MAT214A

Wednesday 2/6 10:50 – 12:05 pm

SSU Spring 2019
Quiz on Section 2.1 on Today
Test #1 on Chapters 1, 2 expected on 2/13 Wednesday

Recall from last time:

Direct Proof: To prove pq, assume p and show q

Proof by Contradiction: To prove p q, assume p and ¬q and derive a contradiction

Proof by Contrapositive: To prove pq, assume ¬q and show ¬p. *(pq ≡ ¬q  ¬p)

Proof by Cases
You can sometimes prove a statement by:
1. Dividing the situation into cases which exhaust all the possibilities
2. Showing that the statement holds for all cases.

Example:
Prove that if a and b are real numbers, where b≠0, then |ab|=¿ a∨ ¿ b∨¿¿ ¿ ¿
Assume that a and b are real numbers, where b≠0. We will show that |ab|=¿ a∨ ¿ b∨¿¿ ¿ ¿
a
Case 1: assume that a≥0 and b>0, then>0
b
a a
|a| = a and |b| = b and ||
= =¿ a∨ ¿
b b ¿ b∨¿ ¿
¿

a
Case 2: assume that a≥0 and b<0, then <0
b
a −a a
|a| = a and |b| = - b and ||b
= =
b −b
=¿ a∨ ¿ ¿
¿ b∨¿ ¿
**We are using (-) as “opposite of”

a
Case 3: assume that a<0 and b>0, then <0
b
|a| = - a and |b| = b and |ab|= −ab = −ab =¿ a∨ ¿ b∨¿¿ ¿ ¿
a
Case 4: assume that a<0 and b<0, then >0
b
|a| = - a and |b| = - b and |ab|= ab = −a
−b
=¿ a∨ ¿ ¿
¿ b∨¿ ¿
 Thus for all possible cases, |ab|=¿ a∨ ¿ b∨¿¿ ¿ ¿
QED

Today:
A) Finish Section 2.2
Proofs of Equivalence
This is a direct proof of the biconditional “p if and only if q”
Recall that p↔q is logically equivalent to (p q) ∧ (q  p)
We must prove two cases are true: pq and qp

Example: Prove that for every integer, n is odd if and only if n – 1 is even.

Case 1: If n is odd, then n-1 is even

Assume n is an odd integer. Then n = 2k+1 where k∈Z.
n - 1 = (2k +1) - 1
n - 1 = 2k
n – 1 is even integer

Case 2: If n-1 is even, then n is odd

Assume n-1 is an even integer. Then n-1 = 2k where k∈Z.
n-1 = 2k
n = 2k +1
n is an odd integer

QED

Existence Proofs
This is a proof of ∃ xP ( x )∨∃ x ∀ y ( Px , y )∨∃ x ∃ y ( Px , y )
We need to show there is an element x ∈ domain, that makes ∃ xP ( x ) true.
In previous section 1.5, we showed element existed by finding specific element. This version is more general.
Constructive proof method – construct a value for x such that P(x) is true
Non-constructive proof method – prove indirectly that c exists such that P(c) is true. For example, use proof
by contradiction.

Example: Let a, b ∈ R with a < b. Prove there exists a real number x such that a < x< b.
We can prove by showing a real number x between a and b. The midpoint is sufficient.
a+b
x= satisfies a < x < b.
2
QED This is a constructive proof, we have constructed an x value such that a < x < b is true.

Example: Let x, y be real numbers. Prove that there exists an x for all y such that x 2+ y 2=9
It suffices to find one real x satisfying this equation.
x 2=9− y 2
 x=√ 9− y 2
QED *This is a constructive proof, we have constructed an x value such that x 2+ y 2=9 is true.

s1 + s2 +…+ s n
Example: Let A= where A is the average of the real numbers s1…sn.
n
Prove that there exists si such that si ≥ A

Non-constructive proof:
We will use proof by contradiction.
s1 + s2 +…+ s n
A= and assume by contradiction that there does NOT exist si such that si ≥ A. That is we are
n
assuming each si < A
s1 < A , s 2< A , … s n< A
Then
s1 + s2 +. …+ s n <n∗A
s 1+ s 2+ .… + sn
<A
n
s + s +…+ s n
This contradicts the hypothesis that A= 1 2
n
Therefore there must exist si ≥ A

Choosing a Proof Technique

Direct proof: In most cases, the best strategy is to try a direct proof first; this is the simplest and most natural
method of proof. Only if a direct method fails, consider other methods of proof.

Proof by cases: This is appropriate if the problem naturally breaks down into several cases, and if each of these
cases can be handled in a relatively straightforward manner (typically, by a simple direct proof).

Proof by contraposition: This is the same as a direct proof of the contrapositive statement, and is worth
considering if a direct proof of the original statement does not seem to work.

Proof by contradiction: A proof by contradiction is logically more complicated, and more prone to errors, but
can be effective in some situations, particularly, when we want to conclude that something does not have a
certain property (such as being rational, or being a perfect square). In this case, assuming that the property
does hold (i.e., that the number is rational, or is a perfect square), and trying to derive a contradiction from
this assumption is a natural approach that is often successful.

--------------------------stopped here ---------------------------