MODULE 3: METHODS OF FORMAL PROOFS

Introduction

This module discusses various methods of formal proofs. It includes their validity through some conditions
and arguments through theorems. Part of this module are exercises to evaluate your learnings and skills in identifying
proofs symbolically through different methods.

Topics:
• Formal Proofs of Validity
• The Method of Conditional Proofs
• Validation of Arguments in Predicate Logic
• Theorems and Formal Proofs
• Method of Direct Proof
• Proof by Cases
• Proof by Contradiction
• Indirect Proof

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, students should have the ability to:
1. Construct correct direct and indirect (contradiction and contraposition) proofs involving concepts from elementary
number theory such as even and odd integers, rational and irrational numbers, and divisibility.
2. Find a counter example to show that a proposed statement involving concepts from elementary number theory is
false.

Proof
A proof is a sequence of logical deductions, based on accepted assumptions and previously proven
statements and verifying that a statement is true. What constitutes a proof may vary, depending on the field. In
mathematics, a formal proof of a proposition is a chain of logical deductions leading to the proposition from a base
set of axioms.

Argument
An argument is a finite sequence p1, p2, …, pn, q of statements. The statements p1, p2, …, pn are called the
premises of the argument and q is its conclusion.
An argument p1, p2, …, pn, q is called logically valid if (p1 /\ p2 /\ … /\ pn)  q is tautology.

Examples
1. Consider the following argument
If Cielo solved ten programming problems correctly then Cielo obtained a grade of 100.
Cielo solved ten programming problems correctly.
Therefore, Cielo obtained a grade of 100

Solution.
Let p: Cielo solved ten programming problems correctly.
q: Cielo obtained a grade of 100

Symbolizing the given argument,

p  q If Cielo solved ten programming problems correctly then Cielo obtained a grade of 100.
p Cielo solved ten programming problems correctly.
.’. q Therefore, Cielo obtained a grade of 100
The argument can be written in the form [(p  q) /\ p]  q

1
 We use the logical matrix to determine the argument's validity
p Q pq (p  q) /\ p [(p  q) /\ p]  q
1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
[(p  q) /\ p]  q is a tautology.
Hence, the argument is a valid argument.

2. Consider a parallel argument.

If Lara solved six VB problems correctly then Lara obtained a grade of 2.0.
Lara obtained a grade of 2.0.
Therefore, Lara solved six VB problems correctly.

Solution.
Let p: Lara solved six VB problems correctly.
q: Lara obtained a grade of 2. 0.

Symbolizing the given argument,

p  q If Lara solved six VB problems correctly then Lara obtained a grade of 2.0.
q Lara obtained a grade of 2.0.
.’. p Therefore, Lara solved six VB problems correctly.

The argument can be written in the form [(p  q) /\ q]  p

We use the logical matrix to determine the argument's validity
p q pq (p  q) /\ q [(p  q) /\ q]  p
1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 1
0 1 1 1 0
0 0 1 0 1
[(p  q) /\ q]  p is not a tautology.
Hence, the argument is not a valid argument.

3. Today Homer has a Python class or a JAVA class or both.

He does not have a Python class today.
Therefore he must have a JAVA class today.

We can symbolize the simple propositions using the upper case of the alphabet, that is, A, B, C,
Let P: Homer has a Python class today
J: Homer has a JAVA class today.

The argument is symbolized as follows:

P \/ J
¬P
.’. J

4. If Joel makes a program in C++, Bryan in Visual Basic, then Joseph in Fortran.
Joel will not make a program in C++.
So Rojel will not make a program in Fortran.

