Chapter 3 Direct Proof and Proof by Contrapositive

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
With examples from Number Theory
Advertisements

THE WELL ORDERING PROPERTY Definition: Let B be a set of integers. An integer m is called a least element of B if m is an element of B, and for every x.
Discrete Math Methods of proof 1.
Mathematical Induction
Introduction to Proofs
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
Review for CS1050. Review Questions Without using truth tables, prove that  (p  q)   q is a tautology. Prove that the sum of an even integer and an.
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 5 SEQUENCES, MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION, AND RECURSION SEQUENCES, MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION, AND RECURSION.
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
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
So far we have learned about:
Introduction to Proofs Goals 1.Introduce notion of proof & basic proof methods. 2.Distinguish between correct & incorrect arguments 3.Understand & construct.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Adapted from Discrete Math
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
Chapter 6 Mathematical Induction
Introduction to Proofs
Introduction to Proofs
The importance of sequences and infinite series in calculus stems from Newton’s idea of representing functions as sums of infinite series.  For instance,
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 4 ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF.
Section 1.8. Section Summary Proof by Cases Existence Proofs Constructive Nonconstructive Disproof by Counterexample Nonexistence Proofs Uniqueness Proofs.
1 Section 1.1 A Proof Primer A proof is a demonstration that some statement is true. We normally demonstrate proofs by writing English sentences mixed.
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.
Chapter 5 Existence and Proof by contradiction
Slides for CISC 2315: Discrete Structures Chapters CISC 2315 Discrete Structures Professor William G. Tanner, Jr. SPRING 2010 Slides created by James.
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.
Chapter 4 More on Directed Proof and Proof by Contrapositive 4.1 Proofs Involving Divisibility of Integers 4.2 Proofs Involving Congruence of Integers.
Ch 1.4: Basic Proof Methods I A theorem is a proposition, often of special interest. A proof is a logically valid deduction of a theorem, using axioms,
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.
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,
4.1 Proofs and Counterexamples. Even Odd Numbers Find a property that describes each of the following sets E={…, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, …} O={…, -3, -1,
Chapter 2 Logic 2.1 Statements 2.2 The Negation of a Statement 2.3 The Disjunction and Conjunction of Statements 2.4 The Implication 2.5 More on Implications.
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.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 8 RELATIONS.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Introduction to Proofs
1 CMSC 250 Chapter 3, Number Theory. 2 CMSC 250 Introductory number theory l A good proof should have: –a statement of what is to be proven –"Proof:"
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.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proof Methods , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section:Most theorems in mathematics.
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1 By Dr. Dalia M. Gil, Ph.D.
Section 1.8. Proof by Cases Example: Let b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise b = max{a, b} = b. Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
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
Introduction to Proofs Goals 1.Introduce notion of proof & basic proof methods. 2.Distinguish between correct & incorrect arguments 3.Understand & construct.
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Chapter 2 Sets and Functions.
CISC 2315 Discrete Structures
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Indirect Proof by Contradiction Direct Proof by Cases
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Elementary Number Theory & Proofs
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Introduction to Proofs
Agenda Proofs (Konsep Pembuktian) Direct Proofs & Counterexamples
Presentation transcript:

Chapter 3 Direct Proof and Proof by Contrapositive 3.1 Trivial and Vacuous Proofs 3.2 Direct Proofs 3.3 Proof by Contrapositive 3.4 Proof by Cases

Concepts A true mathematical statement whose truth is accepted without proof is referred to as an axiom. A true mathematical statement whose true can be verified is referred to as a theorem. We will use the word “theorem” sparingly, however, primarily reserving it for true mathematical statements that will be used later. Otherwise, we will simply use the word “result”. A corollary is a mathematical result that can be deduced from, and is thereby a consequence of, some earlier result. A lemma is a mathematical result that is useful in establishing the truth of some other result. Most theorems (or results) are stated as implications.

Section 3.1 Trivial and Vacuous Proofs When the quantified statement xS, P(x)Q(x) is expressed as a result or theorem, we often write such a statement as For xS, if P(x) then Q(x). Or as Let xS. If P(x), then Q(x). (3.1) Thus (3.1) is true if P(x)Q(x) is a true statement for each xS, while (3.1) is false if P(x)Q(x) is false for at least one element xS. In (3.1), if Q(x) is true for all xS or P(x) is false for all xS, then determining the truth of (3.1) becomes easier.

