10-16-2009

An Overview of Mathematical Reasoning

To conclude our unit on problem solving, in this section we will briefly outline the struc-
ture of mathematical reasoning.
Mathematical reasoning can be devided into two categories:

 Inductive Reasoning
 Deductive reasoning

Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning is where we use evidience from several spe-
cific examples to draw a conclusion. We have done this many times already, particularly
when we used the pattern recogonition strategy.

The advantages of inductive reasoning:

• Can draw conclusions from limited information

• Helps us to organize our thinking

• Human beings know how to use inductive reasoning naturally.

The disadvantages of inductive reasoning:

• Sometimes we draw the wrong conclusions from the information.

• Our conclusions are only as strong as the evidence that we choose to consider

• In mathematics, just one example which contradicts our conclusion demonstraits

that our conclusion is wrong. An example which shows that a conclusion is false is
called a counterexample.

• Cannot be used to “prove” something the mathematical sense

Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning is the process of applying logic to demon-

strait that a conclusion is true or false.
 A statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. For example, “0 is
an even number” is a statment, in fact it’s a true statement. “Pigs can fly” is a statement,
a false one however. “Eat more vegetables!” is not a statement nor is “this statement is
false”.

Given two statements p and q I can combine them in two different ways to form new
statements:

p AND q This statement is true when both p is a true statement and q is a true statement.
It is false when either p or q (or both) are false statements.

p OR q This statement is true when either p or q (or both) are true statements. It is false
if neither p nor q is a true statement.

We can represent these compound statements using truth tables (page 62 in text).
Another way to build new statements from old ones is to form a conditional or
if...then statement. Given the statements p and q, we can form an if then statement by
writting the statement “if p is true then q is true.” In symbols, this new statement is
written as p → q.
But when is the new statement p → q going to be a true statement? well, p → q is
true if p being true always forces q to be true. We can use truth tables again to analyze
this statement (page 62 in text).

p q p→q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
In the first row, p → q is true since in this case we always have p true and always have q
true. In the second row, we have p is true but q is false. So p being true certainly does
not force q to be true here and so p → q must be a false statement.
 The remaining two rows are might seem a bit confusing at first. The rule is that if
p is true then q must be true. So in a sense, we only “use” the rule when p is true. If
p is false then no matter if q is true or false, the rule is never broken because it never
comes into play. For example consider the statement “if pigs can fly then unicorns are
real”. This statement is a true conditonal statement since pigs can’t fly. Simalarly, the
statment “if pigs can fly then the year is 2009” is true since the if part being false tells
us nothing about what year it is.

Given all of this, we now present two deductive reasoning tools: the rule of direct
reasoning and the rule of indirect reasoning.
The Rule of Direct Reasoning Given a true if...then statement “p → q” if the p part
is true then we conclude the q part.
For example, let p be the statement “it is raining” and “q” be the statment “it is
cloudy.” Then p → q is the statement “if it is raining then it is cloudy”. Assuming this
is really true and it is raining outside by the rule of direct reasoning, it must be cloudy
outside.
The Rule of Indirect Reasoning Given that p → q is true, if q is false then p must
be false.
For example, if the statement “if it is raining then it is cloudy” is true and it’s not
cloudy outside we can conclude that it is not raining.
The idea of this rule is that if p always makes q happen and q does not happen then
p could not have happened (since if p happens it always causes q to happen).
Advtanges of Deductive Reasoning

• Proves that a statement is always true.

• Follows a systematic pattern of rules.

Disadvantages of Deductive Reasoning

• Can be difficult to use

• A skill that requires lots of practice