Some things are not what they seem to be.l logic THALES Any study is more meaningful and interesting when one is acquainted with those who developed its concepts. Mathematics is no exception. The makers of mathematics are people with people’s weaknesses and strengths. By some stroke of fate they saw beyond the limits set by their predecessors. Many looked from lofty heights, others from the depths of despair and con- fusion. Some led exemplary lives, while others were reprobates. All were blessed with a spark of genius and the opportunity to use their talents. But above all, they were human. It seems fitting to use the first page or two in each chapter to recount selected incidents from the lives of these mental giants. Thus the reader should gain an appreciation of the human side of some of those responsible for the mathematics he is studying. The mathematics of ancient times was quite mystical and empirical. For example, the ancient Egyptians knew that a triangle having sides of length 3, 4, and 5 is a right triangle, but why this is true, and how it should be established as true, were not known until about 600 B.c. The ancients were of a practical bent and not at all concerned with theory. Much of mathe- matics is still taught from that same point of view. Deductive reasoning first appeared in-ancient Greece about 600 B.c. Thales of Miletus, a merchant, traveled extensively throughout the Medi- terranean region, learning much of the mathematics and mysticism of Egypt and elsewhere. He appears to have been the first to attempt a proof of any sort. He is credited with discovering that vertical angles formed by inter secting lines are equal, that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal, and other similar geometric facts. Furthermore, his discoveries were 12 cH. 1 Logic supported by some sort of deductive reasoning. Here we find the very beginnings of modern ideas in mathematics. Little is known of Thales’ life, but some interesting tales are related concerning the personality of this famous merchant, statesman, philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer, one of the “seven wise men” of antiquity. Thales is reported to have owned a salt mine, which was located on a moun- tain, and used a train of mules to bring the salt to market. It is said that while crossing a stream on the way down the mountain, one of the mules accidentally stumbled, and by the time he had regained his footing, much of the salt had dissolved, lightening his load considerably. It was a long trip, so the mule had a long time to consider just why he had a lighter burden than usual. Remem- bering the incident, this clever beast began wallowing in the stream on each A diameter of a circle bisects the circle. downhill trip. Now, in an attempt to remedy this situation, most of us would probably beat the animal unmercifully the instant he started to wallow in the stream. But not Thales. He would not stoop to using such a method. He merely gave the mule another long trip to remember by loading him with sponges instead of salt. The cure was immediate. On another occasion Thales demonstrated to a friend how easy it wasINTRODUCTION SEC.1 3 to get rich. One spring, he quietly purchased all the oil presses in the region. When the fall olive crop was harvested, he realized a fortune renting his presses at high rates. One night when he tripped and fell into a ditch while watching the stars, an old lady standing nearby asked him how he could possibly see anything in the sky when he could not even see what was at his own feet. When asked what was the strangest sight he ever saw, he replied, “An aged tyrant.” To lead better lives, Thales advised people to “refrain from doing what we blame in others.” 1 | INTRODUCTION Mathematics deals largely with numbers: natural numbers, integers, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, and many others. It is important, therefore, for the earnest student of mathematics to understand the basic structure of our complex number system. Consider the following questions: (1) Is5 > -172 Why? (2) Is|—al = a? Always? (3) Since 3 + 2i # 2 + 3i, where i? = —1, is 3 + 21 < 2 + Boris 34+ 2i>2+4 31? (4) Is there just one infinity? What is infinity? (5) Is there a smallest positive real number? If so, what is it? (6) Assuming that the null set @ is the set having no elements, and that set A is contained in set B, A © B, if and only if every element in A is also in B, how can one prove that 2 & A for every set A? (1) Why does (—a)(—8) = +ab? (8) Suppose the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is true. Suppose also that it is not raining. Can one logically conclude that the ground is not wet? (9) Is the statement “no books on this shelf are blue” equivalent to the statement “‘it is false that all books on this shelf are blue”? (10) Remembering that complex roots of polynomial equations come in conjugate pairs x = a + bi, why does the polynomial equation x — 2 —3i 0 have only x = 2 + 3/as a root and not x = 2 — 3ialso? These are but a few of the basic questions which this book attempts to answer. These questions concerning sets, logic, and numbers, while quite elementary, are certainly not easy to answer. Many times, the most basic concepts require the most careful examination.4° cH.1 Locic The complex number system is approached with the goal of under- standing its foundations. First the natural numbers 1, 2, 3,... are discussed, then the integers are built up from them, then the rational numbers, the real numbers, and finally the complex numbers. To give a better understanding of how these systems are logically structured, we develop set notation and study elementary logic prior to examining these number systems. After completing this course, the student should have a better apprecia- tion of the logical foundations of mathematics in general and of the number systems of mathematics in particular. Thus he will be much better able to comprehend the subtleties of more advanced mathematical studies. EXERCISES 1-1 through 1-10. Answer the questions (1) through (10) posed in this section. Give examples where possible. Prove your answers. Your intuition should not be trusted in mathematics. Many times your first impression is incorrect. Answer quickly each of the questions or problems in Exercises 1-11 to 1-26, then work out each correct solution. 1-11, Do they have a fourth of July in England? 1-12. A car drives 27 miles at 40 m.p.h., then 27 miles at 60 m.p.h. What is its average speed? 1-13. Acar drives 27 min at 40 m.p.h., then 27 min at 60 m.p.h. What is its average speed? 1-14. Guess how many letters are in this “sentence.” 1-15. A large clock takes 30 sec to strike six. How long will it take to strike twelve? 1-16. Would you consider working 30 days at a job paying 1 cent the first day, 2 cents the second day, 4 cents the third day, 8 cents the fourth day, and so forth? 1-17. By what percentage does ; exceed 345? 1-18. If a ball of yarn 3 in. in diameter costs 30 cents, how much should a ball of yarn 5 in. in diameter cost? 1-19. If A can do a job in 3 days and B can do it in 5 days, how long will it take them together to do the job? 1-20, One glass contains some milk and another glass some hot choco- late. A teaspoonful of hot chocolate is taken from the second glass and put in the first. Then a teaspoonful of the mixture is taken from the first and returned to the second. Which glass now contains more of the other liquid? 1-21. A plane leaves Boston flying at 250 m.p.h. Fifteen minutes later a plane leaves Bangor, Maine, 200 air miles away, flying at 150 m.p.h. When they meet, which one is farther from Boston?STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES SEC.2 5 1-22. Is the statement “this statement is false”’ true or is it false? 1-23. Why cannot a man living in the United States be buried in Canada? 1-24, Is it legal for a man to marry his widow’s sister? 1-25, From the bottom of a 30-ft well, a frog can climb up 3 ft each day, sliding back 2 ft each night. In how many days does he escape the well? 1-26. You wish a long night’s sleep, so at 8 P.M. you set your alarm for 9 a.M. How much sleep does this permit? 2 | STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Under what circumstances is the statement “x? — 2x =0 or x? + 2x = 0" true? In particular, is it true for x = 0? Again, consider the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet.” Is this statement true if the ground is wet, but it is not raining (as when a sprinkler is on)? To find the mathematician’s answer to these and related questions, we now turn our attention to the study of symbolic logic. 