CHAPTER 1a Real Analysis

Chapter 1
Logic and Proof
Copyright © 2013, 2005, 2001 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 1.1, Slide 1
Section 1.1
Logical Connectives
A sentence that can be classified as true or false is called a statement.
The truth or falsity of a statement is known as its truth value.
Example
Which of the following are statements?
Two plus two equals four. This is a statement and it is True.
Two plus two equals five. This is a statement and it is False.
Every even number greater than two is the sum of two primes.
It is not known whether this sentence is True or False,
but it must be one or the other, so it is a statement.
In mathematical logic, we look at how the truth value of a compound statement

is determined by the truth value of its simpler parts.
There are many ways to change or combine statements.
For example, the simple statement: “It is windy.”

can be negated to form the statement: “It is not windy.” Negation
Two statements like “It is windy.” and “The waves are high.”
can be combined in several ways.
“It is windy and the waves are high.” Conjunction

“It is windy or the waves are high.” Disjunction
“If it is windy, then the waves are high.” Conditional
“It is windy if and only if the waves are high.” Biconditional
The italicized words are called sentential connectives, and each pattern
has a special name.
Let’s look more carefully at each of these connectives.
Negation
Let p represent a given statement.
Then ~ p (read not p) represents the logical opposite of p.
When p is true, then ~ p is false; when p is false, then ~ p is true.
We may summarize this in a “truth table” where T = True and F = False.
p ~p
T F
F T
Examples:
negation
p: Today is Monday. ~ p: Today is not Monday.
negation
p: 5 is an even number. ~ p: 5 is not an even number.
OR ~ p: 5 is an odd number.
Conjunction
The conjunction of p and q is denoted by p  q (read p and q).

It is true only when both p and q are true, and it is false otherwise.
The truth table for p  q has four rows to include all the possible combinations:
p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
For example, the statement “It is windy and the waves are high” is true only
when it is windy and the waves are high. It either part is false, the compound
statement is false.
Disjunction
The disjunction of p and q is denoted by p  q (read p or q).
In common English, the word or is used in two different ways.
In the sentence
I’m going to buy a Ford or a Chevy.
the intended meaning is a Ford or a Chevy, but not both.
This is the exclusive meaning of the word “or.”
In the sentence
Do you want cake or ice cream for dessert?
the intended meaning may include the possibility of having both.
This is the inclusive meaning of the word “or.”
In mathematical logic, we always mean the inclusive “or.”
Here is the truth table:
Disjunction
p q pq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
The only time “p or q” is false is when both p and q are false.
So, the statement “It is windy or the waves are high” is false only when it is
not windy and the waves are not high. It either part is true (or both parts are true),
the compound statement is true.
Conditional
A statement of the form “If p then q” is called a conditional statement
or an implication.
The if-statement p is called the antecedent.
The then-statement q is called the consequent.
To see how an implication works, consider the following sentence:
“If it stops raining by Saturday, then I will go to the football game.”
What circumstances would make this statement untrue?
If it stops raining and I don’t go, then I haven’t told the truth.
But what if the rain doesn’t stop. I haven’t said what I’ll do then.
Whether I got or not, either is OK.
So for the conditional statement to be false, the antecedent must be true and
the consequent must be false.
Conditional
The conditional statement “If p then q” is denoted by p  q (read p implies q).

Here is the truth table:
p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Remember, the only time the implication is false is when

the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.
Conditional
It is important to recognize that in mathematical writing the conditional

statement can be disguised in several equivalent forms. Thus the following
expressions all mean exactly the same thing:
If p then q q if p
p implise q q provided that p
p only if q q whenever p
p is a sufficient condition for q q is a necessary condition for p
Example
1. The car will not run whenever you are out of gas.
2. You can work here only if you have a college degree.
3. Continuity is a necessary condition for differentiable.
4. If n is an integer, then 2n is an even number.
Conditional
One way to visualize an implication B  R is to picture two sets B and R, with
B inside R. Here are several object of different shapes and colors.
Objects that are round are in set R, and objects that are blue are in set B.
■ ▲ The relationship can be stated in many ways:
▼
 If it is blue (B), then it is round (R).
 