2
 Let J: Joel makes a program in C++
B: Bryan makes a program in Visual Basic.
R: Rojel makes a program in Fortran.

The argument is symbolized as follows:

(J /\ B)  R
¬J
.’. ¬R

Here are some elementary valid arguments

Name of Rule Premises Conclusion

Simplification (Simp) p /\ q p
Addition (Add) p p \/ q
Conjunction (Conj) p. q p /\ q
Disjunction Syllogism (DS) p \/ q q
Modus Ponens (MP) p  q. p q
Modus Tollens (MT) p  q. ¬q ¬p
Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) p  q. q  r pr
Absorption (Abs) pq p  (p /\ q)
(p  q) /\ (r  s)
Constructive Dilemma (CD) q \/ s
p \/ r

Formal Proofs of Validity

Given an argument with premises P1, P2, …, Pn and conclusion Q, a formal proof of validity of the argument
consists of a lists of propositions which terminates with Q, that is, (P1 /\ P2 /\…/\ Pn)  Q.
Every proposition in the list must satisfy one or more of the following criteria:
1. it is a premise of the argument,
2. it can be derived from one or more of the propositions already included in the list using one of the rules of
inference,
3. it is equivalent to a proposition already included in the list because one of the replacement rules guarantees
the logical equivalence of the appropriate underlying prepositional forms.

Examples

3
1. Construct a formal proof of the validity of the following argument.
If Joel is enrolled in JAVA then Bryan is enrolled in Python.
Joel.is enrolled JAVA and Rojel is enrolled in C++.
Therefore, Bryan is enrolled Python.

Solution.
We symbolize the component simple propositions:
J: Joel is enrolled in Java
B: Bryan is enrolled in Python
R: Rojel is enrolled in C++
The premises of the argument are J  B and J /\ R.
The conclusion is B.

We commence the list with the premises, then using the rules of inference.
1. JB Premise
2. J /\ R Premise
3. J Simplification 2
4. B Modus Ponens 1, 3

2. Provide a formal proof of the validity of the following argument.

If Mark is correct then his program is correct and if Anne is correct then her calculation is connect.
Anne is correct.
Therefore Mark's program is connect or Anne's calculation is correct or both.

Solution.
We symbolize the component simple propositions as follows:
M: Mark is correct
P: Mark’s program is correct
A: Anne is correct
C: Anne’s calculation is correct

The argument is symbolized as follows:

(M  P) /\ (A  C)
A
.’. P \/ C
We commence the formal proof:
1. (M  P) /\ (A  C) Premise
2. A Premise
3. A \/ M Addition,2
4. M \/ A Commutative law, 3
5. P \/ C Constructive Dilemma, 1, 4
or
1. (M  P) /\ (A  C) Premise
2. A Premise
3. (A  C) /\ (M  P) Commutative law, 1
4. AC Simplification, 3
5. C Modus Ponens, 2, 4
6. C \/ P Addition, 5
7. P \/ C Commutative law, 6

4
3. Consider the following argument
If Raul had taken my advice or had his wits about him, he would have cracked the code and written a
program.
If he had cracked the code, Gladys would have enrolled in CAD.
Gladys did not enroll in CAD.
Therefore, Raul did not take my advice.
We symbolize the component simple propositions as follows:
A: Raul took my advice.
W: Raul had his wits about him.
C: Raul cracked the code.
P: Raul wrote a program.
G: Gladys enrolled in CAD.
The argument is symbolized as follows:
(A v W)  (C /\ P)
CG
¬G
.’. ¬A

We commence the formal proof:

1. (A v W)  (C /\ P) Premise
2. CG Premise
3. ¬G Premise
4. ¬C Modus Tolens, 2, 3
5. ¬C \/ ¬P Addition, 4
6. ¬(C /\ P) De Morgan's Law, 5
7. ¬(A \/ W) Modus Tolens, 1, 6
8. ¬A /\ ¬W De Morgan's Law, 7
9. ¬A Simplification, 8

The Method of Conditional Proofs

To every argument, there corresponds a conditional whose antecedent is a conjunction of the premises of
the argument and the consequent is the argument's conclusion.
To justify the method, consider an argument form with premises p1, p2, …, pn and conclusion q  r. This
argument is valid if and only if (p1 /\ p2, /\ …/\ pn  (q  r) is a tautology.
Now the exportation replacement rules states that p  (q  r) = (p /\ q)  r so that the validity condition
(p1 /\ p2, /\ …/\ pn)  (q  r) is a tautology
can be replaced by
(p1 /\ p2, /\ …/\ pn /\ q)  r is a tautology

Examples.
1. Consider the argument
All men are mortal. A

5
 John is a man. B
Therefore, John is mortal. C

A, B .’. C
(A /\ B)  C

Suppose that the argument's conclusion is a conditional statement, say A  C.