2.1 DEFINITION. By a statement, or a proposition, is meant a sentence which is either true or false, but not both. Statements are generally denoted by lower case letters p, g, 7,--.- Some examples of statements are: (1) Today is hot. (2) Today is Friday. (3) 2is a prime number. (True) (4) 545 = 12. (False) (5) George Washington is the current president of the United States of America. (False) The following are not statements: (6) Are you listening? (7) The whipplecork is plockled in the aardvinch, (8) Wow, what a day! (9) xisay. (10) This statement is false.6 cH.1 LoGIC A statement ends in a period, not a question mark or an exclamation point. Thus (6) and (8) are not statements. Because (7) makes no sense, it cannot be true or false. Similarly (9) is not a statement, even though it has the proper ‘form, until the variables x and y are replaced by meaningful terms. Sentence (10) is deceiving; it looks like a statement. If it is a proposition, then it is either true or false, but not both. Suppose it is true. Then what it says is true, and it is false. But it cannot be both true and false. Hence (10) cannot be true. Well, suppose (10) is false. Then what it says is false, and (10) is not false, it is true. Again, it cannot be both true and false. Therefore, (10) cannot be classified as either true or false. Hence it is not a statement. Various ways exist for obtaining new statements from old ones. A few of them are considered here. 2.2. DEFINITION. The statement p’, read “not-p” and called the negation of statement p, is defined to be the denial of statement p. That is, pis false if p is true, and p' is true if p is false. We use truth tables to illustrate the truth values of statements, where T stands for “true” and F for “false.” Thus we have the truth table for negation in Fig. 2.1. This table simply restates that p’ is false when p is true, and p' is true when p is false. Since it gives a picture of the truth values for negation, the truth table may be more easily remembered than the verbal definition. P P T F F T Ficure 2.1. Negation. Any proposition symbolized by a single letter is called a primitive propo- sition. Connectives are logical symbols between (or connecting) two state- ments to form a new statement, called a compound statement. We define four such connectives: 2.3. DEFINITION. The proposition p A q, read “‘pand q” and called the conjunction of p and q, is true when both p and q are true and is false otherwise. 2.4 DEFINITION. The proposition p v q, read “p or q” and called the disjunction of p and q, is false when both p and q are false and is true otherwise.STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES SEC.2 7 2.5 DEFINITION. The proposition p> g, read “‘p implies q” or “if p, then q” and called an implication or conditional, is false when p is true and @ is false, and is true otherwise. 2.6 DEFINITION. The proposition p<+q, read “p if and only if q” and called an equivalence or biconditional, is true if and only if both p and q are true or both are false, We also write iff to mean “if and only if.” Truth tables for these four connectives appear in Fig, 2.2. Fiure 2.2. Logical connectives. The meaning of each connective should be explained further. Conjunc- tion has the usual meaning given “and,” except that the two statements need not be related. Thus we state 2 + 2 = 4 and January is a month as being a true conjunction. Disjunction is used logically in the inclusive “and/or” sense of the Latin word vel. Indeed the symbol v looks like the initial letter of that word. Then 2+ 2 = 4 or January is a month is a true disjunction. When one says, “If it rains, then I will stay home,” the meaning usually includes the inverse statement, “If it does not rain, then I will not stay home.”” This is not the case in a logical implication. As a logical implication, this statement gives absolutely no information for the case when it does not rain. To illustrate the plausibility of our definition for implication, consider the statement: : “if a figure is a square, then it has four right angles.” Let p denote the statement “this figure is a square,” and q the statement “this figure has four right angles.” Certainly this implication is to be con- sidered true—always true. In Fig. 2.3 notice that the case where p is true and q is false, is missing. This is the one situation that cannot occur; a figure8 cH. 1 LoGic cannot be a square and not have four right angles. Since each of the other three cases can occur, it is reasonable to call the implication true in all of them. Figure Square O Oblong Trapezoid Z_] Fiure 2.3. Implication. Equivalence has the expected meaning, again remembering that the two statements need not be related. A true equivalence is, for example, 2 + 2 = 5 iff July 4 is New Year’s Day. Truth tables are especially convenient for examining compound propo- sitions such as (p V q’)—>p’. In Fig. 2.4, the first, second, and last columns constitute the truth table for the given proposition. The intermediate columns merely serve as an aid to constructing the last column. Thus the values for PV q' are determined by remembering that a disjunction is false only when both members are false. But p and q’ are both false only in the third line; at least one of them is true in each of the other lines. Now the entire statement is an implication, and an implication is false only when truth implies falsity; in this case, only when p v q’ is true and p’ is false. That combination occurs in the first two rows only. @va)>Pr Ficure 2.4. (pv gp’. | Note that (p v q’) — p’ has the same truth values as p’ has. Then these two statements are equivalent; one could be used in place of the other in any logical discussion. Finally we agree to write, in any truth table, the symbols for the primitive propositions p,q, r,... in alphabetical order, and to make the rightmost column T,F,T,F,..., the next column leftward T,T,F,F,..., and so forth. For three statements, we would have the arrangement of Fig. 2.5. ThisSTATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES SEC.2 9 is not the only system in use, but we adopt it here for the sake of standardiza- tion of our discussions. maaan] ss mana dana Ficure 2.5. Truth table heading. EXERCISES » Decide which of the following are statements. Every general statement has its exceptions. Some triangles are equilateral. Some goobs are feekles. All sociologists believe in public housing. When the swallows return to Capistrano. Are you studying? Today is February 18th. Don’t get angry. Five is a number and “five” is a numeral. j. Apples are good and red or yellow. 2-2. Answer the questions posed in the opening paragraph of this section. 2-3. Write a negation for each statement without using “it is not true that...” rire me aoop a. Five is a prime number. b. Today is hot. c. This book is purple. 2-4, Complete these truth tables, where possible. a pip b. T F m42-5, Decide the truth value of each statement. a. If2+2=4, then 6°7 = 42. b. If2+2=4, then 5+9 = 59. c. 1f2 +7 = 27, then 6 + 8 = 542, d. If24+7=3,then5+1=6. 2-6. Decide the truth value of each statement. 54+3=8and2+6= 14. 543 =80r2+6= 14. 54+3=8iff2+ 14, 2+3=Sand2- 6. 24+3=S5o0r2-3=6. repoge 54+1=9if3-°7=8. Write a truth table for each proposition in Exercises 2-7 to 2-15. 2-7. (prAg—>(p vay. 2-8. (pv g)>(p Aq). 29. (perg) V (p>q'). 2-10. (p v g)'>(p Aq). 21. (p>g) A (qn) (pr). 2-12. (p'>p)eop. 213. (p>g)> no (p> (qn). 2-14. (p Aq)>(P Vr’). 2-15. (p>(q Ar) (Pq) A (Pr). 