R
B  It is round (R) whenever it is blue (B).
  It is blue (B) only if it is round (R).
■
  It is round (R) provided that it is blue (B).
  ■
Being blue (B) is a sufficient condition for
it to be round (R).
 ▼
■ Being round (R) is a necessary condition for
it to be blue (B).
Biconditional
The biconditional statement “p if and only if q” is denoted by p  q.
In writing, the abbreviation “iff” is sometimes used.
It is the conjunction of the two conditional statements p  q and q  p.
Let’s construct the truth table.
The conditional p  q is true except
p q ( p  q)  (q  p) when the antecedent p is true and the
consequent q is false.
T T T T T The conditional q  p is true except
T F F F T when the antecedent q is true and the
F T T F F consequent p is false.
F F T T T The conjunction is true only when both
parts are true.
We see that the biconditional p  q is true precisely when p and q have

the same truth values.
Practice 1.1.7(a)
Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].
p q ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)]
T T F T T F F F
T F T F T F T T
F T T F T T T F
F F T F T T T T
We start inside the parentheses and work our way out. So we begin with the
conjunction of p and q. Then do its negation.
Now do the negation of p and the negation of q. Then take their disjunction.
Finally, compute the biconditional.
Practice 1.1.7 (a)
Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].
p q ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)]
T T F T T F F F
T F T F T F T T
F T T F T T T F
F F T F T T T T
When a compound statement is true in all cases, it is called a tautology.

When a biconditional statement is a tautology, it means the two parts of the
biconditional are logically equivalent. They have the same truth tables.
In this case it shows that the negation of the conjunction of p and q is logically
equivalent to the disjunction of the negation of p and the negation of q.
Fact: ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)] is also a tautology.
Practice 1.1.7(b)
Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [ p  (~ q)].
p q ~ ( p  q)  [ p  (~ q)]
T T F T T T F F
T F T F T T T T
F T F T T F F F
F F F T T F F T
We begin with the implication p  q. Then do its negation.

Now do the negation of q. Recopy p and take the conjunction of p and ~ q.
Finally, compute the biconditional. The result is a tautology that tells us
the negation of an implication is not another implication.
The negation of an implication is the conjunction of the antecedent

and the negation of the consequent.
Practice 1.1.7(c)
Construct a truth table for the compound statements ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].
Practice 1.1.9* *Similar to Practice 1.1.9 in the text.
Write the negation of each statement.

(a) 2 + 3 = 4 and x > 7.
This is a conjunction p  q, where p is “2 + 3 = 4” and q is “x > 7.”
We know that ~ ( p  q) is equivalent to [(~ p)  (~ q)].
So, the negation is “2 + 3  4 or x  7.”
(b) If M is nonsingular, then M is invertible.

This is an implication p  q,
where p is “M is nonsingular” and q is “M is invertible.”
To negate an implication, we affirm the antecedent and deny the consequent.
That is, ~ ( p  q) is equivalent to p  (~ q).
So, the negation is “M is nonsingular and M is not invertible.”
Section 1.2
Quantifiers
Is the sentence “x2 – 5x + 6 = 0” a statement?
No, as it stands it is not a statement because it is true for some values of x
and false for others.
When a sentence involves a variable, we often refer to it using functional notation.
p(x): x2 – 5x + 6 = 0
For a specific value of x, p(x) becomes a statement that is true or false.
For example, p(2) is true and p(4) is false.
When a variable is used in an equation or an inequality, we assume that the general
context for the variable is the set of real numbers unless told otherwise.
Within this context, we may remove the ambiguity of p(x) by using a quantifier.
The sentence “For every x, x2 – 5x + 6 = 0” is a statement since it is false.
In symbols we write “ x, p(x).”
The universal quantifier  is read “for every,” “for all,” “for each,” etc.
The sentence “There exists an x such that x2 – 5x + 6 = 0”
is a statement and it is true.
In symbols we write “ x p(x).”
The existential quantifier is read “there exists.”
Sometimes the quantifier is not explicitly written down, as in the statement
“If x is greater than 1, then x2 is greater than 1.”

