Everything You Always Wanted To

Know About Mathematics*

(*But didn’t even know to ask)

A Guided Journey Into the World of Abstract

Mathematics and the Writing of Proofs

Brendan W. Sullivan
[email protected]
with Professor John Mackey

Department of Mathematical Sciences

Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA

May 10, 2013

This work is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Arts in Mathematical Sciences.
2
Contents

I Learning to Think Mathematically 11

1 What Is Mathematics? 13
1.1 Truths and Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1.1 Triangle Tangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.1.2 Prime Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.1.3 Irrational Irreverence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.2 Exposition Exhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2.1 Simply Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2.2 Write Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.3 Pick Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.2.4 Obvious Obfuscation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.3 Review, Redo, Renew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.3.1 Quick Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.3.2 Algebra Abracadabra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.3.3 Polynomnomnomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1.3.4 Let’s Talk About Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.3.5 Notation Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1.4 Quizzical Puzzicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1.4.1 Funny Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1.4.2 Gauss in the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.4.3 Some Other Sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1.4.4 Friend Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.4.5 The Full Monty Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
1.5 It’s Wise To Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
1.6 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

2 Mathematical Induction 101

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.2 Examples and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
2.2.1 Turning Cubes Into Bigger Cubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

3
4 CONTENTS

2.2.2 Lines On The Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

2.2.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.3 Defining Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2.3.1 The Domino Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2.3.2 Other Analogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
2.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
2.3.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
2.4 Two More (Different) Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2.4.1 Dominos and Tilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2.4.2 Winning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
2.4.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.5 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.5.1 Recursive Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.5.2 The Tower of Hanoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
2.5.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.7 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.8 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

3 Sets 149
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.2 The Idea of a “Set” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.3 Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.3.1 Definition of “Set” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.3.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.3.3 How To Define a Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.3.4 The Empty Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.3.5 Russell’s Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.3.6 Standard Sets and Their Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.3.7 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.4 Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.4.1 Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.4.2 The Power Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.4.3 Set Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
3.4.4 The “Bag” Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
3.4.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.5 Set Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.5.1 Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.5.2 Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.5.3 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.5.4 Complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.5.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
CONTENTS 5

3.6 Indexed Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

3.6.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.6.2 Indexed Unions and Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
3.6.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
3.6.4 Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
3.6.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.7 Cartesian Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.7.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.7.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
3.7.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
3.8 Defining the Natural Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.8.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.8.2 Principle of Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.8.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.9 Proofs Involving Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
3.9.1 Logic and Rigor: Using Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
3.9.2 Proving “⊆” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3.9.3 Proving “=” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.9.4 Disproving Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3.9.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
3.11 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
3.12 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

4 Logic 215
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4.2 Mathematical Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
4.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
4.2.2 Examples and Non-examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4.2.3 Variable Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.2.4 Word Order Matters! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
4.2.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
4.3 Quantifiers: Existential and Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4.3.1 Usage and notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4.3.2 The phrase “such that”, and the order of quantifiers . . . 229
4.3.3 “Fixed” Variables and Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
4.3.4 Specifying a quantification set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
4.3.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
4.4 Logical Negation of Quantified Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4.4.1 Negation of a universal quantification . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4.4.2 Negation of an existential quantification . . . . . . . . . . 236
4.4.3 Negation of general quantified statements . . . . . . . . . 237
6 CONTENTS

4.4.4 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

4.4.5 The Law of the Excluded Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.4.6 Looking Back: Indexed Set Operations and Quantifiers . 241
4.4.7 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.5 Logical Connectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4.5.1 And . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
4.5.2 Or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4.5.3 Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4.5.4 Looking Back: Set Operations and Logical Connectives . 255
4.5.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
4.6 Logical Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
4.6.1 Definition and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
4.6.2 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
4.6.3 Proving Logical Equivalences: Associative Laws . . . . . . 264
4.6.4 Proving Logical Equivalences: Distributive Laws . . . . . 268
4.6.5 Proving Logical Equivalences: De Morgan’s Laws (Logic) 269
4.6.6 Using Logical Equivalences: DeMorgan’s Laws (Sets) . . . 270
4.6.7 Proving Set Containments via Conditional Statements . . 271
4.6.8 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
4.7 Negation of Any Mathematical Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
4.7.1 Negating Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
4.7.2 Negating Any Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
4.7.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
4.8 Truth Values and Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
4.9 Writing Proofs: Strategies and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
4.9.1 Proving ∃ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
4.9.2 Proving ∀ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
4.9.3 Proving ∨ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
4.9.4 Proving ∧ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
4.9.5 Proving =⇒ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
4.9.6 Proving ⇐⇒ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
4.9.7 Disproving Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
4.9.8 Using assumptions in proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
4.9.9 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
4.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
4.11 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
4.12 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