3 | TAUTOLOGIES, ABSURDITIES, AND CONTINGENCIES 3.1 DEFINITION. A logical statement that is always true is called a tautology; a proposition that is always false is an absurdity; one that is sometimes true and sometimes false is a contingency. One of the main purposes of logic is to ferret out tautologies, for these are the theorems, or laws, of logic. We shall be concerned only with testingTAUTOLOGIES, ABSURDITIES, AND CONTINGENCIES SEC. 3 ey for tautologies, checking the truth tables of propositions for the last column. having only T’s. Figure 3.1 shows some examples. In particular, p> (p A q) is a contingency; (p A q)—>p, (p A q)+>(q A p), and p V p’ are tautolo- gies; whereas p A p’ is an absurdity, whence (p A p’y' isa tautology. That is, whenever any statement s is an absurdity, then s’ is a tautology. pA |p>(P ag) nasas|s nana. mand] s mann|s Ficure 3.1. Some compound statements. Statements having the same truth tables are equivalent. Figure 3.1 shows that p—(p Aq) is equivalent to pg, and that p Aq is equivalent to q A p. In any logical argument a statement can be replaced by any equivalent one. Some interesting equivalent statements appear in Fig. 3.2. It also shows that each of the connectives can be expressed in terms of negation and just one of the three connectives A, V, or—s, since also p«+q is equivalent to the conjunction (pq) A (q—p). It is left to the reader to verify these equivalences. Statement Equivalent statements pv Ficure 3.2. Some equivalent statements.12 cH. 1 Loic 3.2. DEFINITION. Calling the implication pq the given statement, we then call q-> p the converse, p'—>q’ the inverse, and q' — p’ the contrapositive. As an example, consider the given statement: if it is February, then thirty days hence will be March. Its converse is: if thirty days hence will be March, then it is February; its inverse: if it is not February, then thirty days hence will not be March; and its contrapositive: if in thirty days it will not be March, then it is not February. Observe that the given implication and its contrapositive are both true in this case. Also, if today is January 31, then thirty days hence is March, but now is not February. Thus the converse and the inverse are not true. One must be very careful, when using a theorem stated as an implication, not to assume the converse without its having been proved. The next theorem indicates this logical relation between these four statements in the general case. 3.3 THEOREM. The given statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent; the inverse and the converse are equivalent. The given statement is not equivalent to its converse. Symbolically, >g)o@'>P), Q'>9) (GP), but (p>) (q>p) is not true. We conclude this section by listing some important tautologies, leaving their proofs for the reader to supply. The reader is urged to clip a paper clipTAUTOLOGIES, ABSURDITIES, AND CONTINGENCIES SEC.3 13 on this page for quick reference. It is important to have ready access to these tautologies as they will be referred to by name from time to time. 3.4 THEOREM. The following are tautologies: (1) (pA py. Law of contradiction. @) pvp’. Lawof excluded middle. G3) WV gg V p) and (p Ag)(q Ap). Commutative laws. @ (@VODVHNO(WV | n)and(p Ag) Ane (PA@ Ar). Associative laws. () WAG Vr) AQ) VP Ar) and (pV (G Ar) (p vq) A (pvr). Distributive laws. (©) pep". Law of double negation. () (pq) (q'—p’). _ Law of contraposition. (8) (p>) A (qr) > (pr). Law of syllogism. ©) (A (pq) 4. Law of detachment. (10) (p Aq)—p. _ Law of simplification. Also p—(p V q). Law of addition. ab) @ A@yvq)->4. Law of disjunction. (12) (p A p)pand (p Vv p)<>p. _—_ Idempotent laws. (13) (p Aq)’ (p' V @’and (p Vv gq) (p' Aq’). De Morgan’s laws. (14) (peg) (pq) A (GP). Biconditional law. EXERCISES 3-1 through 3-14. Verify lines (1) through (14) of Theorem 3.4 by truth tables. In Exercises 3-15 to 3-22, decide whether each statement is a tautology, an absurdity, or a contingency. 3-15. (q A (p->q))>P. 3-16. (g' A (pq) >". 3-17. (p' A (p>) >9- 3-18. (p Ag)> >"). 3-19. p'> (pq). 3.20. (p A p')>4. 3.21. (pV p+ (q Aq). 3-22. (p Vg) (q V py’14 CH. 3-23. in the 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28. 1 Logic In Fig. 3.2, verify the equivalence of the three statements given a. first line. b. second line. c. third line. Rewrite each statement as an implication. a. If p, then g. b. gifp. c. qonly if p. d. is necessary for p. e. q is sufficient for p. f. A necessary condition for p is q. g. A sufficient condition for p is g. Rewrite each statement in the form “if..., then...”. a. A necessary condition for two triangles to be congruent is that the three sides of one be equal respectively to the three sides of the other. b. A sufficient condition for two triangles to be congruent is that the three sides of one be equal respectively to the three sides of the other. c. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of each statement. a. If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday. b. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. c. x+y =z implies x < z. State whether the converse of each theorem is true or false. a. Ifa =, then ac = be. b. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. c. Ifa triangle has sides of length a, b, and c with a? + 5? = c2, then it is a right triangle. Define p/q to mean p’ v q’. a, Show that p’< (p/p). b. Show that (p v 9) +> ((p/p)/(q/))- Since negation and disjunction can be expressed in terms of this Sheffer’s stroke symbol / only, and since all the logical connectives can be expressed in terms of negation and disjunction, it follows that all the logical connec- tives may be expressed in terms of stroke only. Find expressions, in terms of Pq and / only, for c pag. d. pq. e. porg. 4 | THE MATHEMATICS OF LOGIC Many arguments can be readily reduced to symbolic logic, so let us consider the analysis of such arguments. A logical argument consists of someTHE MATHEMATICS OF LOGIC sEC.4 = 15 assumed statements, called the hypothesis, and a derived statement, called the conclusion. It is called valid iff the hypothesis implies the conclusion; that is, iff the statement “the hypothesis implies the conclusion” is a tautology. Otherwise the argument is called invalid. It is interesting to note that a statement such as @Ap)>4g is a tautology. It shows that a false hypothesis (p A p’ is an absurdity) implies any conclusion whatsoever. It follows that if the hypothesis is never true, then the argument is automatically valid. Some authors do not permit the term “valid” to apply in such a case, but we do not so restrict its use here. Note also that p>qvq) is a tautology; that is, any statement implies a tautology. Thus, if the con- clusion is a tautology, then the argument is automatically valid. A rule for testing arguments is now stated. Remember that we call a statement “true” or “false,” and an argument “valid” or “invalid”; the terms “true” and “false” are never applied to an argument. 4.1 RULE. Any tautology may be assumed. If pq is a tautology, then any occurrence of p may be replaced by q in any statement. From p—>q and p, we may derive g. From p A q, we may derive p. From p, we may derive p v g. By the above rules, an argument is valid only when the conclusion can be derived from the hypothesis (the given statements). Otherwise it is invalid. An argument may be proved invalid by finding a set of truth values for the primitive statements p,q,r,... which makes the hypothesis true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument p>q ro q PAS aa where the three statements given above the line are hypothesis, assumed true, and the statement below the line is the conclusion. The three-dot triangle is read “therefore.”” We must show that (AQ) ACA) A(DAS)>r is a tautology. The form of Fig. 4.1 serves to analyze the argument.16 cH.1 Logic rog PAs . gor “oP p>q por por ae Ficure 4.1. A valid argument. From rq’, we obtain its contrapositive g—> r. From p—> g and qr, obtain p—>r by the law of syllogism. From p A s, obtain p by the law of simplification. From p and p—>r, obtain r by the law of detachment. Thus this argument is valid. It is interesting to note that statement s was not used. That is, statement P A Stells us that both p and s are true, but we had no use for s. Occasionally such unnecessary information will appear in the hypothesis. Now consider the argument and analysis of Fig. 4.2. From p v q and p', obtain g, the law of disjunction. Now from q and r—>q, we can obtain nothing; from the table for implication, if the conclusion q is true, then the hypothesis r can be either true or false. This line of reasoning yields no results, so we suspect that the argument is invalid. Let us search for a set of truth values for p,q, and r which will verify the hypothesis and deny the conclusion. Clearly we must have p’ and r’. From p v q, since p' (p is false), then g (q must be true). Thus p’, q, and r’ are a possible set of values. Since q is true, then p V q and r->q are true, and p’ is true. However, r is false. This proves that the argument is invalid. PYG Pv rq Pp 4 7 na 7 r>q 2 Ficure 4.2, An invalid argument. An alternative method is available provided there are not too many primitive propositions p, g, r,... involved. Consider the argument Pog, poh go Form a truth table which includes each of the statements involved. Since the conclusion must be true whenever all the hypothesis is true, we are not at all concerned with what occurs when the hypothesis is not all true. Thus cross out any row containing a statement from the hypothesis that is false. If theTHE MATHEMATICS OF LOGIC SEC.4 17 conclusion is true in every remaining row, the argument is valid; otherwise it is invalid. In this case (see Fig. 4.3) we have rows 1 and 2 crossed out because p-> q’ is false there; rows 3, 4, 7, and 8, because q is false there. In rows 5 and 6, all three statements in the hypothesis are true. In row 5, r is true, but r is false in row 6, whence the argument is invalid because the conclusion is not true in every row that is not crossed out. < aI Maa] aaAdanad|s san nasnn BAsasssaaay sd 4exnseanmansal]y Ficure 4.3, Truth table analysis of an argument. A few words of caution are appropriate here. From the implication pq, Biven p, one can conclude q, Alternatively, given q’, one can conclude p’ by the contrapositive. However, no conclusion is possible when either p’ or q is given, Drawing a conclusion in such a case is called arguing from the converse. It is never permissible. From the disjunction p v q, given p’, one can conclude g. However, given p, it is not possible to conclude either q or q’. That is, no conclusion is possible in this case. Finally, given pg and g—>r, we can conclude p->r by the law of syllogism. From p—»q and r—>q, no such conclusion is possible. Also, from p—qand pr, no conclusion of this form is possible. EXERCISES Test the validity of each argument in Exercises 4-1 to 4-10. 