The intended meaning is “ x, if x > 1, then x2 > 1.”
In general, if a variable is used in the antecedent of an implication with being

quantified, then the universal quantifier is assumed to apply.
How do we negate a quantified statement?
Consider the statement
“Everyone in the room is awake.”
What condition must apply to the people in the room for this to be false?
Must everyone be asleep? No, it is sufficient that at least one person be asleep.
On the other hand, in order for the statement
“Someone in the room is asleep.”
to be false, it must be the case that everyone is awake.
Symbolically, if p(x): x is awake
then ~ [  x, p(x)]  [  x ~ p(x)]
and ~ [ x p(x)]  [  x, ~ p(x)]
Practice 1.2.3
Negate the following statements.
(b) “There exists a positive number y such that 0 < g( y)  1.”
Symbolically, we have “ y>0 0 < g( y)  1.”
Note that 0 < g( y)  1 means 0 < g( y) and g( y)  1.
So the negation is “  y > 0, g( y)  0 or g( y) > 1.”
In words we have “For every positive number y, g( y)  0 or g( y) > 1.”
(c) “For all x and y in A, there exists z in B such that x + y = z.”

Note: This “and” is not used as a logical connective.
In symbols: “  x and y in A,  z in B x + y = z.”
Practice 1.2.3(d)
Negate the following statement.

 >0N  n, if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  .
We work from left to right, negating each part as we go.
 >0 ~[N  n, if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .
 >0  N ~ [  n, if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .
 >0 N n ~ [ if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .
 >0 N n n  N and ~ [  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .
 >0 N n n  N and  x in S ~ [ | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .
 >0 N n n  N and  x in S | fn (x) – f (x)|   ] .
Caution:
Take careful note of the order in which quantifiers are used.
Changing the order or two quantifiers can change the truth value.
For example, when talking about real numbers, the following statement is true.
xy y > x.
Given any real number x, there is always a real number y that is greater than that x.
But the following statement is false.

y  x, y > x.
There is no fixed real number y that is greater than every real number.
Section 1.3
Techniques of Proof l and II
Example 1.3.1
Consider the function f (n) = n2 + n + 17.
If we evaluate this function for various positive integers, we observe that we always
seem to obtain a prime number.
f (1) = 19, f (2) = 23, f (3) = 29, f (4) = 37, …, f (8) = 89, …, f (12) = 173, …, f (15) = 257
All of these numbers (and the ones skipped over) are prime.
On the basis of this experience we might conjecture that the function f (n) = n2 + n + 17
will always produce a prime number when n is a positive integer.
Drawing a conclusion of this sort is an example of inductive reasoning.
Specific Cases General Principle

If n is a positive integer and p(n) represents the statement “n2 + n + 17 is a prime number,”
have we shown that  n, p(n) is true?

No, we have not. We have shown that  n p(n) is true. In fact, we know that p(n) is
true for many n. But we have not proved it is true for all n.
If p(n): “n2 + n + 17 is a prime number,” how can we prove  n, p(n) is true?
In this case we can’t because, in fact,  n, p(n) is false.
To prove it is false, we need to find one example where n2 + n + 17 is not prime.
Such an example is called a counterexample.
One such example is n = 17:
172 + 17 + 17 = 17(17 + 1 + 1) = 17 · 19
There are others as well. For example when n = 16:
162 + 16 + 17 = (16)(16 + 1) + 17
= (16)(17) + 17 = (16 + 1)(17) = 172
In this case there is more than one counterexample, but it only takes one counterexample
to prove that “ n, p(n)” is false.
Example 1.3.3
Consider the function g(n, m) = n2 + n + m.
In Example 1.3.1 we saw that g(16, 17) = 162 + 16 + 17 = 172.
We also note that
g(1, 2) = 12 + 1 + 2 = 4 = 22
g(2, 3) = 22 + 2 + 3 = 9 = 32
..
.
g(5, 6) = 52 + 5 + 6 = 36 = 62
..
.
g(12, 13) = 122 + 12 + 13 = 169 = 132.
On the basis of these examples (using inductive reasoning) we form the conjecture
 n, q(n)
where q(n) is the statement “g(n, n + 1) = (n + 1)2.
This time our conjecture is true. We can prove it using the familiar laws of algebra.
We have g(n, m) = n2 + n + m and q(n): g(n, n + 1) = (n + 1)2.
It follows that g(n, n + 1) = n2 + n + (n + 1) [definition of g(n, n +1)]