5 Rigorous Mathematical Induction 321

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
5.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
5.2 Regular Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
5.2.1 Theorem Statement and Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
5.2.2 Using Induction: Proof Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
5.2.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
5.2.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
CONTENTS 7

5.3 Other Variants of Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

5.3.1 Starting with a Base Case other than n = 1 . . . . . . . . 331
5.3.2 Inducting Backwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
5.3.3 Inducting on the Evens/Odds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
5.3.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
5.4 Strong Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
5.4.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
5.4.2 Theorem Statement and Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
5.4.3 Using Strong Induction: Proof Template . . . . . . . . . . 348
5.4.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
5.4.5 Comparing “Regular” and Strong Induction . . . . . . . . 355
5.4.6 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
5.5 Variants of Strong Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
5.5.1 “Minimal Criminal” Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
5.5.2 The Well-Ordering Principle of N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
5.5.3 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
5.7 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
5.8 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

II Learning Mathematical Topics 375

6 Relations and Modular Arithmetic 377
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
6.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
6.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
6.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
6.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
6.2 Abstract (Binary) Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
6.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
6.2.2 Properties of Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
6.2.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
6.2.4 Proving/Disproving Properties of Relations . . . . . . . . 386
6.2.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
6.3 Order Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
6.3.1 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
6.4 Equivalence Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
6.4.1 Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
6.4.2 Equivalence Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
6.4.3 More Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
6.4.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
6.5 Modular Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
6.5.1 Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
6.5.2 Equivalence Classes modulo n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
6.5.3 Multiplicative Inverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
8 CONTENTS

6.5.4 Some Helpful Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

6.5.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
6.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
6.7 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
6.8 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

7 Functions and Cardinality 467

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
7.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
7.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
7.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
7.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
7.2 Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
7.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
7.2.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
7.2.3 Equality of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
7.2.4 Schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
7.2.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
7.3 Images and Pre-images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
7.3.1 Image: Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
7.3.2 Proofs about Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
7.3.3 Pre-Image: Definition and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
7.3.4 Proofs about Pre-Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
7.3.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
7.4 Properties of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.4.1 Surjective (Onto) Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.4.2 Injective (1-to-1) Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
7.4.3 Proof Techniques for Jections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
7.4.4 Bijections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
7.4.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
7.5 Compositions and Inverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
7.5.1 Composition of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
7.5.2 Inverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
7.5.3 Bijective ⇐⇒ Invertible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
7.5.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
7.6 Cardinality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
7.6.1 Motivation and Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
7.6.2 Finite Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
7.6.3 Countably Infinite Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
7.6.4 Uncountable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
7.6.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
7.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
7.8 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
7.9 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
CONTENTS 9

8 Combinatorics 567
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
8.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
8.1.2 Segue from previous chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
8.1.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
8.1.4 Goals and Warnings for the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
8.2 Basic Counting Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
8.2.1 The Rule of Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
8.2.2 The Rule of Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
8.2.3 Fundamental Counting Objects and Formulas . . . . . . . 580
8.2.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
8.3 Counting Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
8.3.1 Poker Hands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
8.3.2 Other Card-Counting Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
8.3.3 Other Counting Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
8.3.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620
8.4 Counting in Two Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
8.4.1 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
8.4.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
8.4.3 Standard Counting Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
8.4.4 Binomial Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
8.4.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
8.5 Selections with Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
8.5.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
8.5.2 Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
8.5.3 Equivalent Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
8.5.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
8.5.5 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651
8.6 Pigeonhole Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
8.6.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
8.6.2 Statement and Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
8.6.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
8.6.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
8.7 Inclusion/Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
8.7.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
8.7.2 Statement and Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
8.7.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
8.7.4 Questions & Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
8.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
8.9 Chapter Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
8.10 Lookahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
10 CONTENTS

