Methods of Proof Content: Properties of integer, rational and real numbers. Underlying theme: Methods of mathematical proofs.
Fall 2002CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s proceed to… Mathematical Reasoning.
C OURSE : D ISCRETE STRUCTURE CODE : ICS 252 Lecturer: Shamiel Hashim 1 lecturer:Shamiel Hashim second semester Prepared by: amani Omer.
Week 3 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Basic number theory definitions  Even and odd  Prime and composite  Proving existential statements.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
Introduction to Proofs
Discrete Mathematics, Part II CSE 2353 Fall 2007 Margaret H. Dunham Department of Computer Science and Engineering Southern Methodist University Some slides.
Introduction to Proofs
MATH 224 – Discrete Mathematics
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
10/17/2015 Prepared by Dr.Saad Alabbad1 CS100 : Discrete Structures Proof Techniques(1) Dr.Saad Alabbad Department of Computer Science
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
Discrete Structures (DS)
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
Chap 3 –A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true –A proof is a sequence of statements to show that a theorem is true –Axioms: statements which.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
Section 3.3: Mathematical Induction Mathematical induction is a proof technique that can be used to prove theorems of the form:  n  Z +,P(n) We have.
1 Discrete Structures – CNS2300 Text Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H. Rosen (5 th Edition) Chapter 3 The Foundations: Logic and Proof,
Methods of Proof Dr. Yasir Ali. Proof A (logical) proof of a statement is a finite sequence of statements (called the steps of the proof) leading from.
Copyright © Curt Hill Proofs An Introduction.
Method of proofs.  Consider the statements: “Humans have two eyes”  It implies the “universal quantification”  If a is a Human then a has two eyes.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 CSci 2011.
2.3 Methods of Proof.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
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.
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
Proof And Strategies Chapter 2. Lecturer: Amani Mahajoub Omer Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Discrete Structures Definition Discrete.
Proof Techniques CS160/CS122 Rosen: 1.5, 1.6, 1.7.
Lecture 2: Proofs and Recursion. Lecture 2-1: Proof Techniques Proof methods : –Inductive reasoning Lecture 2-2 –Deductive reasoning Using counterexample.
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary
CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/17
Methods of Proof A mathematical theorem is usually of the form pq
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Mathematical Reasoning
Indirect Proof by Contradiction Direct Proof by Cases
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
Methods of Proof Rosen 1.7, 1.8 Lecture 4: Sept 24, 25.
Induction Chapter
Mathematical Reasoning
Introduction to Proofs
Agenda Proofs (Konsep Pembuktian) Direct Proofs & Counterexamples
Methods of Proof Rosen 1.7, 1.8 Lecture 4: Sept, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Discrete Math Methods of proof 1

Proofs A proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a theorem. The statements used in a proof include axioms (or postulates) which are statements we assume to be true Premises of the theorem, Previous proven theorems, and lemmas (sometimes prove a part of the theorem) Rules of inference Definitions, All terms used in a proof must be defined

Theorems A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true (using a proof) The statement of a theorem is a conjecture, a statement that is proposed to be true (usually based on some evidence) A conjecture becomes a theorem after it is formally proven to be true A theorem may be stated as a quantification of a conditional statement A statement that is somewhat important will become a theorem when it is proven, Simpler statements (propositions) will become facts, or results

Types of Proof Direct Proof Indirect Proof or Proof by Contraposition Proof by contradiction Proof using cases Exhaustive proofs Proof by mathematical induction Other methods of proof

Definition (to be used in proofs) Consider any two integers a and b. We say that a divides b if and only if there exists an integer q such that b=qa. We write this symbolically as a|b When a divides b then a is a factor of b When a divides b then b is a multiple of a When a divides b then a is divisible by b If no such q exists then a does not divide b a b

Another Definition (used in proofs) Let p>1 be an integer. p is prime when it is divisible by only 1 and itself (by 1 and p) Otherwise p is called a composite integer

Disproving a proposition Sometimes it is easy to disprove a proposition or theorem by finding a counter example for which the statement is not true.