= n2 + 2n + 1 [since n + n = 2n]
= (n + 1)(n + 1) [by factoring]
= (n + 1)2 [definition of (n + 1)2].
Since our reasoning at each step does not depend on n being any specific integer,
we conclude that “" n, q(n)” is true.
Now that we have proved the general statement “" n, q(n),” we can apply it to any
particular case.
For example, we know that g(124, 125) = 1252 without having to do any computation.
This is an example of deductive reasoning.
General Principle Specific Case
The most common type of mathematical theorem can be symbolized as p  q, where
p and q may be compound statements.
To assert that p  q is a theorem is to claim that p  q is a tautology; that is, that it is
always true.
From Section 1.1 we know that p  q is true unless p is true and q is false.
So to prove that p implies q, we have to show that whenever p is true it follows that
q must be true.
When an implication p  q is identified as a theorem, it is customary to refer to
p as the hypothesis and q as the conclusion.
The construction of a proof of the implication p  q can be thought of as building a
bridge of logical statements to connect the hypothesis p with the conclusion q.
The building blocks that go into the bridge consist of four kinds of statements:
(1) definitions,
(2) assumptions or axioms that are accepted as true,
(3) theorems that have previously been established as true, and
(4) statements that are logically implied by the earlier statements in the proof.
In building a bridge from the hypothesis p to the conclusion q, it is often useful to start at
both ends and work toward the middle.
We might begin by asking,
“What must I know in order to conclude that q is true?” Call this q1.
Then ask,
“What must I know to conclude that q1 is true?” Call this q2.
Continue this process as long as it is productive, thus obtaining a sequence of implications:
…  q2  q 1  q
Then look at the hypothesis p and ask,
“What can I conclude from p that will lead me toward q?” Call this p1.
Then ask, “What can I conclude from p1?” And continue this process as long as it is
productive. …
p  p1  p 2 
We hope that at some point the part of the bridge leaving p will join with the part that
arrives at q, forming a complete span:
p  p1  p 2  …  q2  q 1  q
Given any conditional statement p  q, there are three related conditional statements.
Symbols Words
Original statement: pq if p, then q
Converse: qp if q, then p
Equivalent Equivalent
Inverse: ~ p  ~q if not p, then not q
Contrapositive: ~ q  ~p if not q, then not p
It is easy to show using a truth table that the original statement and the contrapositive
are logically equivalent.
It is also true that the converse and the inverse are equivalent to each other.
But neither the converse nor the inverse are equivalent to the original statement.
Since the contrapositive of a conditional statement is equivalent to the original

statement, it can be useful in proving theorems.
Example 1.3.7
To prove the theorem “If 7m is an odd number, then m is an odd number”
we look at its contrapositive:
“If m is not an odd number, then 7m is not an odd number.”
OR “If m is an even number, then 7m is an even number.”
Here is a simple proof of the contrapositive.
Hypothesis: m is an even number.

m = 2k for some integer k [definition]
7m = 7(2k) [known property of equality]
7m = 2(7k) [known property of multiplication]
7k is an integer [since k is an integer]
Conclusion: 7m is an even number [since 7m is 2 times the integer 7k]
This is much easier that trying to show directly that 7m being odd implies that m is odd.
Example 1.3.12 in the text gives 17 tautologies that are useful in constructing proofs.
It is not necessary to memorize all of them, but they should be studied to see what
each one says. Here is a sampling:
(a) ( p  q)  [( p  q)  (q  p)]
One way to prove the biconditional p  q is to prove the conditional
p  q and its converse q  p.
(c) ( p  q)  (~ q  ~ p)
One way to prove the conditional p  q is to prove its contrapositive
~ q  ~ p.
(i) [( p  q)  ~ q]  ~ p
If you know p implies q, but you don’t have q, then you can’t have p.
(j) [( p  q)  ~ p]  q
If you know p or q is true, but you don’t have p, then you must have q.
(p) [ p  (q  r)]  [( p  ~ q)  r]
One way to prove that p implies q or r is to prove if you have p and don’t
have q, then you must have r.
Section 1.4
Techniques of Proof Il
Mathematical theorems and proofs do not occur in isolation, but always in the
context of some mathematical system. Knowing the context is particularly
important when dealing with quantified statements.
For example, the statement