A Definitions and Theorems 671

A.1 Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
A.1.1 Standard Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
A.1.2 Set-Builder Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
A.1.3 Elements and Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672
A.1.4 Power Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672
A.1.5 Set Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673
A.1.6 Set Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673
A.1.7 Indexed Set Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
A.1.8 Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
A.2 Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
A.2.1 Statements and Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
A.2.2 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
A.2.3 Connectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
A.2.4 Logical Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677
A.2.5 Proof Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
A.3 Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
A.3.1 Principle of Specific Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . 680
A.3.2 Principle of Strong Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . . 680
A.3.3 “Minimal Criminal” Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
A.4 Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
A.4.1 Properties of Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
A.4.2 Equivalence Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
A.4.3 Modular Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
A.5 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
A.5.1 Images and Pre-Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
A.5.2 Jections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
A.5.3 Composition of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
A.5.4 Inverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688
A.5.5 Proof Techniques for Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688
A.6 Cardinality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
A.6.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
A.6.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
A.6.3 Standard Catalog of Cardinalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
A.7 Combinatorics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
A.7.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
A.7.2 Counting Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
A.7.3 Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
A.7.4 Standard Counting Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
A.7.5 Counting In Two Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
A.7.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
A.7.7 Inclusion/Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
A.7.8 Pigeonhole Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
A.8 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
A.8.1 General Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
A.8.2 Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
 Part I

Learning to Think
Mathematically

11
Chapter 1

What Is Mathematics?

1.1 Truths and Proofs

How do you know whether something is true or not? Surely, you’ve been told
that the angles of a triangle add to 180◦ , for example, but how do you know for
sure? What if you met an alien who had never studied basic geometry? How
could you convince him/her/it that this fact is true? In a way, this is what
mathematics is all about: devising new statements, deciding somehow whether
they are true or false, and explaining these findings to other people (or aliens,
as the case may be). Unfortunately, it seems like many people think math-
ematicians spend their days multiplying large numbers together; in actuality,
though, mathematics is a far more creative and writing-based discipline than
its widely-perceived role as ever-more-complicated arithmetic. One aim of this
book is to convince you of this fact, but that’s merely a bonus. This book’s
main goals are to show you what mathematical thinking, problem-solving, and
proof-writing are really all about, to show you how to do those things, and to
show you how much fun they really are!
As a side note, you might even wonder “What does it mean for something
to be true?” A full discussion of this question would delve into philosophy,
psychology, and maybe linguistics, and we don’t really want to get into that.
The main idea in the context of mathematics, though, is that something is
true only if we can show it to be true always. We know 1 + 1 = 2
always and forever. It doesn’t matter if it’s midnight or noon, we can rest
assured that equation will hold true. (Have you ever thought about how to show
such a fact, though? It’s actually quite difficult! A book called the Principia
Mathematica does this from “first principles” and it takes the authors many,
many pages to even get to 1 + 1 = 2!) This is quite different from, perhaps,
other sciences. If we conduct a physical experiment 10 times and the same result
occurs, do we know that this will always happen? What if we do the experiment
a million times? A billion? At what point have we actually proven anything? In
mathematics, repeated experimentation is not a viable proof! We would need to

13
14 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

find an argument that shows why such a phenomenon would always occur. As
an example, there is a famous open problem in mathematics called the Goldbach
Conjecture. It is unknown, as of now, whether it is true or not, even though
it has been verified by computer simulations up until a value of roughly 1018 .
That’s a huge number, but it is still not enough to know whether the conjecture
is True or False. Do you see the difference? We mathematicians like to prove
facts, and checking a bunch of values but not all of them does not constitute a
proof.

