MATH F213: Discrete Mathematics

First Semester 2021-22

BITS Pilani
Tutorial

0
Question
From the set {1, 2, . . . , 200}, 101 integers are chosen. Prove that
among the chosen integers, there are two integers such that one divides
the other.

1
Question
From the set {1, 2, . . . , 200}, 101 integers are chosen. Prove that
among the chosen integers, there are two integers such that one divides
the other.

Solution. Let the 101 integers be a1 , . . . , a101 . For i = 1, . . . , 101, write

ai = 2ei ki , ki odd.

Now k1 , . . . k101 are integers belonging to the set {1, 3, . . . , 199}, which
has 100 elements. So by PHP, there exist i, j, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 101, i ̸= j, such
that ki = kj . If ei ≥ ej , then aj divides ai . If ei < ej , then ai divides aj .
Hence there are two integers such that one divides the other.

1
Question
Prove or disprove.

(i) ∀ x ∈ R, ∃ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1
(ii) ∃ x ∈ R, ∀ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1

2
Question
Prove or disprove.

(i) ∀ x ∈ R, ∃ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1
(ii) ∃ x ∈ R, ∀ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1

Solution.

(i) True.
Let x ∈ R. Take y = (x 3 − 1)1/3 ∈ R. Then
x 3 − y 3 = x 3 − (x 3 − 1) = 1.

2
Question
Prove or disprove.

(i) ∀ x ∈ R, ∃ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1
(ii) ∃ x ∈ R, ∀ y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 = 1

Solution.

(i) True.
Let x ∈ R. Take y = (x 3 − 1)1/3 ∈ R. Then
x 3 − y 3 = x 3 − (x 3 − 1) = 1.
(ii) False.
We prove that the negation

∀ x ∈ R, ∃y ∈ R, x 3 − y 3 ̸= 1

is true. Let x ∈ R. Take y = x. Then x 3 − y 3 = 0 ̸= 1.

2
Question
Let F (x) be an open proposition. Express the following statements
using first order logic.

1. F (x) is true for at most one element;

2. F (x) is true for exactly two elements.

3
Question
Let F (x) be an open proposition. Express the following statements
using first order logic.

1. F (x) is true for at most one element;

2. F (x) is true for exactly two elements.

Solution.

1. (∀x) (∀y ) [Fx ∧ Fy → x = y ]

3
Question
Let F (x) be an open proposition. Express the following statements
using first order logic.

1. F (x) is true for at most one element;

2. F (x) is true for exactly two elements.

Solution.

1. (∀x) (∀y ) [Fx ∧ Fy → x = y ]

2. (∃x) (∃y ) [∼ (x = y ) ∧ Fx ∧ Fy ∧ (∀z)[Fz → (z = x) ∨ (z = y )]]

3
Question
Let a human, named Adams, be denoted by a and consider the
following predicates on the universe U = the set of all humans.
W (x) : x works in the factory, U(x) : x is a union member, M(x) : x is
in a managerial position.
Write the following inference symbolically and determine if it is valid or
faulty. If valid, establish the validity by using the fundamen-
tal rules of inference in each step, otherwise establish that it is not valid.
Anyone who works in the factory is either a union member or in
a managerial position. Adams is neither a union member nor in
a managerial position. Therefore Adams does not work in the
factory.

4
Solution

Symbolization:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

∼ (U(a) ∨ M(a))
——————
∴ ∼ W (a)

5
Solution (contd.)

Proof of validity:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

6
Solution (contd.)

Proof of validity:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

∴ W (a) → (U(a) ∨ M(a)) (Universal Specialization)

6
Solution (contd.)

Proof of validity:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

∴ W (a) → (U(a) ∨ M(a)) (Universal Specialization)
∴ ∼ (U(a) ∨ M(a)) → ∼ W (a) (Law of contrapositive)

6
Solution (contd.)

Proof of validity:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

∴ W (a) → (U(a) ∨ M(a)) (Universal Specialization)
∴ ∼ (U(a) ∨ M(a)) → ∼ W (a) (Law of contrapositive)
∴ ∼ W (a) (Modus Ponens)

6
Solution (contd.)

Proof of validity:

∀x [W (x) → (U(x) ∨ M(x))]

∴ W (a) → (U(a) ∨ M(a)) (Universal Specialization)
∴ ∼ (U(a) ∨ M(a)) → ∼ W (a) (Law of contrapositive)
∴ ∼ W (a) (Modus Ponens)

Remark. Modus Tollens is not a fundamental rule of inference.