 x, x2  x
is true in the context of the positive integers, but is false for the real numbers.
Similarly, the statement

 x x2 = 25 and x < 3
is false for positive numbers and true for real numbers.
How do we prove quantified statements?
To prove a universal statement

 x, p (x),
we let x represent an arbitrary member from the system under consideration
and then show that statement p(x) is true.
The only properties that we can use about x are those that apply to all the
members of the system.
For example, if the system consists of the integers, we cannot use the property
that x is even, since this does not apply to all the integers.
How do we prove quantified statements?
To prove an existential statement
x p (x),
we have to prove there is at least one member x in the system under consideration
for which p(x) is true.
The most direct way of doing this is to construct (produce, guess, etc.) a
specific x that has the required property.
Sometimes this is difficult and we must use an indirect method.
One indirect method is to use the contrapositive.
Another indirect method is to use a proof by contradiction.
Note: a contradiction is a statement that is always false.
Example 1.4.3 illustrates using the contrapositive.
1
THEOREM: Let f be an integrable function. If 0 f ( x) dx  0 , then there exists a
point x in the interval [0, 1] such that f (x)  0.
Symbolically, we have p  q, where

1
q:  x in [0, 1] f (x)  0.
p:
0 f ( x) dx  0 and
The contrapositive implication, ~ q  ~ p, can be written as

1
If for every x in [0, 1], f (x) = 0, then 0 f ( x) dx  0.
This is much easier to prove. Instead of having to conclude the existence of an x in [0, 1]
with a particular property, we are given that every x in [0, 1] has a different property.
The proof now follows directly from the definition of the integral, since each of the terms
in any upper or lower Riemann sum will be zero. (See Chapter 7.)
There are two basic forms of a proof by contradiction.
They are based on tautologies (f ) and (g) in Example 1.3.12.

Tautology (f ) has the form c represents a contradiction –
a statement that is always false.
(~ p  c)  p.
If we wish to conclude a statement p, we can do so by showing that the
negation of p leads to a contradiction.
Tautology (g) has the form
( p  q)  [(p  ~ q)  c].
If we wish to conclude that p implies q, we can do so by showing that p and
not q leads to a contradiction.
In either case the contradiction can involve part of the hypothesis or some
other statement that is known to be true.
Example 1.4.4 illustrates a proof by contradiction.
THEOREM: Let x be a real number. If x > 0, then 1/x > 0.
Symbolically, we have p  q, where

p: x > 0 and q: 1/x > 0.
Tautology (g) in Example 1.3.12 says that p  q is equivalent to
( p  ~ q)  c, where c is a contradiction.
So we begin by supposing that x > 0 and 1/x  0.

Since x > 0, we can multiply both sides of the inequality 1/x  0 by x to obtain
1
( x)    ( x)(0).
x
But (x)(1/x) = 1 and (x)(0) = 0, so we have 1  0, a contradiction to the fact that 1 > 0.
Having shown that p  ~ q leads to a contradiction, we conclude that p  q.
Some proofs naturally divide themselves into the consideration of two (or more)
cases. For example, integers are either even or odd. Real numbers are positive,
negative, or zero.
Tautology (q) in Example 1.3.12 shows us how to combine the cases:
[( p  q)  r]  [( p  r)  (q  r)]
Example 1.4.5 illustrates its application.
THEOREM: If x is a real number, then x  | x |.
Symbolically, we have s  r, where s: x is a real number and r: x  | x |.

 x, if x  0,
Recall the definition of absolute value: | x |  
 x, if x  0.
Since this definition is divided into two parts, it is natural to divide the proof into two cases.
We replace statement s by the equivalent disjunction p  q, where
p: x  0 and q: x < 0.
Our theorem now is to prove ( p  q)  r, where
p: x  0, q: x < 0, and r: x  | x |.
We do this by showing that ( p  r)  (q  r). Here is the theorem and proof:
THEOREM: If x is a real number, then x  | x |.