1.1.1 Triangle Tangle

We’ve introduced the idea of a proof by talking about what we hope proofs to
accomplish, and why we would care so much about them. You might wonder,
then, how one can define a proof. This is actually a difficult idea to address!
To approach this idea, we are going to present several different mathematical
arguments. We want you to read along with them, and think about whether
they are convincing. Do they prove something? Are they correct? Are they
understandable? How do they make you feel? Think about them on your own
and develop some opinions, and then read along with our discussion.
The mathematical arguments we will present here are all about triangles.
Specifically, they concern the Pythagorean Theorem.

Theorem 1.1.1 (The Pythagorean Theorem). If a right triangle has base

lengths a, b and hypotenuse length c, then these values satisfy a2 + b2 = c2 .

How do we know this? It’s a very useful fact, one that you’ve probably used
many times in your mathematics classes (and in life, without even realizing).
1.1. TRUTHS AND PROOFS 15

Have you ever wondered why it’s true? How would you explain it to a skeptical
friend? This is what a mathematical proof attempts to accomplish: a clear
and concise explanation of a fact. The reasoning behind requiring a proof makes
a lot of sense, too, and is twofold: it’s a relief to know that what we thought was
true is, indeed, true and it’s nice to not have to go through the explanation of
the fact every time we’d like to use it. After proving the Pythagorean Theorem
(satisfactorily), we merely need to refer to the theorem by name whenever a
relevant situation arises; we’ve already done the proof, so there’s no need to
prove it again.
Now, what exactly constitutes a proof? How do we know that an explanation
is sufficiently clear and concise? Answering this question is, in general, rather
difficult and is part of the reason why mathematics can be viewed as an art as
much as it is a science. We deal with cold, hard facts, yes, but being able to
reason with these facts and satisfactorily explain them to others is an art form
in itself.

Examples of “Proofs”
Let’s look at some sample “proofs” and see whether they work well enough.
(We say “proof” for now until we come up with a more precise definition for it,
later on.) Here’s the first one:
“Proof ” 1. Draw a square with side length a + b. Inside this square, draw four
copies of the right triangle, forming a square with side length c inside the larger
square.

The area of the larger square can be computed in two ways: by applying the
area formula to the larger square or by adding the area of the smaller square to
the area of the four triangles. Thus, it must be true that
ab
(a + b)2 = c2 + 4 · = c2 + 2ab
2
16 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

Expanding the expression on the left and canceling a common term on both
sides yields
a2 +  + b2 = c2 + 
2ab 2ab


Therefore, a2 + b2 = c2 is true.

Are you convinced? Did each step make sense? Maybe you’re not sure yet,
so let’s look at another “proof” of the theorem.

“Proof ” 2. Suppose the Pythagorean Theorem is true and draw the right tri-
angle with the altitude from the vertex corresponding to the right angle. Label
the points and lengths as in the diagram below:

Since the Pythagorean Theorem is true, we can apply it to all three of the
right triangles in the diagram, namely ABC, BCD, ACD. This tells us (defining
e = c − d)

a2 = d2 + f 2
b2 = f 2 + e2
c2 = a2 + b2

Adding the first two equations together and replacing this sum in the third
equation, we get
c2 = d2 + e2 + 2f 2
Notice that angles ∠ABC and ∠ACD are equal, because they are both comple-
mentary to angle ∠CAB, so we know triangles 4CDB and 4ADC are similar
triangles. (We are now assuming some familiarity with plane geometry.) This
tells us fe = fd , and thus f 2 = ed. We can use this to replace f 2 in the line
above and factor, as follows:

c2 = d2 + e2 + 2de = (d + e)2
1.1. TRUTHS AND PROOFS 17

Taking the square root of both sides (and knowing c, d, e are all positive num-
bers) tells us c = d + e, which is true by the definition of the lengths d and e.
Therefore, our assumption that the Pythagorean Theorem is true was valid.
What about this proof? Was it convincing? Was it clear? Let’s examine one
more “proof” before we decide what a constitutes a “correct” or “good” proof.
“Proof ” 3. Observe that

a c−b
so c+b = a and thus a2 + b2 = c2 .
Did that make any sense to you? Finally, here’s one last “proof” to consider.
“Proof ” 4. The Pythagorean Theorem must be true, otherwise my teachers
have been lying to me.