Let the conjunction of the argument's premises be P.
Therefore, we have the argument P .’. A  C.
We have the conditional P  (A  C).
But P  (A  C) is logically equivalent to (P /\ A)  C by the rule of exportation.
Therefore the validity of P  (A  C) can be proven by establishing the validity of (P /\ A)  C.
Hence, the formal proof of validity for P .’. A  C is the formal proof of validity of (P /\ A)  C.

The conditional proof allows the antecedent of the arguments conclusion to be used as an additional
premises and deduce the consequent of the argument's conclusion from the new set of premises.

2. Consider the following argument:

If we have a seminar on robotics then we will invite an engineer and a system analyst.
If we invite an engineer or a system analyst then we must invite a programmer.
Therefore, if we have a seminar on robotics then we must invite a programmer.

Solution: We symbolize the simple propositions

R: We have a seminar on robotics
E: We will invite an engineer
S: We will invite a system analyst
P: We will invite a programmer

The argument is symbolized as follows:

R  (E /\ S)
(E \/ S)  P
.’. R  P
.’. P
We commence the formal proof:
1. R  (E /\ S) Premise
2. (E \/ S)  P Premise
3. R. Conditional Proof
4. E /\ S Modus Pones,1, 3
5. E Simplification, 4
6. E \/ S Addition, 5
7. P Modus Ponens, 2, 6
8. RP Conditional Proof

3. Use the method of conditional proof to establish the validity of the following argument.
If we invite Lea then Joey will sulk, and if we invite Bobby then Andrea will leave.
So if we invite Lea and Bobby then Joey will and Andrea will leave.

6
 Solution:
We symbolize the simple propositions: The argument is symbolized as follows:
L: We invite Lea (L  J) /\ (B  A)
J: Joey will silk .’. (L /\ B)  (J /\ A)
B: We invite Bobby
A: Andrea will leave

Since the conclusion is a conditional proposition, we can use it premise L /\ B as a premise of the argument
and its conclusion J /\ A, as the conclusion of the argument.

The proof commence as follows:

1. (L  J) /\ (B  A) Premise
2. L /\ B Conditional Proof
3. LJ Simplification (1)
4. (B  A) /\ (L  J) Commutative Law (1)
5. BA Simplification (4)
6. L Simplification (2)
7. J Modus Ponens (3), (6)
8. B /\ L Commutative Law (2)
9. B Simplification (8)
10. A Modus Ponens (5), (9)
11. J /\ A Conjunction (7), (10)
12. (L /\ B)  (J /\ A) Conditional Proof (2 - 11)

Exercise 3.1. Provide formal proofs of the validity of each of the following arguments.

1. I shall either play basketball or I shall go to a mall and watch a movie.

Therefore, I shall either play basketball or go to a mall.

2. The Chocolate hills are not chocolates if I'm not the president of the Philippines.
I'm not the president of the Philippines.
Therefore the Chocolate hills are chocolates.

3. If the summer is hot then we won't go on vacation in May.

We’ll either go on vacation in May or buy a boat (perhaps both).
Therefore, if the summer is buy a boat.

Exercise 3.2. Provide formal proofs of the validity of each of the following arguments.

1. People are happy if and only if they are compassionate.

Nobody is both happy and compassionate.
Hence people are both unhappy and uncompassionate.

2. If roses are red and violets are blue then candy is sweet and I love you.
Violets are blue and roses are red.
Therefore candy is sweet.

3. You will write a correct program if and only if you follow the procedures.
If you follow the procedures then you are conventional.
You are not conventional and you are always successful.
If you are always successful then you will write a correct program.

7
 So you will write a correct program.

Exercise 3.3. Provide a formal proof of the validity of each of the following arguments using the method of
conditional proof and the method of formal proof

1. If you don't do your lessons then you're lazy.

Therefore if you don't do your lessons then you're lazy or a fool.

2. If Jade got her visa then she'lI leave the country and never see her again.
If we see Jade again then she is not Tina's friend.
Therefore, if Jade got her visa or she is Tina's friend then never see her again.