41. pg rp, gar. 42. PVG q>n Pr. 43. DAW, r>p. 44. pvq pyvd. 45. pg, avn re 46. PVG Gon GAs. 47. pvq pv. peg.18 cH.1 Locic 48. poqg r>p, ros. to 5g 49. pArq. “pVq 410. pg, gon ros. As vp. In Exercises 4-11 to 4-25, rewrite each argument in symbolic form using the suggested letters. Then check the validity of the argument. 4-11. If John is sane (J), then he can do logic (L). If he is not sane, then he cannot serve on a jury (let S denote “‘he can serve”). John cannot do logic. Therefore, he cannot serve on a jury. 4-12. If Henry is a professor (P), then he is a fool (F). If he is not a fool, then he is learned (L). Hence, if he is a professor, then he is not learned. 4-13. If today is Friday (F), then yesterday was Thursday (7). But yesterday was Thursday. Hence, today is Friday. 4-14. The train is late (L) if it snows (S). It is not snowing. Therefore, the train is not late. 4-15. The train is late (L) only if it snows (S). It is not snowing. Therefore, the train is not late. 4-16. If this car is made in England (M), then parts are difficult to obtain (D). This car is expensive (E) or it is not difficult to obtain parts. But this car is not expensive. Hence it was not made in England. 417. If Ido not study (S), then I will sleep (/). I will not sleep if Iam worried (W). Hence, if I am worried, I will study. 4-18. Unless Jones is elected (J), we will lose the airbase (L). Jones will be elected iff he has your support (S). If we save the airbase, then Jones will be elected. We will save the airbase. Hence Jones has your support. 419 The professor assigns homework (H) iff he lectures (L). If class is dismissed (D), then there will be no lecture. There will not be both class and homework, but there will be one or the other. Hence we have homework. 4-20. My vacation will be in June (J) or in December (D). It cannot be at both times. If it is in December, then I can expect snow (S), but surely it would not snow in June (W). If the vacation is not in December, then it will be quite hot (H). Hot weather implies a June vacation. Hence it is either hot or snowy when I take my vacation. 4-21. Either John and Dick are the same age (4), or John is older than Dick (0). If they are the same age, then Mary and John are not the same age (M). If John is older than Dick, then John is also older than Susy (S). Hence either Mary and John are not the same age, or John is older than Susy. 4-22. If Sam is in jail (J), then he is not a bother to his family (B). If he is not a bother, then he is in the army (A). If he is a disgrace (D), then he is a bother. Hence he is either in the army or not a disgrace.QUANTIFIERS SEC. 5 19 4-23. Either Carl has been paid (C) or Sam is spending more than he can afford (S). If Sam is spending more than he can afford, then his bank account is empty (E). But Sam’s bank account is not empty. Therefore, Carl has been paid. 4-24. Mary is married (M) and Sally is single (S). If Arthur has a job (J), then Mary is married. Hence Arthur has a job. 4-25. Either logic is difficult (D) or not many students like it (L). If mathematics is easy (E), then logic is not difficult. Therefore, if many students like logic, then mathematics is not easy. 5 | QUANTIFIERS Until the word “he” is replaced by a meaningful term, a statement such “the was a prize fighter” is not a proposition, even though it has the form of a proposition. A set of objects that make a sentence a proposition is called a meaningful set for that sentence, and such a sentence is called an open sentence. The word (or symbol) to be replaced is called a variable. Here a meaningful set is the set of all people. The replacement of “he” by “Joe Louis” makes the statement true; hence Joe Louis is a truth value for this open sentence. “Clayton W. Dodge” does not make this sentence true; hence it is not a truth value. The set of all objects in a given meaningful set that make a sentence true is called its ¢ruth set. The truth set in this case is the set of all past prize fighters. In the meaningful set of natural numbers, the open sentence x? + 6 = 5x has the truth set {2, 3}, as the reader can readily verify. In this same meaning- ful set, 6x? + 7x — 3 = 0 has no truth values. In the meaningful set of rational numbers, it has {—$, }} as truth set. Now it makes no sense to set x = Joe Louis in the open sentence 6x? + 7x — 3 = 0, so we do not permit such a replacement. That is, re- placements must come from a meaningful set for that particular open sentence. ‘An example of an open sentence involving more than one variable is x + 2y = 2x. A truth value here is (2, 1) meaning x = 2and y = 1. 5.1 DEFINITION. Two statements that can be made about an open sentence p(x) having variable x are (1) for all x, p(x) is true, and (2) there exists an x such that p(x) is true.20 cH. 1 Locic Statement (1) is symbolized by Wx, p(x) or simply P(x). The “upside down A” is read “for all” or “for each.” Statement (2) is symbolized by ax 3 p(x) or ax, p(x). The symbol 3 is read “there exists,” and the comma, or the symbol 9, an upper case Russian letter pronounced “er,” means “such that.” The statement Vx, p(x) is taken as true iff every meaningful value for P(x) is a truth value; 3x 9 p(x) is true iff p(x) has at least one truth value in its meaningful set. Thus 3x 9 6x? + 7x — 3 = Ois a true statement, but Vx, 6x? + 7x — 3 = 0 is false. On the other hand, the statement Vx, 2x + 4 = 2(x + 2) is true, for whenever x is replaced by a meaningful term (a number), then the statement (equation) is true; it is an identity. The statement 3x 9 p(x) means that at least one meaningful value exists which makes the statement true. It could even occur that every meaningful value is a truth value. Thus it is perfectly correct to say 3x 92x +4 = 2(x + 2), for there is a truth value (x = 3, for example) verifying the state- ment. In stating Vx, p(x) we mean that whenever there is a meaningful replace- ment for x, then that value makes the statement p(x) true. It does not require any meaningful values to exist. For example, “all kings of the United States are bald” is a true statement because the United States has no kings. If the meaningful set is taken as the set of all kings of the United States, then the statement might read Vx, x is bald; its meaningful set is the empty set, and the statement is taken as true. This convention means that for the statement Vx, p(x) to be false, there must exist a meaningful value of x which makes the statement p(x) false. We have established the first part of the following theorem, whose second part we shall not formally prove. We agree to write p’(x) to denote that p(x) is false.QUANTIFIERS SEC.5 21 5.2. THEOREM. (Vx, p(2))' + @x 9 p(x) and x9 p(x)’ (Wx, p(x). An example will help to clarify these ideas. Consider a shelf of black blocks and white blocks. What possibilities could occur? We could have all black blocks, all white blocks, some of each, or no blocks at all. See Fig. 5.1. The statement 3x9 x is black is true on shelves 3 and 4 only. Hence its negation Vx, x is white (not black) is true on shelves 1 and 2 (only). Similarly, Vx, x is black is true on shelves 1 and 3, whence its negation 3x9 x is white (not black) must be true on shelves 2 and 4, 1 2/oO0 0 3. ae G@ 4/0088 Ficure 5.1. Negations of quantifiers. Arguments involving quantifiers are most easily handled by means of specialized diagrams called