Discussion
Before reading on, we encourage you to think about these four “proofs” and even
discuss them with another student or a friend. What do you think constitutes
a “correct” proof? Is clarity and ease of reading important? Does it affect the
“correctness” of a proof?
From a historical perspective, mathematical proof-writing has evolved over
the years and there is a good, general consensus as to what constitutes a “cor-
rect” proof:
• It is important that every step in the proof, every logical inference and
claim, is valid, mathematically speaking.
• It is also important that the proof-writer makes (reasonably) clear why a
statement follows from the previous work or from outside knowledge.
18 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

What’s nice about the truth requirement is that mathematics has been built up
so that we can read through an argument and verify each claim as True or False.
What’s difficult to define is clear writing. In a way, it is much like Supreme
Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous definition of obscenity: “I know it when
I see it”.
Given these four arguments for comparison, let’s assess them for clarity and
correctness:
Clarity:
• “Proofs” 1 and 2 are fairly well explained. There are clear statements
about what the writer is doing and why. They indicate where any equa-
tions come from, and even include some pictures to illustrate their ideas
for the reader.
Notice that “proof 1” does rely on some basic prior knowledge, like the
algebraic manipulation of variables and formulae for the area of a triangle
and square, but this is fine.
Likewise, “Proof 2” relies on some understanding of similar triangles and
what this means about the lengths of their sides. At least the proof-writers
pointed this out, so an interested reader could look up some relevant ideas.
If they didn’t say this, a reader might be confused and have no idea how
to figure out what they’re missing!
• “Proof” 3 is very poorly worded! It offers no explanation whatsoever.
This makes it quite difficult to determine whether their claims are actually
correct. Yes, a picture is included, but there is no indication of why they
chose to draw a circle around the triangle, or why the stated equations
follow from the diagram.
• “Proof” 4 is a grammatically correct English sentence, but it doesn’t ex-
plain anything!
Already, we can see that “Proof” 4 is certainly ont a viable candidate for being
a good and proper proof. “Proofs” 1 and 2 are still in the running, since they
are at least written clearly. “Proof” 3, as it is written now, would probably
not be a good candidate; however, maybe it does contain correct ideas that just
require better explanations. Perhaps it could be rewritten as a good and proper
proof.
Let’s analayze the logical correctness of these four arguments:
Correctness:
• “Proof” 1 mostly good. The formulae for the areas of the square and
triangles are correctly applied, and the algebraic manipulation thereof is
correct. But how do we know that the process they described—putting
four copies of the given triangle inside a larger square—creates a square
with side length c on the inside? They merely say it does so without
1.1. TRUTHS AND PROOFS 19

really saying why. Other than this omission, though, this proof is both
well-written and correct.
(Can you prove that fact, that the shape inside is actually a square? Just
look at its angles: can you show why they are all right angles?)

• Unfortunately, “Proof” 2 is completely invalid! Every logical step that

it makes does follow from the previous one. For instance, assuming we
have the triangles set up this way, we can correctly deduce that ∆CDB
and ∆ADC are similar triangles. However, why is it that we can assume
the theorem is True right at the beginning? Isn’t that what we are trying
to accomplish in the proof, overall? This is a crucial flaw. Assuming a
fact and deducing something True from it does not allow us to
conclude the original assumption was valid.
If this method were valid, we could “prove” just about anything we wanted!
Here’s an example: What do you think of the following “proof” that 0 = 1?

“Proof ”. Assume 0 = 1. Then, by the symmetric property of =, it is also

true that 1 = 0. Adding these two equations tells us 1 = 1, which is True.
Therefore, 0 = 1 was a valid assumption, so it must be True.

Do you see the similarity between this and “Proof” 2 above? The same
sort of flawed reasoning was used: we assumed one fact, did some work to
get to something else we know to be True, and then said that the assumed
fact must be True, as well.