Proof:
Let x be an arbitrary real number. Then x  0 or x  0.
If x  0, then by definition, x  | x |.
On the other hand, if x  0, then x > 0, so that x  0  x  | x |.
Thus, in either case, we have x  | x |. 
A diamond is used in this text to

indicate the end of a formal proof.
Our next example illustrates what can be done when a conjunction is in the consequent
of an implication. It is based on tautology (p) in Example 1.3.12:
[ p  (q  r)]  [( p  ~ q)  r].
Example 1.4.7
THEOREM: If the sum of a real number with itself is equal to its square, then
the number is 0 or 2.
In symbols we have p  (q  r), where
p: x + x = x2, q: x = 0, and r: x = 2.
To do the proof, we show that ( p  ~ q)  r.
Proof: Suppose that x + x  x2 and x  0. Then 2x = x2

and since x  0, we can divide by x to obtain 2 = x. 
Review
In this section we discussed three ways of proving a statement of the form

p  q.
(1) Assume statement p and deduce statement q.

(2) Assume ~ q and deduce ~ p. (Prove the contrapositive.)
(3) Assume both p and ~ q and deduce a contradiction.
We also showed how to handle a conjunction in the antecedent or the

consequent of the implication. These are the most common forms of
mathematical proofs, except for proofs by mathematical induction.
Induction proofs will be considered in Chapter 3 in connection with the
natural numbers.

CHAPTER 1a Real Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1a Real Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Logic and Proof

In mathematical logic, we look at how the truth value of a compound statement

For example, the simple statement: “It is windy.”

“It is windy and the waves are high.” Conjunction

Let’s look more carefully at each of these connectives.

The conjunction of p and q is denoted by p  q (read p and q).

Here is the truth table:

The only time “p or q” is false is when both p and q are false.

The conditional statement “If p then q” is denoted by p  q (read p implies q).

Remember, the only time the implication is false is when

It is important to recognize that in mathematical writing the conditional

p implise q q provided that p

p is a sufficient condition for q q is a necessary condition for p

We see that the biconditional p  q is true precisely when p and q have

Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].

Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].

When a compound statement is true in all cases, it is called a tautology.

Construct a truth table for the compound statement ~ ( p  q)  [ p  (~ q)].

We begin with the implication p  q. Then do its negation.

The negation of an implication is the conjunction of the antecedent

Construct a truth table for the compound statements ~ ( p  q)  [(~ p)  (~ q)].

Write the negation of each statement.

(b) If M is nonsingular, then M is invertible.

The existential quantifier is read “there exists.”

Sometimes the quantifier is not explicitly written down, as in the statement

“If x is greater than 1, then x2 is greater than 1.”

In general, if a variable is used in the antecedent of an implication with being

and ~ [ x p(x)]  [  x, ~ p(x)]

(c) “For all x and y in A, there exists z in B such that x + y = z.”

In symbols: “  x and y in A,  z in B x + y = z.”

Negate the following statement.

 >0 ~[N  n, if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .

 >0  N ~ [  n, if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .

 >0 N n ~ [ if n  N, then  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .

 >0 N n n  N and ~ [  x in S, | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .

 >0 N n n  N and  x in S ~ [ | fn (x) – f (x)| <  ] .

 >0 N n n  N and  x in S | fn (x) – f (x)|   ] .

But the following statement is false.

Specific Cases General Principle

have we shown that  n, p(n) is true?

It follows that g(n, n + 1) = n2 + n + (n + 1) [definition of g(n, n +1)]

General Principle Specific Case

Since the contrapositive of a conditional statement is equivalent to the original

Hypothesis: m is an even number.

For example, the statement

Similarly, the statement

To prove a universal statement

Symbolically, we have p  q, where

The contrapositive implication, ~ q  ~ p, can be written as

They are based on tautologies (f ) and (g) in Example 1.3.12.

THEOREM: Let x be a real number. If x > 0, then 1/x > 0.

Symbolically, we have p  q, where

So we begin by supposing that x > 0 and 1/x  0.

Example 1.4.5 illustrates its application.

THEOREM: If x is a real number, then x  | x |.

Symbolically, we have s  r, where s: x is a real number and r: x  | x |.

We do this by showing that ( p  r)  (q  r). Here is the theorem and proof:

THEOREM: If x is a real number, then x  | x |.

A diamond is used in this text to

In symbols we have p  (q  r), where

To do the proof, we show that ( p  ~ q)  r.

Proof: Suppose that x + x  x2 and x  0. Then 2x = x2