3. If Ginebra or Alaska wins the All Filipino Basketball Championship then we'll go to party and dance all night.
Hence, if Ginebra wins the All Filipino Basketball Championship then we'll go to party.

Validation of Arguments in Predicate Logic

In determining the validity of arguments in predicate logic, the following rules shall be used:

Rule of Universal Instantiation (UI)

Given any propositional function PX, from the truth of ∀xPx, we can infer the truth of Pa for any individual a
in the universe of discourse.

Rule of Existential Instantiation (EI)

Given any propositional function Px from the truth of ∃xPx, we can infer that there is at least one individual
a in the universe of discourse for which Pa is true.
The two installation rules allow us to deduce true propositions, free of quantifiers, from premises which are
in the form of quantified propositional functions.

Rule of Universal Generalization (UG)

If the proposition Pa is true for any arbitrary member a of the universe of discourse, then ∀xPx is true.

Rule of Existential Generalization (EG)

If Pa is true for some particular individual a in the universe of discourse, then ∃xPx is true.

These four rules of inference allow us to infer true proposition without quantifiers from true quantified propositional
functions and vice versa.
UI EI
∀xPx  Pa where a is an arbitrary ∃xPx  Pa where a is a particular
 member of the universe  member of the universe
UG EG

Examples:
1. Consider: All integers are rational numbers,
Some integers are positive.
Therefore, some rational numbers are positive.
We symbolize the propositional functions as follows:

8
 Zx: x is an integer
Qx: x is a rational number
Px: x is positive

Prove: ∀x(Zx  Qx) All integers are rational numbers,

∃x(Zx /\ Px) Some integers are positive.
.’. (Qx /\ Px) Therefore, some rational numbers are positive.

We commence the formal proof:

1. ∀x(Zx  Qx) Premise
2. ∃x(Zx /\ Px) Premise
3. Za /\ Pa Existential Instantiation, 2
4. Za  Qa Universal Instantiation, 1
5. Pa /\ Za Commutative law, 3
6. Pa Simplification, 5
7. Za Simplification, 3
8. Qa Modus Ponens, 4, 7
9. Pa /\ Qa Conjunction, 6, 8
10. ∃x(Px /\ Qx) Existential Generalization. 9
2: Prove the validity of the following argument:
Every student who attends Algebra and takes the quiz has enrolled for the course.
No student who has enrolled for the course has taken the quiz.
There are students who attend calculus.
Therefore, there are students who have not taken the quiz,

Solution.
We define the following propositional functions on the universe of students:
Cx: x attends calculus
Tx: x takes the quiz
Ex: x has enrolled for the course
Prove:
∀x[(Cx /\ Tx)  Ex]
¬∃x(Ex /\ Tx)
∃xCx
∴ ∃x¬Tx

We commence the formal proof:

1. ∀x[(Cx /\ Tx)  Ex] Premise
2. ¬∃x(Ex /\ Tx) Premise
3. ∃xCx Premise
4. ∀x¬( Ex /\ Tx) Quantification DeniaL 2
5. Ca Existential instantiation, 3
6. (Ca /\ Ta)  Ea Universal instantiation, 1
7. Ca  (Ta  Ea) Exportation, 6
8. Ta  Ea Modus Ponens, 5, 7
9. ¬(Ea /\ Ta) Universal Installation, 4
10. ¬Ea \/ ¬Ta De Morgan's Law, 9
11. Ea  ¬Ta Material Implication, 10
12. Ta  ¬Ta Hypothetical Syllogism, 8, 11
13. ¬Ta \/ ¬Ta Material Implication, 12

9
 14. ¬Ta Tautology, 13
15. ∃x¬Tx Existential Generalization, 14

Exercise 3.4. Provide a formal proof of the validity of each of the following arguments.
1. All cats are mammals.
Some cats are playful.
Therefore some mammals are playful.

2. Everything cozy or good for you.

Not everything is good for you.
Therefore, there are some things which are cozy and not good for you.

Exercise 3.5. Provide a formal proof of the validity of each of the following arguments
1. Everyone who lives in Manila or Santiago City is urbane and intellectual.
Therefore, everyone who lives in Manila is urbane.

