Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lecture 3 – February 17, 2003.
Advertisements

Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3
Discrete Math Methods of proof 1.
Introduction to Proofs
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
1 In this lecture  Number Theory ● Rational numbers ● Divisibility  Proofs ● Direct proofs (cont.) ● Common mistakes in proofs ● Disproof by counterexample.
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
– Alfred North Whitehead,
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Induction and recursion
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/31/12 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
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(
Proof Must Have Statement of what is to be proven.
1 Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition.
First Order Logic (chapter 2 of the book) Lecture 3: Sep 14.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
1 Number Theory and Methods of Proof Content: Properties of integer, rational and real numbers. Underlying theme: Methods of mathematical proofs.
Harper Langston New York University Summer 2015
First Order Logic. This Lecture Last time we talked about propositional logic, a logic on simple statements. This time we will talk about first order.
CS 2210 (22C:019) Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Spring 2015 Sukumar Ghosh.
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
Introduction to Proofs
1 Methods of Proof CS/APMA 202 Epp, chapter 3 Aaron Bloomfield.
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
CS 173, Lecture B August 27, 2015 Tandy Warnow. Proofs You want to prove that some statement A is true. You can try to prove it directly, or you can prove.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 4 ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 6
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 3: Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proofs Instructor: Hayk Melikya Direct.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
Chapter 5 Existence and Proof by contradiction
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.
First Order Logic Lecture 2: Sep 9. This Lecture Last time we talked about propositional logic, a logic on simple statements. This time we will talk about.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 3 THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS.
Week 3 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Proving universal statements  Disproving existential statements  Rational numbers  Proof formatting.
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.
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,
Week 4 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Divisibility  Quotient-remainder theorem  Proof by cases.
First Order Logic Lecture 3: Sep 13 (chapter 2 of the book)
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.
Week 3 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Proving existential statements  Disproving universal statements  Proving universal statements.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Week 4 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Floor and ceiling  Proof by contradiction.
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:"
Week 4 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Divisibility  Proof by cases.
Chapter 5. Section 5.1 Climbing an Infinite Ladder Suppose we have an infinite ladder: 1.We can reach the first rung of the ladder. 2.If we can reach.
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.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I Lecture 11 Section 3.1 Fri, Jan 28, 2005.
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
Methods of Proof Lecture 4: Sep 20 (chapter 3 of the book, except 3.5 and 3.8)
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Proof And Strategies Chapter 2. Lecturer: Amani Mahajoub Omer Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Discrete Structures Definition Discrete.
Harper Langston New York University Summer 2017
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Direct Proof and Counterexample III: Divisibility
Direct Proof and Counterexample I: Introduction
Methods of Proof CS 202 Epp, chapter 3.
Induction and recursion
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
First Order Logic Rosen Lecture 3: Sept 11, 12.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Agenda Proofs (Konsep Pembuktian) Direct Proofs & Counterexamples
Presentation transcript:

Week 3 - Monday

 What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified statements

 In a test to see who is the greatest logician among Alice, Bob, and Carl, 4 red and 4 green stamps are distributed in this way:  Two stamps are affixed to each of the three  Two stamps are hidden  All three can see the stamps on the others' heads but not on their own  All three are perfect logicians and know there are 4 green and 4 red stamps  They are asked, in order, if they know the colors of the stamps on their heads:  Alice:"No."  Bob: "No."  Carl:"No."  Alice:"No."  Bob:"Yes."  What color stamps are on Bob's head?

 Consider the following statements: 1. For any real number x,  x - 1  =  x  For any real numbers x and y,  x - y  =  x  -  y   Are they true or false?  More importantly, how can we be sure?  The idea of a proof is that we are able to convince ourselves (and others) that a statement is completely true

 We'll start with basic definitions of even and odd to allow us to prove simpler theorems  If n is an integer, then:  n is even   k  Z  n = 2k  n is odd   k  Z  n = 2k + 1  Since these are bidirectional, each side implies the other

 Are the following expressions even or odd? Assume that a and b are integers 00  -301  6a2b  10a + 8b + 1

 If n is an integer where n > 1, then:  n is prime   r  Z +,  s  Z +, if n = r  s, then r = 1 or s = 1  n is composite   r  Z +,  s  Z +  n = r  s and r  1 and s  1

 Answer the following questions:  Is 1 prime?  Is it true that every integer greater than 1 is either prime or composite?  What are the first six prime numbers?  What are the first six composite numbers?  Is 7903 prime?  Is 7907 prime?

Student Lecture

 A statement like the following: x  D  P(x)x  D  P(x)  is true, if and only if, you can find at least one element of D that makes P(x) true  To prove this, you either have to find such an x or give a set of steps to find one  Doing so is called a constructive proof of existence  There are also nonconstructive proofs of existence that depend on using some other axiom or theorem

 Prove that there is a positive integer that can be written as the sum of the squares of two positive integers in two distinct ways  More formally, prove:   x, y, z, a, b  Z +  x = y 2 + z 2 and x = a 2 + b 2 and y  a and y  b  Suppose that r and s are integers. Prove that there is an integer k such that 22r +18s = 2k

 Disproving universal statements is structurally similar to proving existential ones  Instead of needing any single example that works, we need a single example that doesn't work, called a counterexample  Why?  To disprove  x  D, P(x)  Q(x), we need to find an x that makes P(x) true and Q(x) false

 Using counterexamples, disprove the following statements:   a, b  R, if a 2 = b 2 then a = b   x  Z +, if x ≥ 2 and x is odd, x is prime   y  Z, if y is odd, then (y – 1)/2 is prime

 If the domain is finite, try every possible value.  Example:   x  Z +, if 4 ≤ x ≤ 20 and x is even, x can be written as the sum of two prime numbers  Is this familiar to anyone?  Goldbach's Conjecture proposes that this is true for all even integers greater than 2

 Pick some specific (but arbitrary) element from the domain  Show that the property holds for that element, just because of that properties that any such element must have  Thus, it must be true for all elements with the property  Example:  x  Z, if x is even, then x + 1 is odd

 Direct proof actually uses the method of generalizing from a generic particular, following these steps: 1. Express the statement to be proved in the form  x  D, if P(x) then Q(x) 2. Suppose that x is some specific (but arbitrarily chosen) element of D for which P(x) is true 3. Show that the conclusion Q(x) is true by using definitions, other theorems, and the rules for logical inference

 Write the statement of the theorem  Start your proof with the word Proof  Define everything  Write a justification next to every line  Put QED at the end of your proof  Quod erat demonstrandum: "that which was to be shown"

 Prove the sum of any two odd integers is even.

 Arguing from examples  Goldbach's conjecture is not a proof, though shown for numbers up to  Using the same letter to mean two different things  m = 2k + 1 and n = 2k + 1  Jumping to a conclusion  Skipping steps  Begging the question  Assuming the conclusion  Misuse of the word if  A more minor problem, but a premise should not be invoked with "if"

 Flipmode is the squad  You just negate the statement and then prove the resulting universal statement

 Rational numbers  Divisibility

 Keep reading Chapter 4  Work on Assignment 2 for Friday