Example: Disproving a proposition Every positive integer is a prime number x universe of discourse positive integers P(x) x is a prime number ∀x P(x) It is easy to find a counterexample that will disprove the proposition ∀x P(x) Consider the positive integer 8 2|8, the definition of a prime number states that a prime number is divisible only by 1 and by itself 2 is not 1 or 8, there is a contradiction and the proposition is disproved

Example: Proving a proposition? Every positive integer is a prime number x universe of discourse positive integers P(x) x is a prime number ∀x P(x) It is easy to find examples that will satisfy the proposition ∀x P(x) Consider the positive integers 2, 3, and 11 We can show that 2, 3 and 11 are all prime We cannot say that all positive integers are prime based on those particular examples Proof by example is no more convincing when the proposition is true !!!

Direct Proofs A direct proof shows that a conditional statement p → q is true. Proving the theorem or proposition requires that We begin with p and show step by step that q is true We show the case P true Q false never occurs We justify each step of our proof with an axiom or proven proposition (like a rule of inference) We have already seen direct proofs of a number of propositions while we were studying the rules of inference

Example of Direct Proof Proposition (Theorem) to be proven If a|b and b|c then it follows that a|c a, b, c are positive integers P(a,b) a|b Q(b,c) b|c R(a,c) a|c ∀a, ∃b, ∃c [ ( P(a,b)^Q(b,c) ) → R(a,c) ]

Example of Direct Proof Proposition (Theorem) to be proven ∀a, ∃b, ∃c ( P(a,b)^Q(b,c) ) → R(a,c) ) Replace a, by arbitrary positive integers x x, is arbitrarily chosen from the universe of positive integers (may represent any positive integer) (P(x,b)^Q(b,c) ) → R(x,c) This is an example of Universal Instantiation of x

Example of Direct Proof ∀a, ∃b, ∃c ( P(a,b)^Q(b,c)) → R(a,c)) ∃b, ∃c ( P(x,b)^Q(b,c) )→ R(x,c)) using Universal Instantiation ( P(x,y)^Q(y,z) → R(x,z) ) using Existential Instantiation Using the definition of divisible P(x,y) → ∃q y=qx where q is a positive integer Q(y,z) → ∃r z=ry where r is a positive integer z=ry=r(qx)=(rq)x where r and q are positive integers z=ry=r(qx)=(rq)x rq is a positive integer (because the product of two positive integers is a positive integer)

Example of Direct Proof Using the definition of divisible x|z means ∃s=rq z=sx where s is a positive integer So if P(x,y)^Q(y,z) is true then R(x,z) is true P(x,y)^Q(y,z) → R(x,z) is true We have constructed a y and a z for which this is true we can use Existential Generalization to give ∃b, ∃c ( P(a,b)^Q(b,c) ) → R(a,c) ) Since x is arbitrary (any element of the universe) P(a,b)^Q(b,c) ) → R(a,c) by Universal Generalization

Indirect Proof Also called Proof by Contraposition The contrapositive of a proposition or theorem is proven rather than the proposition or theorem itself The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, so the same thing is being proved Sometimes the contrapositive is easier to prove than the original statement

Example Problem Proposition (Theorem) to be proven if a ≠ b then it follows that b ∤ a a, b are positive integers for which a|b Q(a,b) a ≠ b R(a,b) b ∤ a Q(a,b) → R(a,b) ¬ R(a,b) → ¬Q(a,b) Contrapositive

Example Problem Proposition (Theorem) to be proven If a|b and a ≠ b then it follows that b ∤ a ¬ R(a,b) → ¬ Q(a,b) Contrapositive a, b are positive integers for which a|b ¬ Q(a,b) a = b ¬ R(a,b) b∣a Prove the contrapositive: demonstrate that when a|b and b∣a then a = b

Example of Indirect Proof ¬R(a,b) → ¬Q(a,b) ¬R(a,b) Premise ¬ R(x,y) Universal Instantiation x|y from 2 y|x definition of universe y=rx and x=qy definition of divisible y=rx=r(qy)=(rq)y rq=1 so r=q= 1 and y=x ¬Q(x,y) ¬Q(a,b) Universal Generalization