2. All even numbers are rational and are divisible by two.

Some even numbers are divisible by four.
Hence some numbers are divisible by two and by four.
Theorems and Formal Proofs

Theorem in the axiom system is a statement about the terms of the system which is logically implied by the
conjuction of the axioms. Symbolically, t is a theorem in the system if
(a1 /\ a2 /\ … /\ an)  t
This means that a theorem is the conclusion of a valid argument which has the axioms as premises.

Formal Proof
The formal proof of P is a sequence S1, S2, …. SN of propositions where SN = P and each Si satisfies one or
more of the following criteria:
a. it is an axiom or previously proved theorems, or
b. it can be inferred from earlier propositions in the list using the rule of inference, or
c. one of the replacement rules guarantees that it is equivalent to a previous proposition in the list.

Let a be the conjuction of the axioms

a = a1 /\ a2 /\ . . . /\ an
and t be the conjunction of previously proved theorems,
t = t1 /\ t2 /\ . . . /\ tn
Then a  t and (a /\ t)  p are tautologies.

Therefore, since a  t and (a /\ t)  p are both tautologies, this shows that if P be deduced from axioms
and previously proved theorems, then P can be deduced from the axioms alone.

Informal proof covers any proof which does not 0adhere to the definition of formal proof.

Method of Direct Proof

Proposition P
Construct a sequence of propositions P0, P1, …, PN where P0 is background Knowledge.
PN = P and, for I = 1, 2, …, N, the proposition P, is such that

1
0
 a. Pi is background knowledge, or
b. (P0 /\ P1 /\…/\ PN)  Pi

Conditional Proposition P  Q
Construct a sequence of propositions P0, P1, …, PN where P0 = P, PN = Q and for each
I = 1, 2, …, N, the proposition Pi is such that:
a. Pi is background knowledge, or
b. (P0 /\ P1 /\…/\ PN)  Pi

A direct proof of a simple proposition P must begin with a proposition P0 which is an axiom or previously proved
theorem which is a part of background knowledge of the system.

To prove a conditional proposition P  Q, use the method of conditional proof.

Examples of theorems in simple propositions:

1. 59 is a prime number
2. The sum of the first 100 positive integers is 5050
3. 27 + 311 is divisible by 7

Expressed as conditional propositions:

1. If n = 59 then n is prime
2. If N = 1 +2 + 3 + … + 100, then N = 5050
3. If N = 27 + 311 then N is divisible by 7

Theorem. All even integer have even squares.

This is a universally quantified propositional function. If we define the universe of discourse to be even
integers and we define P(x): x2 is even, then the theorem can be symbolized as the quantified propositional
function ∀xP(x).
If we do not restrict the universe of discourse and we define E(x): x is an even integer,
then the theorem can be symbolized as the quantified conditional propositional function
∀x[E(x)  E(x2)]
It is clear that a proposition of the form
All objects of a certain type have a certain property.

 Can be symbolized as ∀xP(x) or as ∀x [T(x)  P(x)] depending on the universe of discourse.

 Let P(x) symbolize: x has the certain property.
 If we define the universe to be the objects of the required type, then the proposition is ∀xP(x).
 If we do not restrict the universe to be the objects of the required type,
then the proposition is symbolized as ∀x [T(x)  P(x)]
where T(x) is the propositional function: x is an object of the required type.

 To prove ∀xP(x) we actually prove P(a) where a is an arbitrary element of the universe and then appeal to
the rule of universal generalization.
 To infer P(a) we apply the rules of installation to the axioms and previously proved theorems.

 To prove ∀x [T(x)  P(x)].

1
1
  We will prove P(a)  Q(a) for an arbitrary a in the universe. For theorems whose conclusion is an
existentially quantified function ∃xP(x) prove P(a) for a specific element a of the universe.
 The rule of existential specification is applied to give the desired conclusion.

Theorem. The square of any even integer is even.

 To apply the method of direct proof, we use E(n)  E(n2);
we assume the truth of E(n) and deduce the truth of E(n2).
 Before writing a proof, we need to define terms to be employed in the statement of the theorem.
 In our proof we use the definition:
n is an even integer iff there exists an integer m
such that n = 2m

* Any definition is biconditional.