Euler diagrams, in which the interiors of circles represent the sets of objects involved and are so placed as to satisfy the hypothesis and, if possible, to deny the conclusion. Consider the argument: Some cats are felines. All felines are quadrupeds. ©. Alll cats are quadrupeds. Let C denote the set of all cats, F, felines, and Q, quadrupeds. Draw a circle and label it C for the set of all cats. See Fig. 5.2. By the hypothesis, the circle F must have at least one point in common with circle C. We are forced to draw circle F with at least the overlap indicated.22, «cH. 1 Logic Figure 5.2. Cats, Now (see Fig. 5.3), circle @ must be drawn completely surrounding circle F. Two possibilities are shown. It is possible to draw these circles so that the conclusion is not satisfied. The right-hand figure is such a case. This argument, then, is invalid, regardless of the truth or falsity of the conclusion. The conclusion, even though it is true, does not logically follow from the hypothesis. We say the argument is invalid; we do not say that it is false. Q) Fiaure 5.3, More cats. 2 The argument: All bats are rats. All rats are mats. .. All bats are mats. is valid, as Fig. 5.4 shows. It is not possible to draw the circles to satisfy the hypothesis and not satisfy the conclusion. Again, we are not in the least Ficure 5.4, Bats.QUANTIFIERS SEC.5 23 concerned with the truth or falsity of the statements involved; our only concern is with the logic of the argument, devoid of all real meaning. EXERCISES 5-1. Write a negation for each statement. a. Vx, p(x) A g(x). b. Vx, p(x) v g(x). ec. Vx, p(x) > q(x). d. Vx, p(x) g(x). e. Vx, p(x). 5-2. Write a negation for each statement. a. 3xIplx) A q(x). b. 3x3 p(x) v g(x). ©. axD px) q(x). d. ax I p(x g(x). e. 3x9p'(x). 5-3. Write a negation for each statement. a. All cats are felines. b. Some dogs are not blue. c. All birds are nonswimmers. d. Some animals are quadrupeds. In Exercises 5-4 to 5-17, test each argument for validity by means of Euler diagrams. 5-4. All men are rich. Socrates was a man. Hence Socrates was rich. 5-5. Platinum is heavy. Nothing but platinum will satisfy him. Hence nothing light (not heavy) will satisfy him. 5-6. Some freshmen are undergraduates. Some undergraduates are students. Therefore some freshmen are students. 5-7. No dogs are fish. Some guppies are fish. Hence some guppies are not dogs. 5-8. Some girls are teachers. Mary Jones is a teacher. Therefore, Mary Jones is some girl. 5-9. Some horses eat hay. Henry eats hay. Hence Henry is a horse. 5-10. All lions are fierce. Some lions do not drink milk. Thus some creatures that drink milk are not fierce. 5-11. All gerbles are glops. All glops are gurkles. Some gurkles are geebers. Hence some gerbles are geebers. 5-12. All timid creatures are bunnies. All timid creatures are dumb. Some cows are timid creatures. Thus some cows are dumb bunnies.24 cH. 1 LOGIC 5-13, All men are bipeds. Some wolves are bipeds. Some men are carnivorous. Hence some wolves are carnivorous or some men are wolves. 5-14. All mathematics professors are absent-minded. All absent- minded people are slightly crazy. Hence some mathematics professors are slightly crazy. 5-15. All murders are immoral. Some murders are justifiable. Thus some immoral acts are justifiable. 5-16. No apes are buttercups. No buttercups are whales. Thus no apes are whales. 5-17. All horses are animals. Some animals are quadrupeds. Hence some horses are quadrupeds. 5-18. For each of the eight possibilities of valid or invalid argument and true or false hypothesis and conclusion listed below, construct a simple argument, where possible, illustrating the situation. 1 2 3 4 5 Argument Vo V V Vv I Hypothesis T T F F T Conclusion T F T F T F 6 I T 4am-3 iy Tt 20 5-19. In Exercise 5-18, which case or cases cannot occur? 6 | THE LOGIC OF MATHEMATICS Consider the problem of constructing a logical discourse. The ultimate goal is the development of a body of true statements, theorems, or tautologies about the objects in the discourse. Suppose, for example, one wanted to write a Euclidean geometry textbook. First one might make a list of the topics to be discussed, such as congruent figures, similar figures, circles, and so forth. Next one might state specific theorems, such as the Pythagorean theorem, to be established. Consider how to prove a theorem in the discourse. How would one prove the Pythagorean theorem. Generally, one would expect to. prove it from other true statements (theorems) already established. But these state- ments should also be proved from still other statements, and so forth. Clearly this process must end. That is, there must be a body of initial statements that are taken as true without proof. These are called the axioms or postulates of the discourse and are statements about the objects of the discourse that are accepted as true for the purposes of the discourse. An axiom for Euclidean geometry might very well be: Two distinct points determine exactly one line on which they both lie.THE LOGIC OF MATHEMATICS SEC.6 25 Returning to the Pythagorean theorem, let us consider the terms that are involved. Obviously “triangle” is one of them. To be sure that the student is fully aware of the meanings of such terms, they should be defined carefully. One might say: A triangle is the figure composed of three points not all lying on the same straight line and the three line segments determined by pairs of these points. Observe that we have defined triangle in terms of point, line, line segment, and figure. Now these terms must also have been defined. Any definition presupposes a knowledge of the technical terms used in that definition. Our definition of triangle assumed the understanding of each of the four terms mentioned above. It follows that not all terms can be explicitly defined, for we do not have an endless supply of terms upon which to draw. And, of course, it is un- thinkable to commit the “sin of circularity” by defining point in terms of line (say, as the intersection of two lines), and then turning around and defining /ine in terms of point (as a special collection of points). A dictionary has to commit this sin of circularity, since it must assume the reader already has a basic knowledge of the language. Therefore, an English dictionary is of no help to a person who knows no English. Thus some basic terms, called primitive terms, must be purposely left undefined. No definitions are given for these primitive terms. They may be informally explained to guide the reader’s thinking, but such explanations are not to be confused with definitions. In his Elements, Euclid explained that a point is “that which has no dimension.” This is not a definition; it serves only to give the reader a partial understanding of the basis upon which the discourse is to be built. How, then, are the primitive terms to be given precise meanings? By the postulates. These assumed statements involve the primitive terms and state their properties implicitly. The statement, two points determine exactly one line, tells something about points and lines. It helps to clarify the meanings of both these terms. By stating enough such properties, we narrow down the possible meanings to just exactly what we intend. This is the only definition given any primitive term. . Logically, words are not necessary; all the axioms can be stated sym- bolically, and the primitive terms can be merely symbols. Thus one can state two x’s determine exactly one y instead of two points determine exactly one line.26 cH. 1 -Locic Then one is not biased by preconceived notions about the meanings of words. Although words were still used in this example, the idea should be evident. After listing a set of primitive terms and a set of postulates, then every new technical term must be defined by means of the primitive terms, and every new statement about the terms of the discourse must be proved from the postulates. Since it is intended that the primitive terms be devoid of concrete mean- ing, the postulates are merely open sentences, having no truth value whatever. Thus the theorems are also open sentences, and no statement in the discourse can be called true or false. The only statement about the discourse that can have any truth value is the statement: The postulates imply the theorems. That this statement be true is the entire goal of the discourse. Otherwise the discourse is useless. 