Methods

of Proof
Definition:
A direct proof is a procedure for proving the truth of 𝒑 → 𝒒.
First, we assume that p is true. Then we build an argument,
using a chain of implications, leading directly to the
conclusion that q is a true statement.

Example:
Prove that if n and m are integers and 3 is a factor of
both n and m, then 3 is a factor of nx + my where x
and y are integers.
Proof:
Let n and m be integers such that 3 is a factor of
both n and m. Then n = 3k and m = 3l for some
integers k and l. Thus, for any integers x and y

nx + my = 3kx + 3ly = 3(kx + ly).

Since kx + ly is an integer by closure property, it

follows that 3 is a factor of nx + my.■
Indirect
Proof
In direct reasoning, we began with a true
hypothesis and built a logical argument to show
that a conclusion was true.
In an indirect proof, you begin by assuming that
the conclusion is false. Then you show that this
assumption leads to a contradiction. This type of
proof is also called a proof by contradiction.
Helpful Hint
When writing an indirect proof, look for a
contradiction of one of the following: the given
information, a definition, a postulate, or a theorem.
Definition: A proof by contrapositive uses the fact
that an implication and its contrapositive are
equivalent. So, if we can prove that the
contrapositive is true, then we may conclude that
the original implication is also true.
Thus, to prove the implication 𝒑 → 𝒒 by
contrapositive, we begin by assuming that q is false
and then proceed to show that p also is false, that is,
we prove that ¬𝒒 → ¬𝒑. Then we conclude that
𝒑 → 𝒒.
 Example: Prove the following statement:

“If the sum of two real numbers is positive, then at least

one of them is positive, that is,
if 𝒙, 𝒚 ∈ ℝ 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒙 + 𝒚 > 𝟎, then either x > 0 or y > 0”
Proof: Assume that 𝑥 ≤ 0 and y ≤ 0. (We are assuming
that the conclusion is false.)
Then 𝑥 + 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥 + 0.
Thus, 𝑥 + 𝑦 ≤ 0, which means that the hypothesis is
false. This proves the contrapositive, hence, the assertion
is true.
Definition: A proof by contradiction is based on
the fact that a statement is either true or false. So,
instead of showing that an assertion is true directly,
we may show that it can’t be false. Then we
conclude that it must be true.
Thus, to prove by contradiction that the implication
𝒑 → 𝒒 is true, we begin by assuming that it is false.
(By definition, this means that p is true and q is
false.) Then we construct an argument that leads to a
contradiction – something that is always false.
Theoretically, this is impossible, because we can
never prove that a false statement is true. This will
force us to conclude that the assumption is the
source of the contradiction. Hence, we can not
assume that the implication 𝑝 → 𝑞 is false.

Example: Prove the following statement:

“If x is an odd integer, then 𝒙𝟐 is odd.”

Proof: Assume that 𝑥 is odd and 𝑥 2 is even. (We are assuming
that the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false.). Then
2
x = 2a +1 and 𝑥 = 2b for some integers a and b. Thus,
2𝑏 = 𝑥 2 = (2𝑎 + 1)2 = 4𝑎2 + 4𝑎 + 1 = 2 2𝑎2 + 2𝑎 + 1.
Hence,
2 2
1= 2b – 2(2𝑎 + 2𝑎) = 2[𝑏 − (2𝑎 +2𝑎)].
But, [𝑏 − (2𝑎2 +2𝑎)] is clearly an integer, so the last equation implies
that 1 is divisible by 2 with the integer [𝑏 − (2𝑎2 +2𝑎)] as quotient. This
is not true because if we divide 1 by 2, the quotient is ½ and this is not
an integer. Hence, we cannot assume that the assertion is false.
Therefore, it must be true. ■
 Example 1: Writing an Indirect Proof
Write an indirect proof that if a > 0, then
Step 1 Identify the conjecture to be proven.
Given: a > 0
Prove:
Step 2 Assume the opposite of the conclusion.

Assume
 Example 1 Continued
Step 3 Use direct reasoning to lead to a
contradiction.

Given, opposite of conclusion

Zero Prop. of Mult. Prop. of

Inequality
10 Simplify.

However, 1 > 0.
 Example 1 Continued

Step 4 Conclude that the original conjecture is

true.

The assumption that is false.

Therefore
 Check It Out! Example 1
Write an indirect proof that a triangle cannot have two
right angles.
Step 1 Identify the conjecture to be proven.

Given: A triangle’s interior angles add up to 180°.

Prove: A triangle cannot have two right angles.

Step 2 Assume the opposite of the conclusion.

A triangle has two right angles.
Check It Out! Example 1 Continued
Step 3 Use direct reasoning to lead to a
contradiction.
m1 + m2 + m3 = 180°
90° + 90° + m3 = 180°
180° + m3 = 180°
m3 = 0°
However, by the Protractor Postulate, a
triangle cannot have an angle with a
measure of 0°.
 Check It Out! Example 1 Continued
Step 4 Conclude that the original conjecture is true.

The assumption that a triangle can have two

right angles is false.

Therefore a triangle cannot have two right angles.

 Example: Prove that if 𝑛2 is even, then
n is also even.
Proof: (By contradiction). Assume that 𝑛2 is even and n is
odd. Since 𝑛 is odd, n = 2k + 1 for some integer k.

Then 𝑛2 = (2𝑘 + 1)2 = 4𝑘 2 + 4𝑘 + 1 = 2 2𝑘 2 + 2𝑘 + 1.

Now let m = 2𝑘 2 + 2𝑘. Then 𝑛2 = 2m + 1, so by definition,
𝑛2 is odd. But this clearly impossible, since 𝑛2 is even.
We have reached a contradiction, so our assumption was
2
false. Thus, if 𝑛 is even, then n is also even.
 Example: Prove that 2 is irrational.
Proof: (By contradiction). Assume that 2 is rational. Then
𝑝
there exists integers p and q such that q ≠ 0, = 2 and p
𝑞
and q have no common divisors other than 1 and -1.
𝑝
Since = 2 and q ≠ 0, p = 2 q. So, 𝑝2 = 2𝑞 2
𝑞

Since 𝑞 2 is an integer 𝑝2 is even. By our earlier

result, since 𝑝2 is even, p is also even. Thus, there is
an integer k such that p = 2k.
 Example: Prove that 2 is irrational.
2 2 2 2 2 2
Therefore, 2𝑞 =𝑝 =(2𝑘) = 4𝑘 so 𝑞 = 2𝑘 .
2 2
Since 𝑘 is an integer, 𝑞 is even. By our earlier
2
result, since 𝑞 is even, q is also even. But this
means that p and q have 2 as a common divisor.
This contradicts our earlier assumption that their
only common divisors are 1 and -1.
We have reached a contradiction and so our
assumption is correct.