(n is an even integer)  (n = 2m for some integer m)
and its converse
(n = 2m for some integer m)  (n is an even integer)

First Proof
Let n be an even integer. Then n = 2m for some integer m, so
n2 = (2m)2 = 4m2 = 2 x (2m2) = 2M
where M = 2m2 is an integer.
Therefore n is even.

Second Proof
Using a chain of implication
n is an even integer
 n = 2m where m is an integer
 n2 = (2m)2 = 4m2 = 2 x (2m2)
 n2 = 2M where M = 2m2 is an integer
 n2 is even

Theorem, if A, B and C are sets such that C ⊆ A and C ⊆ B then C ⊆ (A ⋂ B).

Proof: Let A, B and C be sets such that C ⊆ A and C ⊆ B.

To show that, for all x, x ∈ C  x ∈ (A ⋂ B).

x ∈ C  x ∈ A (since C ⊆ A)
x ∈ C  x ∈ B (since C ⊆ B)
x ∈ C  x ∈ A and x ∈ B
 x ∈ (A ⋂ B), hence C ⊆ (A ⋂ B)

Proof by Cases

To prove a theorem by cases:

1. List all possible cases that will cover every circumstances in which the hypothesis might hold.
2. For each possible case, prove the conclusion separately.

1
2
Proof by Contradiction

To prove an assertion p by contradiction, use one of the following form:

1. Assume assertion p is false, and prove that some other assertion q is false where assertion q is known to be
true,
2. Assume assertion p is false. For some assertion b, prove that both assertion q is true and assertion q is
false.

Indirect Proof
To prove a theorem using indirect proof, prove ”if p then q” by proving “if not q, then not p.”

Example
For all integers n, if 5n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.

Proof.
 We will start by assuming that n is a particular but arbitrarily chosen element of Z.
 For this n, we show that P(n)  Q(n) is true.
 P(n)  Q(n) is logically equivalent to ¬Q(n)  ¬P(n).
 Therefore, we show that ¬Q(n)  ¬P(n) is true.
 Suppose ¬Q(n) is true.
 We show that ¬P(n) is true. Because ¬Q(n)is true, n is not odd.
 Then n is even, so n = 2k for some integer k.

 Thus:
5n + 2 = 5(2k) + 2
= 2l5k + 1), let 5k + 1 = t
Then
= 2t for some integer t
 This implies that 5n + 2 is an even integer; that is, 5n + 2 is not an odd integer.
 Thus ¬P(n) is true. We have shown that ¬Q(n)  ¬P(n) is true.
 Hence, P(n)  Q(n) is true.
 Therefore, for all integers n, if 5n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.

Mathematical Induction
In proving statements that involve a natural number n, it is useful to use the following principle.

Principle of Mathematical Induction.

Let Sn be a statement about the natural number n.
Suppose that
1. S0 is true
2. Sk+1 is true whenever Sk is true
Then Sn is true for all values of n.

Examples
1. For any natural number n
0 + 1 + 2 + … + n = [n(n + 1)] / 2

Proof.

1
3
 Step 1. Prove the result for n = 0
0 = [0(0 + 1)] / 2

Step 2. Let n be any natural number for which the result is true. Prove the result is also true for n + 1.
Assuming the result is true for n means.
0 + 1 + 2 + … + n = [n(n + 1)] / 2

Use this assumed correct result to prove the result for n + I

(0 + 1 + 2 + … + n) + (n + 1) = [n(n + 1)] / 2] + (n + 1)

Simplifying the right-hand side by algebra.