6.1 THE PATTERN OF A LOGICAL DISCOURSE. (1) A set of primitive (undefined) terms. (2) Aset of axioms (unproved statements) about the primitive terms. (3) All other terms of the discourse are defined by means of the primitive terms. (4) Alll other statements about the terms of the discourse are logically deduced from the postulates. These are the theorems. Such a discourse is called a branch of pure mathematics. When concrete meanings are given to the primitive terms in such a way that all the axioms become true statements, then we have a model of the discourse called a branch of applied mathematics. Since the postulates of a discourse imply the theorems, when a model is obtained, then the theorems all become true statements about this model. This results in an economy in mathematics, for a given postulate set may have many models, and each theorem proved becomes many different true statements in the many different models. One might very well ask how theorems are discovered. Generally, this is accomplished by induction, that is, by shrewd guessing based on observa- tions. In Euclidean geometry, for instance, one may draw several different isosceles triangles, then observe that the base angles of each isosceles triangle appear to be equal. Thus a proposed theorem has been uncovered. Next a proof must be found. The inductive observations may lead toward a proof, but they definitely do not constitute a proof. A valid argument must be con- structed, using the form studied in Section 4, having the statement, triangle ABC is isosceles,THE LOGIC OF MATHEMATICS SEC.6 27 in the hypothesis, and the statement, the base angles of triangle ABC are equal, as the conclusion. This process is called deduction. Induction may serve to uncover theorems, but only deduction can prove them. By this time, the student should be thoroughly convinced of the truth of Bertrand Russell’s facetious statement that “mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” EXERCISES In Exercises 6-1 to 6-8, criticize each of these inductive arguments. 6-1. My two co-workers, both born in January, have big feet. They have concluded that all persons born in January have big feet. 6-2. City A has 100,000 telephones and city B has 32,000. During a six-month study, it was discovered that local markets in city A sold more than three times the amount of butter sold by those of city B. Hence the amount of butter consumed in any household varies directly with the number of telephones in that home. 6-3. During one summer vacation John worked in a bakery and gained 30 pounds. Hence working makes one gain weight. 6-4. A high correlation was noted between the number of bathers on Coney Island beach and the number of persons riding the Coney Island Ferry on any given day. Hence many Coney Island bathers ride the ferry to and from the island. 6-5. Analgebra student observes that 3 is prime (has no factors other than | and itself), 5 is prime, and 7 is prime. Hence all odd numbers greater than | are prime. 6-6. Another algebra student observes that 1 = 1%, 1 + 3 = 2?, 14+345=3%,and1+3+5+7= 4% He concludes that the sum of the first n odd natural numbers is n?. 6-7. A numerologist observes that, if f(x) = (x — 3)? + 12x, then f0) = 9, f(1) = 16, f(2) = 25, and f(3) = 26. He concludes that f(x) is a square for each integer x. 6-8. As roads become wider and wider, highway accidents also have increased. Hence wide roads cause highway accidents. 6-9. Find a model of the following postulate set that has only the one primitive term x: Pl: xis. aman. P2: x lived in ancient Greece.28 = cH. 1 LoGIC P3: x wrote an outstanding mathematics text. P4: Consisting of 13 books, x’s text treated geometry, algebra, and number theory. P5: Euclidean geometry was named for x. 6-10. Can you “prove” a definition? Explain. 6-11. As an example of a logical discourse, consider the system de- termined by the following three postulates, having bab and gooble as primitive terms, where a gooble is interpreted as a set of babs: Pl: Any two goobles have exactly one bab in common. P2: Every bab belongs to exactly two distinct goobles. P3: There are exactly four goobles. Deduce the following theorems in this system: a. There are exactly six babs. b. There are exactly three babs in each gooble. c. For each bab, there is exactly one other bab not in the same gooble. Find a model of this branch of pure mathematics where bab and gooble are interpreted to mean, respectively: d. point and line, e. line and point, f. person and club. 6-12. Consider the following set of postulates for a projective geom- etry, where point, line, and on are primitive terms. We agree that “‘a line is on a point” and “a point is on a line” are synonymous expressions. Pl: There exist a point and a line such that the point is not on the line. P2: Every line is on at least three distinct points. P3: Any two distinct points are on exactly one line. P4: For any two distinct lines there is at least one point on both of them (a point of intersection). Deduce the theorems stated in parts (a) through (d). a. Two distinct lines have only one point on which they both lie. b. There are two points and two lines such that each of the Points is on just one of the lines, and each of the lines is on just one of the points. c. There exist two points and two lines, the points not on the lines, such that the point on the two lines (their point of intersection) is on the line on (determined by) the two points.A SIMPLE LOGICAL DISCOURSE SEC. 7 29 d. All the postulates and theorems of this discourse remain true if the words “point” and “line” are interchanged throughout. e. Show that the seven points A, B, C, D, E, F, G and seven lines AFB, AGD, AEC, BGE, BDC, CGF, DEF, as shown in the accompanying figure, satisfy the postulates. EXERCISE 6-12 f. Show that the theorems are all true statements in the model of part (¢). g. Show that no model can exist having fewer than seven points and seven lines. 7 | A SIMPLE LOGICAL DISCOURSE To illustrate the mathematical pattern of a logical discourse, let us con- sider a simple branch of mathematics. We have a set S of elements a, b, c,.. 5 along with an undefined relation # between pairs of these elements. We write a = 6 to indicate that a and 6 are the same element; a # b means a and b are distinct elements of S. We write a 2 b to indicated a is B-related to b and a #5 to indicate a is not #-related to b. The following four postu- lates are assumed: 18 P2: P3: P4: Ifa # b, then a Rb or b Ra. Ifa 2b, thena # b. Ifa @band b Re, thena Be. S consists of exactly three elements. We shall now logically deduce several theorems about this set S in order to discover what characteristics it possesses. Before reading the proof of any theorem, the reader is urged to attempt to construct his own proof.30 cH. Loic 7.1 THEOREM. Ifa #65, then b Pa. Suppose both a # b and b @ a. Then, by P3, we have a # a. This vio- lates P2. Hence our supposition is impossible; we cannot have both a 2b and b @ a. Therefore, if we havea #b, thenb#a. Ot Notice the form of this proof, called a proof by contradiction or a proof by contrapositive. To establish the implication p—> q, the postulates imply Theorem 7.1, we assumed q’, then showed that p’ followed, proving that q'— p’ isa true implication; whenever the theorem is false, then the postulates are violated. By the contrapositive, we then have the desired implication pq. All such proofs by contradiction will be classified under the more general proof by reductio ad absurdum. 7.2 THEOREM. At least one element of S is not #-related to any element of S. Suppose the theorem is false and choose a ¢ S. Then there is b < S such that a & b. By P2, a # b. By supposition, there is ce S such that 6 @ c. By P3, a @c also. By P2, b#canda#e. By supposition, there is de S such that c # d. By P3,a@dand b Bd. By P2,a4d,b#d,ande#d. Thus S has four distinct elements a, b, c, and d, violating P4. The theorem now follows by contradiction. Theorem 7.2 is an example of an existence theorem, that is, a theorem guaranteeing the existence of some item. 7.3 THEOREM. At most one element of S is not #-related to any element of S. For suppose both a and b are such elements. If a # 6, then by PI, either ab orb Ra. fa b, then a is not one of these elements. If b # a, then 6 is not one of these elements. Thus we cannot have a # 6; we must have a = b. Thus there is only one such element in S. 0 In this proof, two alternatives were considered, a = b or a # b. The + The en quad symbol {}, introduced into mathematics by Paul R. Halmos, denotes the end of a proof. It has the same meaning as the Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum) used in geometry texts and the w° (which was what was wanted) of more recent origin.