• Regarding “Proof” 3, most mathematicians would say it is a “bad proof”,

despite the fact that everything it appears to claim is correct. We say
“appears” because, without any words to explain what’s going on, we
don’t actually know what the proof-writer is trying to say! However, we
will say that the kernel of a perfectly good proof is contained therein.
a
From the diagram, you can show that the stated equation, c+b = c−b
a ,
must follow. (Hint: Use similar triangles!) From there, it is a simple
manipulation to deduce that a2 + b2 = c2 .
Can you write some sentences to go along with the diagram that would
turn this into a proper proof?

• Lastly, just about every reasonably logical person (we hope!) would say
that “Proof” 4 is not even close to being a proof, however convenient it
might be to make such statements.

This discussion shows that “Proof” 1 is actually a good proof. Amongst all
four, it is the most clearly-written, and the one that is logically correct. We can
refer to it now as a proof. “Proof” 2 is outright incorrect, despite how clearly
it is presented. “Proof” 3 contains correct ideas, but is not presented clearly.
“Proof” 4 is so far from a proof that we don’t even want to discuss it.
20 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

Question
Before moving on to other topics, we’ll leave you with a question: if we give you
three positive numbers a, b, c that satisfy a2 + b2 = c2 , is it necessarily true that
there is a right triangle with side lengths a, b and hypotenuse length c? If so,
how could you go about constructing it? If not, why not?

1.1.2 Prime Time

While we’re on the topic of proofs, let’s look at another proof, for a different
theorem. As a reminder (or brief introduction), let’s talk about prime numbers.

Definition, Examples, and Uses

Definition 1.1.2. A positive integer p that is larger than 1 is called a prime
number if the only positive divisors of p are 1 and p. A non-prime positive
integer is called a composite number.

Prime numbers have shown to be incredibly important in all branches of

mathematics, not just the study of integers and their properties, which is known
as number theory. One of the most famous conjectures (a guess at a theorem
that has been neither proven nor disproven thus far) in all of mathematics is
the Riemann Hypothesis. Its conclusion has been shown to be closely related to
the distribution of prime numbers throughout the integers. Many books have
been written on this topic. Also, most modern cryptography schemes are based
on multiplying huge prime numbers together, relying on the fact that it’s quite
difficult to undo this process and figure out the two huge prime factors, given
their product. So now you know: every time you buy a song on iTunes with
your credit card, some computer just multiplied two large prime numbers!
The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, . . . (remember, 1
does not fit our definition). How many prime numbers are there? How far apart
are they? Is there a pattern? Answering questions like these can be interesting
and fun, but also difficult (and sometimes, impossible!). Here, we’ll answer one
of the questions: are there an infinite number of prime numbers?

Theorem and Proof

Theorem 1.1.3 (Infinitude of the Primes). There are infinitely-many prime
numbers.

“Proof ”. Assume instead that there are only finitely-many prime numbers, and
list them in ascending order: p1 , p2 , p3 , . . . , pk , so that pk is the largest of these
prime numbers. Define the new number

N = (p1 · p2 · p3 · · · · · pk ) + 1

It must be true that N is divisible by some prime number. However, it cannot

be divisible by p1 or p2 or . . . or pk , because that would leave a remainder of 1,
1.1. TRUTHS AND PROOFS 21

based on how we defined N . Thus, N is divisible by some other prime number

that is not in the list.
If N itself is composite (i.e. not prime), then we have found some new prime
p < N that is not in the list of all primes we presumably had. If N itself is
prime, then we have a new prime N > pk , so pk is not actually the largest prime
number. Either way, we have a new prime guaranteed to not be in the given
list of k primes. Therefore, there must be infinitely-many prime numbers.

What do you think of this “proof”? Are you convinced? It feels a little
different from the other arguments we’ve seen so far, doesn’t it? Try explaining
to a classmate how this one differs from “Proof 1” of the Pythagorean Theorem
from the previous section. We will reveal this, though: this “proof” here is
actually a fully correct proof, sans quotation marks!

1.1.3 Irrational Irreverence

Let’s talk about a different type of number, now: rational numbers. You might
know rational numbers as “fractions” or “quotients” or “ratios”.

Definition and Examples

Here is a precise definition of rational numbers:

Definition 1.1.4. A real number r is a rational number if and only if it can

be expressed as a ratio of two integers r = ab , where a and b are both integers
(and b 6= 0).
A real number that is not rational is called irrational.