6
Example 1.10.5
Suppose the Postal Department prints on 5- and 9-cent stamps. Prove
that it is possible to make up any postage of n-cents using only 5- and
9-cent stamps for n ≥ 32.

(Does the result hold for n = 31? Why or why not?)

7
Solution

Let P(n) be the statement ‘it is possible to make up any postage of

n-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps.’

8
Solution

Let P(n) be the statement ‘it is possible to make up any postage of

n-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps.’
Base cases: We verify that P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are true.

8
Solution

Let P(n) be the statement ‘it is possible to make up any postage of

n-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps.’
Base cases: We verify that P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are true. Since

32 = 5 + 9 · 3
33 = 5 · 3 + 9 · 2
34 = 5 · 5 + 9
35 = 5 · 7,

P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are all true.

8
Solution

Let P(n) be the statement ‘it is possible to make up any postage of

n-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps.’
Base cases: We verify that P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are true. Since

32 = 5 + 9 · 3
33 = 5 · 3 + 9 · 2
34 = 5 · 5 + 9
35 = 5 · 7,

P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are all true.

Inductive hypothesis: Let k ≥ 35. We assume that the statement
P(k) is true.

8
Solution

Let P(n) be the statement ‘it is possible to make up any postage of

n-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps.’
Base cases: We verify that P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are true. Since

32 = 5 + 9 · 3
33 = 5 · 3 + 9 · 2
34 = 5 · 5 + 9
35 = 5 · 7,

P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35) are all true.

Inductive hypothesis: Let k ≥ 35. We assume that the statement
P(k) is true.
Inductive conclusion: We’ll show that the statement P(k + 1) is true.

8
Using the Inductive hypothesis, it is possible to make up any postage of
k-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps. Suppose the k -cents postage is
made up with only 5-cent stamps. Since k ≥ 35, we must have at least
seven 5-cent stamps. Observe that

1 = 9 · 4 − 7 · 5.

Hence we can replace seven 5-cent stamps by four 9-cent stamps to make
up (k + 1)-cents postage. (Notice that this argument works for k ≥ 35;
which is why we needed to verify all the statements
P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35), instead of just P(32).)

9
Using the Inductive hypothesis, it is possible to make up any postage of
k-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps. Suppose the k -cents postage is
made up with only 5-cent stamps. Since k ≥ 35, we must have at least
seven 5-cent stamps. Observe that

1 = 9 · 4 − 7 · 5.

Hence we can replace seven 5-cent stamps by four 9-cent stamps to make
up (k + 1)-cents postage. (Notice that this argument works for k ≥ 35;
which is why we needed to verify all the statements
P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35), instead of just P(32).)
Next, suppose it is not the case that the k-cents postage is made up
with only 5-cent stamps. Therefore, there is at least one 9-cent stamp
involved in the makeup of the k-cents postage. Since 1 = 5 · 2 − 9 · 1, we
can replace a 9-cent stamp by two 5-cent stamps to make up
(k + 1)-cents postage.

9
Using the Inductive hypothesis, it is possible to make up any postage of
k-cents using only 5- and 9-cent stamps. Suppose the k -cents postage is
made up with only 5-cent stamps. Since k ≥ 35, we must have at least
seven 5-cent stamps. Observe that

1 = 9 · 4 − 7 · 5.

Hence we can replace seven 5-cent stamps by four 9-cent stamps to make
up (k + 1)-cents postage. (Notice that this argument works for k ≥ 35;
which is why we needed to verify all the statements
P(32), P(33), P(34), P(35), instead of just P(32).)
Next, suppose it is not the case that the k-cents postage is made up
with only 5-cent stamps. Therefore, there is at least one 9-cent stamp
involved in the makeup of the k-cents postage. Since 1 = 5 · 2 − 9 · 1, we
can replace a 9-cent stamp by two 5-cent stamps to make up
(k + 1)-cents postage.
Hence P(k + 1) is true in both cases. Hence by PMI, P(n) is true for all
n ≥ 32.
9