= [n(n + 1) + 2(n + 1)] / 2
= [(n + 1) + (n + 2)] / 2

This means the formula is true for n + I

2. Show that 2n + 1 < n3 for all integers n ≥ 2

Proof.
Step 1. For n = 2, 2 ∙ 2 + 1 < 23 = 5 < 8. S2 is true

Step2. Assuming the result is true for n means

2n + 1 < n3 for all integers n ≥ 2

Show that Sn+1 is true, that is, we show that 2(n + 1) + 1 < (n + 1)3 or 2n + 3 < (n + 1)3

We have 2n + 3 = 2n + 1 + 2
< n3 + 2 because Sn is true and n ≥ 2
< n3 + 3n2 + 3n + 1 and so 3n3 + 3n + 1 > 2
= (n + 1) 3

Thus Sn+1 is true. Hence by induction, 2n + 1 < n3 for all integers n ≥ 2

Exercise 3.6. Prove the following theorem by direct method

1. For all integers x, if x is odd then x2 is odd.
2. For all integers x and y, if x and y are odd, then the product xy is odd.
3. For all integers x, x2 – x is an even integer.
4. The sum of two odd integers is even.
5. If the sum of two integers is even, then their difference is even.

Exercise 3.7. Provide proofs by induction.

1. Show that 02 +12 + 22 + … + n2 = [n(n + 1)(2n + 1)] /6 for all natural numbers n ≥ 0
2. Show that 1 + 4 +7 + … + (3n – 2) = [n(3n – 1)] / 2 for all integers n ≥ 1
3. Use induction to prove 8 divides 12(3n – 1) for all nonnegative integers n.
4. Use induction to prove 8 divides 7n + 3n - 2 for all positive integers n.

Summary

1
4
 A proof is a sequence of logical deductions, based on accepted assumptions and previously proven statements
and verifying that a statement is true.
 A formal proof of a proposition is a chain of logical deductions leading to the proposition from a base set of
axioms.
 An argument is a finite sequence of statements. The statements are called the premises of the argument and its
conclusion.
 A formal proof of validity of the argument consists of a lists of propositions which terminates with Q, that
is, (P1 /\ P2 /\…/\ Pn)  Q.
 To every argument, there corresponds a conditional whose antecedent is a conjunction of the premises of the
argument and the consequent is the argument's conclusion.
 In determining the validity of arguments in predicate logic, the following rules shall be used:
a. Rule of Universal Instantiation (UI)
b. Rule of Existential Instantiation (EI)
c. Rule of Universal Generalization (UG)
d. Rule of Existential Generalization (EG)
 These four rules of inference allow us to infer true proposition without quantifiers from true quantified
propositional functions and vice versa.
 Theorem in the axiom system is a statement about the terms of the system which is logically implied by the
conjuction of the axioms.
 The formal proof of P is a sequence S1, S2,. . SN of propositions where SN = P and each Si satisfies one or more
of the following criteria:
a. it is an axiom or previously proved theorems, or
b. it can be inferred from earlier propositions in the list using the rule of inference, or
c. one of the replacement rules guarantees that it is equivalent to a previous proposition in the list.
 Informal proof covers any proof which does not 0adhere to the definition of formal proof.
 A direct proof of a simple proposition P must begin with a proposition P0 which is an axiom or previously proved
theorem which is a part of background knowledge of the system.

 To prove a theorem by cases:

a. List all possible cases that will cover every circumstances in which the hypothesis might hold.
b. For each possible case, prove the conclusion separately.
 To prove an assertion by contradiction, use one of the following form:
a. Assume assertion p is false, and prove that some other assertion q is false where assertion q is known to be
true,
b. Assume assertion p is false. For some assertion b, prove that both assertion q is true and assertion q is
false.
 In proving statements that involve a natural number n, it is useful to use the principle of Mathematical Induction.

References
1. Cabero, Jonathan B., et. al., (2010). Discrete Mathematics. Mandaluyong: National Book Store.
2. Epp, Susanna S. (2012) Discrete Mathematics. Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
3.. Stelovsky , Dr. Jan, Discrete Mathematics
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~janst/141/lecture/
4. Baker, Dr. Johnnie W. Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jbaker/Discrete-Sp11/slides/
5. Methods of Proof

1
5
 https://users.cs.jmu.edu/aboutams/Web/DiscreteMath/Fall03/Lecture%20Notes/1_5%20Methods
%20of%20Proofs.pdf
6. Proofs: Methods and Strategies
http://www.cs.nthu.edu.tw/~wkhon/math/lecture/lecture04.pdf

1
6