Math 100C: General Mathematics

Names: Ali, Farrah

Araña, Andrei Veronnick
Babayson, Ascel Rey

Section: CHI

1. Answer the following questions

a. What is the process of proving arguments using indirect proof?

Indirect proof, also known as proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum, is a

method of proof where one assumes the opposite of what needs to be proven and then shows
that this assumption leads to a logical contradiction or absurdity. The processes involved in
applying indirect proof are as follows:

1. Assume the opposite of what needs to be proven: This is called the negation of the
statement to be proven. In other words, the negation of the conclusion.
2. Show that this negation leads to a logical contradiction or absurdity: This can be done
by using logical reasoning, mathematical proofs or laws, or other methods of
argumentation.
3. Conclude that the assumption is false: Since the negation must lead to a contradiction,
it cannot be true. Therefore, it is a contradiction, and the original conclusion was
proven to be valid and true.

b. In example 9.1 letter A, what makes statement 12, 𝐺 ∧∼ 𝐺 a contradiction?

In statement 12, G∧∼G, the symbol "∧" represents logical conjunction "and", and the
symbol "∼" represents negation "not". So G∧∼G is saying "G and not G" which is
contradictory. It is like saying "I am both true and false" which is impossible because
something can't be true and false simultaneously. This is why statement 12 is a contradiction.

c. In Example 9.1 letter B, what makes statement 10, ∼ 𝐻 ∧ 𝐻 a contradiction?

In statement 10, ∼H∧H, the symbol "∧" represents logical conjunction "and", and the
symbol "∼" represents negation "not". So, ∼H∧H is saying "not H and H" which is
contradictory because it's like saying "the statement is false and true" at the same time,
which is not possible. As a result, statement 10 is a contradiction and it is always false
regardless of the truth value of H
d. If you come up with a contradiction, then what would be your conclusion?

If a negated conclusion ends with a contradiction, then the conclusion of it would be

that the negated conclusion is false. In propositional logic, a contradiction is a statement that
is always false. Again, the statement "A ∧ ∼A" is a contradiction because it asserts that
proposition A is both true and false at the same time, which is not possible. A contradiction
in a logical argument serves as proof that the negation of the conclusion is invalid.
Additionally, if a contradiction is derived, it means that the negated conclusion is false
and therefore the original conclusion statement must be true. However, if the negation is
proven to be true and a contradiction is not derived, it does not necessarily mean that the
original conclusion statement is true. It could mean that the argument is invalid, or that there
are additional premises that need to be considered.

2. Answer at least three of the items in check yourself page 203. Bonus points for those who
can answer all four items. Hints are provided for each item.

Item 1

1. P → (Q ∧ R) Premise 1
2. Q → (S ∧ T) Premise 2
∴∼𝑃∨𝑆
3. ∼ (∼ 𝑃 ∨ 𝑆) Indirect Proof
4. P ∧ ~𝑆 3 , De Morgan’s Law
5. 𝑃 4, Simplification
6. Q ∧ R 1 , 5 ,Modus Ponens
7. 𝑄 6, Simplification
8. S ∧ T 2,7 Modus Ponens
9. ~𝑆 4 , Simplification
10. S 8, Simplification
11. ~S ∧ 𝑆 9,10, Conjunction
12. ∴ ∼ 𝑃 ∨ 𝑆 11, Contradiction
Item 2

1. (R ∨ S ) → T Premise 1
2. (P ∨ Q ) → T Premise 2
3. R ∨ P Premise 3
∴T
4. ∼ T Indirect Proof
5. ~ (R ∨ S ) 1, 4 , Modus Tollens
6. ~ (P ∨ Q ) 2 , 4 Modus Tollens
7. ~ R ∧ ~ S 5 , De Morgan’s Law
8. ~ P ∧ ~ Q 6, De Morgan’s Law
9. ~ R 7, Simplification
10. ~ P 8, Simplification
11. P 3 , 9 Disjunctive Syllogism
12. ~P ∧ P 10 , 11 , Conjunction
13. ∴ T 12, Contradiction

Item 3

1. (𝑄 ∨∼ 𝑅) ∨ 𝑆 Premise 1
2. ∼ 𝑄 ∨ (𝑅 ∧∼ 𝑄) Premise 2
∴𝑅 →𝑆
3. ∼ (𝑅 → 𝑆) Indirect Proof
4. ∼ (∼ 𝑅 ∨ 𝑆) 3, Material Implication
5. 𝑄 ∨ (∼ 𝑅 ∨ 𝑆) 1, Associative Law
6. 𝑄 5, 4, Disjunctive Syllogism
7. 𝑅 ∧∼ 𝑄 2, 6, Disjunctive Syllogism
8. ∼ 𝑄 7, Simplification
9. 𝑄 ∧∼ 𝑄 6, 8, Conjunction
10. ∴ 𝑅 → 𝑆 9, Contradiction

Item 4

11 statements which is compose of 3 premises, 1 indirect proof, 1 De Morgan’s Law,

2 Modus Ponens, 1 Disjunctive Syllogism, 2 Conjunctions and 1 Contradiction (Not
necessarily in order)

1. N→ O Premise 1
2. (N ∧ O) → P Premise 2
3. ~ (N ∧ P) Premise 3
∴~𝑁
4. 𝑁 Indirect Proof
5. 𝑂 1, 4, Modus Ponens
6. ~ 𝑁 ∨ ~P 3, De Morgan’s Law
7. 𝑁 ∧ O 4, 5, Conjunction
8. 𝑃 2, 7, Modus Ponens
9. ~ 𝑁 6, 8, Disjunctive Syllogism
10. N ∧ ~ 𝑁 4, 9, Conjunction
11. ∴ ~ 𝑁 10, Contradiction