Trivial Proof If Q(x) is true for all xS (regardless the truth value of P(x)), then, according to the truth table for the implication, (3.1) is true. This constitutes a proof of (3.1) and is called a trivial proof. Result 3.1 Let xR, If x<0, then x2+1>0. Proof: Since x20 for each real number x, it follows that x2+1>x20. Hence x2+1>0. # The symbol # that occurs at the end of the proof of Result 3.1 indicates that the proof is complete.

Vacuous Proof Let P(x) and Q(x) be open sentences over a domain S. Then xS, P(x)Q(x) is a true statement if it can be shown that P(x) is false for all xS (regardless of the truth value of Q(x)), according to the truth table for implication. Such a proof is called a vacuous proof of xS, P(x)Q(x) . Result 3.2 Let xR. If x2 -2x+20, then x38. Proof: First observe that x2 -2x+1=(x-1)2 0. Therefore, x2 -2x+2 =(x-1)2 +1 1>0. Thus x2 -2x+20 is false for all xR and the implication is true. #

Section 3.2 Direct Proofs Let P(x) and Q(x) be open sentences over a domain S. If P(x) is false for some xS, then P(x)Q(x) is true for this element x. Hence we need only be concerned with showing that P(x)Q(x) is true for all xS for which P(x) is true. In a direct proof of P(x)Q(x) for all xS, we consider an arbitrary element xS for which P(x) is true and show that Q(x) is true for this element. To summarize then, to give a direct proof of P(x)Q(x) for all xS, we assume that P(x) is true for some arbitrary element xS and show that Q(x) be true as well for this element x.

Basics for Numbers Let’s first consider the integers and some of their elementary properties. We can use any of these properties: The negative of every integer is an integer. The sum (and difference) of every two integers is an integer. The product of every two integers is an integer. Initially, we will use even and odd integers to illustrate our proof techniques. In this case, however, any properties of even and odd integers must be verified before they can be used. An integer is even if n=2k for some integer k. An integer is odd if n=2k+1 for some integer k. Every integer is either even or odd.

3n+7=3(2k+1)+7=6k+3+7=6k+10=2(3k+5). Examples Result 3.4 If n is an odd integer, then 3n+7 is an even integer. Proof: Assume that n is an odd integer. Since n is odd, we can write n=2k+1 for some integer k. Now 3n+7=3(2k+1)+7=6k+3+7=6k+10=2(3k+5). Since 3k+5 is an integer, 3n+7 is even. # Result: If n is an even integer, then 3n5 is an even integer. Proof: Since n is aneven integer, n=2k for some integer k. Therefore, 3n5=3(2k)5=3(32k5)=96k5=2(48k5). Since 48k5Z, the integer 3n5 is even.

Section 3.3 Proof by Contrapositive For statements P and Q, the contrapositive of the implication PQ is the implication QP. Theorem For every two statement P and Q, the implication PQ and its contrapositibe are logically equivalent; that is, PQ QP. A proof by contrapositive of the result Let xS. If P(x), then Q(x). (or of for all xS If P(x), then Q(x).) Is a direct proof of its contrapositive: Let xS. If Q(x), then  P(x). (or for all xS. If Q(x), then  P(x).)

Examples Result 3.10 Let xZ. If 3x-7 is even, then x is odd. Proof: Assume that x is even. Then x=2k for some integer k. So 5x-7=5(2k)-7=10k-7=10k-8+1=2(5k-4)+1. Since 5k-4 Z, the integer 5x-7 is odd. #

Examples Result 3.11 Let xZ. Then 11x-7 is even if and only if x is odd. Proof: There are two implications to prove here, If x is odd, then 11x-7 is even, and If 11x-7 is even, then x is odd. We now prove (1). Assume that x is odd. Then x =2k+1, where kZ. So 11x-7=11(2k+1)-7=22k+4=2(11k+2). Since 11k+2 Z, 11x-7 is even. We now prove (2). Assume that x is even. Then x=2k, where k Z. Therefore, 11x-7=11(2k)-7=22k-7=22k-8+1=2(11k-4)+1. Since 11k-4 Z, 11x-7 is odd. #