‘A SIMPLE LOGICAL DISCOURSE SEC. 7 31 latter was eliminated by contradiction. Hence only the former alternative remains, This proof is another example of reductio ad absurdum. The unique element of Theorems 7.2 and 7.3 is sometimes called the last element of S. 7.4 THEOREM. At least one element of S has no element of S B-telated to it. 7.5 THEOREM. At most one element of S has no element of S A-related to it. These proofs, similar to those of Theorems 7.2 and 7.3, are left for the reader to supply. The unique element of Theorems 7.4 and 7.5 is sometimes called the first element of S. 7.6 DEFINITION. If a@b and there is no ce S such that aBc and c &# b, then we write aF b. 7.71 THEOREM. Ifa%candbFc, thena = b. Suppose a # b. Then, by Pl, we have either a # b or b Ra. If a#b, since also b Re (since bF c, by Definition 7.6), then we cannot have a F ¢ by Definition 7.6. If b Ba, since also a # c by Definition 7.6, then we cannot have b ¥ ¢ by Definition 7.6. Since neither case can occur, we cannot have a # b. Hence, a = b by reductio ad absurdum. 0) This is also a proof by exhaustion, that is, by considering all possible cases one at a time and eliminating all but the one desired case. 7.8 THEOREM. Ifa¥bandaFc, thenb =c. 79 THEOREM. IfaFbandbFc, thenaF¥c. By Definition 7.6, a & band b & c, whence a ¥ c by Definition 7.6. 0 7.10 DEFINITION. Ifa band bF c, then we write a9 b. 7.11. DEFINITION. Denote the unique element of Theorems 7.2 and 7.3 by s, that of Theorems 7.4 and 7.5 by g, and the remaining element by f.32 cH. 1 LoGic 7.12 THEOREM. We have g &f, ¢ &s, and f#s, and no other instance of the @-relation occurs. Since g # fand g # sand no element is @-related to g by Theorem 7.4, we have g @ fand g & s by Pl. Since s is 2-related to no element by Theorem 7.2, and f # s, then fs by Pl. Any other instance of the @-relation between g, f, and s would violate Theorem 7.1. 7.13 THEOREM. WehavegFf,fFs, and g Gs. Our set Sis now quite well characterized, so we end our development here. Let us consider an application of this branch of mathematics. 7.14 EXAMPLE. Let S consist of three men: a man, his father, and his father’s father. Let # mean “‘is an ancestor of.” The postulates now read: Pl: Ifq@and b are not the same man, then a is an ancestor of b or b is an ancestor of a. P2: If ais an ancestor of b, then a and b are different men. P3: If a is an ancestor of 5 and b is an ancestor of c, then a is an ancestor of c. P4: There are exactly three men. All the postulates have been converted into true statements by this interpretation. Hence the theorems are all true statements about this model, as we now see. Theorem 7.1. If ais an ancestor of 6, then b is not an ancestor of a. Theorem 7.2. At least one man in S is not an ancestor of any man in S. Theorem 7.3, At most one man in S is not an ancestor of any man in S. Theorem 7.4. At least one man in S has no ancestor in S. Theorem 7.5. At most one man in S has no ancestor in S. Definition 7.6. If a is an ancestor of b and there is no man c in S such that a is an ancestor of c and c is an ancestor of b, then we write a is a father of b. Theorem 7.7. Any man in S has at most one father in S. Theorem 7.8. Any man in S has at most one son in S. Theorem 7.9. If ais the father of 6 and b is the father of c, then a is not the father of c. Definition 7.10. If a is the father of b and b is the father of c, then a is the grandfather of c.A SIMPLE LOGICAL DISCOURSE SEC. 7 33 Definition 7.11, Call the unique man of Theorems 7,2 and 7.3 son, that of Theorems 7.4 and 7.5 grandfather, and the remaining man father. Theorem 7.12. Grandfather is an ancestor of both father and son, and father is an ancestor of son. Theorem 7.13. Grandfather is the father of father, and father is the father of son, and grandfather is the grandfather of son! Further applications are considered in the exercises. The first three postulates define simple order, such as ‘is less than,” “is greater than,” “‘is to the left of,” “is in front of,” and so forth. EXERCISES Interpret the definitions and verify the postulates and theorems in each of the models given in Exercises 7-1 to 7-4. 7-1. S = {1,2, 3}, and & means “is less than.” 7-2. S = {a,b,c}, and & means “ precedes alphabetically.” 7-3. S consists of three concentric circles, and # means “lies within.” 7-4. S consists of three points on a horizontal line and @ means “lies to the left of.” 7-5. Prove Theorem 7.4. 7-6. Prove Theorem 7.5. 7-7. Prove Theorem 7.8. 7-8. Prove Theorem 7.13. 7-9. Prove the theorem: ifa Y cand b Yc, thena = b. 7-10. Show that P2 can be deduced from P1, P3, P4, and Theorem 7.1. Then this set of four statements gives rise to the same mathematical system, and we could have stated them in place of our postulates. Two sets of postu- lates giving rise to the same branch of mathematics are called equivalent. 7-l1. Show that Pl, P2, and P3 are satisfied by interpreting S as the set N of natural numbers 1, 2, 3,..., and @ as the relation “less than” <. a. What does the ¥-relation mean? b. Interpret the Y-relation. c. Which of Theorems 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 are true? 7-12. Show that PJ, P2, and P3 are satisfied by interpreting S as the set of rational numbers (all numbers that can be written as fractions) and & as the relation “less than” <. a. Since aF b is never true (explain why), is it “wrong” to define the F-relation? b. Which of Theorems 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 are true in this interpretation?34 cH. 1 Locic 8 | PROOF Much of this book is dedicated to proving theorems. This chapter has been wholly concerned with that single consideration. In this section we attempt to answer the question, “‘How is a proof constructed?” We shall be especially interested in constructing algebraic proofs in this text, although we shall not restrict our attention to algebra alone. No amount of discussion, reading, listening, or other passive procedures will enable one to prove theorems. The basic rule is to practice. Just as a concert pianist must spend hours every day at the piano—not merely looking at it or theorizing about it—so must the sincere student of mathematics actually prove theorems in order to acquire and retain this skill. Proving theorems is not a spectator sport! Some basic hints or rules for constructing proofs will be helpful. We choose to phrase most of them as questions. Rules For Constructing Proofs 8.1 RULE. Do I really understand the theorem? Can it be reworded? Is its statement precise? Test the theorem for several cases. Be reasonably sure that it is true to begin with. 8.2 RULE. What tools are available? In what system am I working? 8.3 RULE. Have I seen a proof of a theorem similar to this one? Does the theorem fit into a general proof type? 8.4 RULE. Can I prove part of the theorem? Can I prove a simpler similar theorem? Is it part of a more general theorem that may actually be easier to prove? 8.5 RULE. Look at the end result. Can I work backwards? Try another point of view. 8.6 RULE. Is there a definition I can use? What auxiliary theorem would be helpful? Have I used all of the hypothesis? 8.7 RULE. Can I construct a different proof? 88 EXAMPLE. If a rectangular parallelepiped (box) has edges of length a, b, and c, prove that its diagonal x is given by x= Va? + BF + 0% To understand better the theorem (Rule 8.1), draw a picture as in Fig. 8.1. A geometrical proof (Rule 8.2) is suggested. Since this theorem involves the diagonal of a rectangular box, perhaps we can use a similar theorem con- cerning the diagonal of a rectangle (Rules 8.3, 8.4, and 8.6). Does a rectangle having this line as a diagonal exist in any reasonable position (Rule 8.5)? Is there a pair of equal parallel segments having segment x as a transversal?PROOF SEC.8 = 35 Ficure 8.1. A box and its diagonal. Ficure 8.2. A new view of the box. How about the lowest and highest horizontal lines in the figure? See Fig. 8.2. Here ABCD is a rectangle having x as a diagonal. Furthermore, sides AB and CD each have length a. Let y denote the length of sides BC and AD. Since BC is the hypotenuse of right triangle BCE, then y? = b* + c*. Now, again by the Pythagorean theorem, we have =a ty = a2 + (+ 0%), whence x=VP+RPHe% O 8.9 EXAMPLE. Prove the theorem: the polynomial equation x* + 81 = 18x? has no roots other than +3. First verify that +3 are roots (Rule 8.1). Now, solving general quartic equations is quite difficult. Fortunately, we have here a special case which reduces to a quadratic when x? is replaced by y (Rule 8.4). We obtain y+ 81 = 18y or y? — 18y + 81 =0, which factors immediately into ( - 9" =0, having the one root y = 9. Now x? = 9, and x = +3 are the only possible roots. The theorem follows.36 «cH. 1 Logic This theorem was proved by reducing the difficult fourth-degree poly- nomial to a second-degree polynomial. A proof of a theorem is simply an argument (a set of statements) which shows that the theorem is a logical consequence of the postulates of the mathematical discourse. That is, if t denotes the theorem and if p denotes all the postulates and the theorems that have been previously established, then a proof of t is merely the verification that the implication p — f is a tautology. This idea has already been discussed in Section 4. 