Proof by contradiction We want to prove a statement p is true We can prove p is true if we can demonstrate that for some proposition r that contradiction q Because ¬p → q is true we conclude that ¬p is false (p is true) This approach to proving p is true is called proof by contradiction

Example: proof by contradiction Prove that is irrational P(x) is irrational Suppose that ¬P(x) is true (p is rational) Then there exist two integers, with no common factors, a and b such the a/b = Squaring both sides gives 2 = a2/b2 2b2 = a2 so a2 is even by the definition of even By the definition of even a=2c So 2b2 = 4c2 or b2 = 2c2, so b2 is even, and b is even But both a and b are even so they have a common factor 2 This contradiction shows ¬P(x) is false so P(x) must be true

Proof by cases Sometimes cannot prove a theorem or proposition using a single argument. In these situations you can often divide the problem into cases, then demonstrate the validity of the proposition or theorem using a different argument for each case

Proof by cases If P ↔ P1 v P2 v … v Pk then P → Q iff P1 v P2 v … v Pk → Q or P → Q iff P1 → Q ^ P2 → Q ^ … ^ Pk → Q So we can prove by demonstrating that each of the following statements is true P1 → Q (one case) P2 → Q (another case) … Pk → Q (last case

Proof by cases: Example Prove ∀n ∈ Z [n/2] [n/2] = [n2/4] Case 1: n is even n= a*2 [2a/2] [2a/2] = [4a2/4]= a2 [n2/4] = [(2a*2a)/4] = a2 Case 2: n is odd n =a*2+1 [(2a+1)/2] [(2a+1)/2] = ([a+ ½ ] [a+ ½ ]) = a(a+1) + ¼ [n2/4] = [(2a+1)2/4] = [(4a2+4a+1)/4]

Your turn Prove by cases If x,y ∈ ℝ and x+y >= 100 then x >= 50 or y >= 50

Your turn: If x,y ∈ ℝ and x+y >= 100 then x >= 50 or y >= 50 Case 1: for x,y ∈ ℝ y<50 x+y >= 100 x >= 100 – y If y>=50 then y = 50 + r for r an arbitrary non negative real number x >= 100 – (50+r) = 50 – r x >= 50-r So x may be <50 , 50, or >50, all three possibilities are consistent with the conclusion x >= 50 or y >= 50

Your turn: If x,y ∈ ℝ and x+y >= 100 then x >= 50 or y >= 50 Case 1: for x,y ∈ ℝ y>=50 x+y >= 100 x >= 100 – y If y<50 then y = 50 - r where r is some positive real number x >= 100 – (50 - r) = 50 + r x >= 50+r So x must be >50, If x>50 then x>=50 So if y<50 then x>=50 and the conclusion is true

Your turn: Indirect proof If x,y ∈ ℝ and x+y >= 100 then x >= 50 or y >= 50 Contrapositive for x,y ∈ ℝ If x<50 and y<50 then x+y < 100 If x<50 then x = 50 – q where q is some positive real number If y<50 then y = 50 – r where r is some positive real number Since q and r are positive number q+r is a positive number So x+y = 100 – (q+r) = 100 – positive real # < 100

Proof by Exhaustion When we prove by cases for all possible cases. Usually break down into a few cases and prove them all Sometimes will need to prove for many different cases

Existence proofs Many theorems are assertions that some particular type of object exists We can prove these types of theorems by constructive proofs in which we construct an example of the object, since we have an example we know the type of object exists We can also use non-constructive proofs that show the type of object exists without demonstrating a particular example of that type of object

Example: Constructive Prove that there exists an integer solution to the equation x * y = z2 Proof: The integers x=2 y=8 and z=4 satisfy the equation. We have shown that an integer solution to the equation exists

Another example: constructive There exists a positive rational number less than 1/100. By the definition of a rational number x, the rational number can be expressed as the ratio of two integers a/b Let a=1 and b=100 To construct a smaller positive rational number we must increase b or decrease a. But a is already the smallest possible positive rational number so we must increase b Thus a smaller rational number is 1/101

Uniqueness proofs Theorems often assert that there is exactly one object with particular properties Uniqueness proofs show That an object with the particular properties exists We show that only one object with the particular properties exists