Examples Theorem Let x Z. Then x2 is even if and only if x is even. Proof: Exercise. Result Let x Z. If 5x-7 is odd, then 9x+2 is even. Proof: Assume that 5x-7 is odd. Then 5x-7=2k+1 for some integer k. Observe that 9x+2=(5x-7)+(4x+9)=2k+1+4x+9=2k+4x+10=2(k+2x+5). Because k+2x+5Z, 9x+2 is even. # Note: there are some other ways to prove it as well.

Section 3.4 Proof by Cases While attempting to prove a statement concerning an element x in some set S, it is sometimes useful to observe that x possesses two or more properties. If we can verify the truth of the statement regardless of which properties that x may have, then we have a proof of the statement. This method is called proof by cases. For example, in a proof of n  Z, R(n), it might be convenience to use a proof cases whose proof is divided into the two cases. Case 1. n is even, and Case 2. n is odd. or it could be divided into the three cases: Case 1. n=0, Case 2. n  Z and n<0, and Case 3. n  Z and n>0. Etc.

Example Result: If n  Z, then n2+3n+5 is an odd integer. Proof. We prove it by cases. Case 1. n is even. Then n=2x for some x  Z. So n2+3n+5= (2x)2+3(2x)+5=2(2x2+3x+2)+1. Since 2x2+3x+2  Z, then integer n2+3n+5 is odd. Case 2. n is odd. Then n=2y+1, where y  Z. Thus n2+3n+5= (2y+1)2+3(2y+1)+5=4(2y2+5y+4)+1. Since 2y2+5y+4  Z, the integer n2+3n+5 is odd. #

Parity Two integers x and y are said to be of the same parity if x and y are both even or are both odd. The integers x and y are of opposite parity if one of x and y is even and other is odd. Because the definition of two integers having the same (or opposite) parity requires the two integers to satisfy one of two properties, any result containing these terms is likely to be proved by cases.

Theorem Theorem Let x, y  Z. Then x and y are of the same parity if and only if x+y is even. Proof. First, assume that x and y are of the same parity. We consider two cases. Case 1. x and y are even. Then x=2a and y=2b for some integers a and b. So x+y=2a+2b=2(a+b). Since a+b  Z, the integer x+y is even. Case 2. x and y are odd. Then x=2a+1 and y=2b+1, where a, b  Z. Therefore, x+y=2(a+b+1). Since a+b+1  Z, the integer x+y is even. For the converse, assume that x and y are of opposite parity. Again, we consider two cases.

Continued Proof Case 1. x is even and y is odd. Then x=2a and y=2b+1, where a, b  Z. Then x+y=2(a+b)+1. Since a+b  Z, the integer x+y is odd. Case 2. x is odd and y is even. The proof is similar to the proof of the preceding case and is therefore omitted. # Notes: there is an alternative when the converse is considered: For the converse, assume that x and y are of opposite parity. Without loss of generality, assume that x is even and y is odd. Then x=2a and y=2b+1, where a, b  Z. Then

ab=(2x+1)(2y+1)=2(2xy+x+y)+1. WLOG We use the phrase without loss of generality (WLOG) to indicate that the proofs of the two situations are similar, so the proof of only one of these is needed. Theorem: Let a and b be integers. Then ab is even if and only if a is even or b is even. Proof. First, assume that a is even or b is even. WLOG, let a be even. Then a =2x for some integer s. Thus ab=2(xb). Since xb is an integer, ab is even. For the converse, assume that a is odd and be is odd. Then a=2x+1 and b=2y+1, where x, y  Z. Hence ab=(2x+1)(2y+1)=2(2xy+x+y)+1. Since 2xy+x+y is an integer, ab is odd. #

Note Note: We prove the converse by contrapositive by assuming at it is not the case that a is even or b is even. By De Morgan’s Laws: (P  Q) ( P)  ( Q). So the negation of “a is even or b is even” is “a is odd and b is odd”.