8.10 EXAMPLE. Prove the statement, 1L4+3454+---+(2n-1) =n Just what is meant by those mysterious three dots (Rule 8.1)? How is this statement to be interpreted? To answer such questions, substitute several values for n, verifying the statement for each case tried. Don’t fudge! Make sure each value tried makes the statement true. Don’t just see that it probably is true, and don’t just juggle the figures to make it appear to be true. Make sure! Be positive! Start with a value that is easy to use. Of course, n is a natural number in this theorem, so don’t try n = $ or n = —6. Be sure to use the smallest (or largest) value permissible, where such exists, but it may be best not to use this value immediately. In this case we might very well try: 143454+74+9=5, 14+34+5+7=4, 1434+5=3% 14+3=2%, 1=17, n=5 Such careless statements as nai: 1434544122 are absurd, The theorem states that the sum of the first n odd natural numbers is equal to n?. Clearly the last displayed line does not state that fact or any other reasonable fact. Each of the five statements displayed above, on the other hand, is clear and verifiable: 14+3+45+7 + 9 does equal 25, and so forth. A clear understanding of the theorem is not only helpful, but actually vital to the construction of a proof. The ancient Greeks gave a geometric proof (Rule 8.2) as shown in Fig. 8.3. Starting in the lower left-hand corner of the figure, partition off 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 dots. But the total number of dots is 6? = 36. Thus forPROOF SEC.8 37 any n, write the square array of n? dots, partitioning it into the sum | + 3 + 54+7+---+(2n — 1),as Fig. 8.3 indicates. This establishes the theorem. () Fiaure 8.3, A summation. Incidentally, the ancient Greeks were very likely to state the theorem, draw the figure, and then merely state ““Behold!”’ The student was expected to deduce the rest. Euclid once stated, “There is no royal road to geometry.” Certainly, there is no easy path to constructing proofs; practice is the cardinal rule. 8.11 EXAMPLE. In constructing an ancient Greek geometric proof of the formula 142434---+n=n(n + 1/2, cone should carefully examine the proof given in Fig. 8.3. Compare the n? of that theorem with the n(n + 1)/2 that we have here. See how the x? is broken up into the desired sum 1 + 3+ 5 +--+ + (2n — 1), then try to break up the corresponding n(n + 1)/2 dots into 1 + 2+ 3 +--- +n dots. See what happens if figures are constructed for n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, and perhaps a few more values. One obtains the results shown in Fig. 8.4. . ee . ee eee . ee eee oeee n=l n=2 n=3 n=4 Ficure 8.4. Some preliminary scratchwork. Now a general proof may be constructed as in Fig. 8.5. The rectangular array of 5 by 6 (n by n + 1, in general) dots is divided in half by the bold diagonal line to yield the right-hand side of the formula. The resulting triangular array is divided by diagonal lines into the sum on the left-hand side of the formula. The theorem follows. 038 cH. 1 Loaic Ficure 8.5. Another summation. Geometric proofs such as those above seem to have fallen into general disfavor among mathematicians, since for a time, too many results were justified on the basis of quite hazy intuitive concepts. Certainly the elementary and aesthetic nature of the above geometric proofs cannot be denied. SUMMARY The rules listed here are meant to be guides and are quite flexible. Use them when a proof is not immediately obvious. Test other people's proofs by them. But basically, before reading textbook proofs, try to construct your ‘own proofs. The old adage “practice makes perfect” is very true here. Nothing but practice can develop skill in proving theorems. Another word of advice: if a proof is not forthcoming after reasonable effort has been expended, then forget it! Leave it completely and clear your thinking by concentrating on something else. Later, when you return to the problem, your thoughts will be fresh and clear. Many times, this is all that will be necessary to find the desired proof. EXERCISES In each of Exercises 8-1 to 8-4, give a geometric proof of the theorem stated using the given figure(s). 81. The Pythagorean theorem. NS be Le PN EXERCISE 8-1PROOF SEC. 8 39 8-2. The Pythagorean theorem. Ns. Ky EXERCISE 8-2 8-3. (a + b)? = a? + 2ab + b?. 8-4. (a + bc + d) = ac + ad + be + bd. To b b b a ¢ d EXERCISE 8-3 EXERCISE 8-4 8-5. An oblong number is a number of the form n(n + 1) for na natural number 1,2, 3,.... What theorem concerning oblong numbers is illustrated in this figure? EXERCISE 8-5 8-6. The frustum of a square pyramid has lower base edge B, upper base edge 6, and altitude h, Prove or disprove that its volume is given by V = W(B? + 8/2.40 cH. 1 Logic 8-7. Is the lateral surface area of the frustum of a cone having lower base radius R, upper base radius r, and height h, given by S = 1(R + r)h? 8-8, Find the radius of a sphere circumscribed about a rectangular parallelepiped of dimensions a, b, and c. 8-9. Given three points 4, B, and C in a plane, draw a line through A, which is equidistant from B and C. 8-10. Prove that 44 cents cannot be distributed among 10 pockets so that no two pockets contain the same amount. 8-11. Find a set of dots to prove that 14+54+9+4---+ (4n — 3) = n(2n — 1). 8-12. Find a set of dots to prove that 14 4474-54 Gn —2) = nGn — 1/2. 8-13. Using a set of dots, find an expression for the sum 245484---4+Gn-1). 814, Prove that the frustum of a square pyramid of lower base edge B, upper base edge 6, and altitude h has volume given by V = (BP + Bb + BM]. 8-15. Prove that S = x(R + r)V(R — r)? + Fi’ is the correct formula for the lateral surface area of the frustum of a cone having lower base radius R, upper base radius r, and altitude A. 8-16. State and prove the converse of the Pythagorean theorem. 8-17. Ona rectangular table top, two players alternately place a coin so as not to overlap either another coin or the edge of the table. The winner is the last person able to place such a coin. Prove that, with the proper strategy, the first player can always win. 8-18. Write 3 as a sum of distinct fractions each having numerator 1. One example is + 4 + jy. Find another one. Do the same for 4. State a general procedure. 8-19. Use the formula 1/n = 1/(n + 1) + 1/n(n + 1) to write $as assum of three distinct fractions with unit numerators. Similarly, use this formula to write 3 as a sum of distinct fractions with unit numerators. State a general procedure. 8-20. Describe a set of dots to prove the formula 14+ 7419437 4---+ Gn? —3n 4 1) =n, 8-21. Prove that in any collection of six people, there are either three mutual acquaintances or three complete strangers.PROOF sEc.8 41 8-22. Using only the fact that V7 is irrational, find irrational numbers a and b such that a? is rational. 8-23. The arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic means, respectively, of two positive numbers a and 6 are given by A = (a + b)/2, G = Vab, H = 2ab{(a + b). Show that A > G > H. 8-24. Criticize each “proof” that —I -1=V=IV=1 = VEE) = VI = 1 Since (—1)? = (+1), log (—1) = log (+1), 2 log (—1) = 2 log (+1), whence —1 = +1. ce. Log (—x) = f(I/(—x)(—dx) = | (I/x) dx = log x, whence -x=xand -1=1. 8-25. Prove that of all rectangles of a given perimeter, the square has the greatest area. 8-26. Prove that of all quadrilaterals of a given perimeter, the square has the greatest area. See Exercise 8-25. 8-27. Prove that there are only five regular polyhedra. 8-28. If two triangles are so situated that the three lines joining corre- sponding pairs of vertices meet in a point, then the three points of intersection of pairs of corresponding sides (extended) lie on a line. Assuming this theorem (Desargues” two-triangle theorem) to be true, prove its converse. 8-29. Assuming that V2 is irrational, prove that the line through the origin with slope V2 passes through no other point in the plane with rational coordinates. 8-30, Prove that 72+ V5 + V2 — V5 =1. 1 oP 999