Nothing about this definition says that there has to be only one such repre-
sentation of a rational number; it merely requires that a rational number have
at least one such a representation. For instance, 1.5 is a rational number be-
cause 1.5 = 23 = 12 30
8 = 20 and so on. A real number that is not rational is called
an irrational number, and that’s the entire definition: not rational, i.e. there
is no √
such representation of the number as a ratio of integers. You may know
that 2 is an irrational number, but how do you prove such a thing? Try it for
yourself. We will actually reexamine this question later on (see Example
√ 4.9.4).
Other irrational numbers you may know already include e, π, ϕ and n where
n is any positive integer that is not a perfect square.

Questions
Given this definition of rational/irrational, we might wonder how we can com-
bine irrational numbers to produce a rational number. Try to answer the follow-
ing questions on your own. If your answer is “yes”, try to find an example, and
if your answer is “no”, try to explain why the desired situation is not possible.

(1) Are there irrational numbers a and b such that a · b is a rational number?
22 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

(2) Are there irrational numbers a and b such that a + b is a rational number?
(3) Are there irrational numbers a and b such that ab is a rational number?
Did you find any examples? It turns out that the answer to all three questions
is “yes”! The first two are not too hard to figure out, but the third one is a
little trickier.
Here, we’ll work through a proof that says the answer to the third is “yes”.
The interesting part about it, though, is that we won’t actually come up with
definitive numbers a and b that make ab a rational number; we’ll just narrow
it down to two possible choices and show that one of those choices must work.
Sounds interesting, right? Let’s try it.
√ √ √2
Proof. We know 2 is an irrational number. Consider the number x = 2 .
There are two possibilities to consider:
√ √
• If x is rational, then we can choose a = 2 and b = 2 and have our
answer.
√ √2 √
• However, if x is irrational, then we can choose a = 2 and b = 2
because then
√ √2 √ √2·√2 √ 2
√

b 2
a = 2 = 2 = 2 =2

and 2 is a rational number.

In either case, we can find irrational numbers a and b such that ab is a rational
number. Thus, such a pair of numbers must exist.
How do you feel about this proof? Is it convincing? It answers the third
question above with a definitive “yes”, but it does not tell us which pair a, b is
actually√the correct one, merely that one of the pairs will work. (It turns out
√ 2
that 2 is also irrational, but that fact takes a lot more work to prove.)
There are plenty of other concrete examples that answer this question,
though. Can you come up with any? (Hint: try using the log10 function...)

1.2 Exposition Exhibition

1.2.1 Simply Symbols
Mathematics is a Language
Despite appearances (and some densely-written textbooks), mathematics is not
just a collection of symbols that we push around on paper. The English lan-
guage is based on a fixed group of symbols (the 26 letters of the alphabet plus
common punctuation like the period and comma and parenthesis) but we put
these symbols together in a specific way, while following some standard and
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 23

agreed-upon conventions, to craft meaningful words, phrases, sentences, para-

graphs, and so on; in essence, English, like any language, is a way to convey
meaning via a collection of symbols and a collection of rules governing those
symbols. The same concept applies to the language of mathematics: there is a
collection of symbols and a set of rules that we apply to those symbols.
One difference is that the collection of symbols we use in mathematics can
be rather large, depending on which branch of mathematics currently being
discussed. A big part of the structural versatility of mathematics is that we can
always create and define new symbols to use. Oftentimes, this is even done to
make things shorter and easier to read.
Another main difference between mathematics and other languages is that
we choose carefully how to define our words and the concepts they represent.
Frequently, most of the debates mathematicians have revolve around definitions.
This may be surprising to you; perhaps it would make more sense to think that
mathematicians debate over proofs and conjectures, or maybe it’s a novel idea
that mathematicians even debate at all! Choosing the right definitions and
terms for a newly-discovered concept is a crucial component of mathematical
discovery and exposition since it helps the discoverer/inventor explain his/her
ideas to other, interested people. (Without this process, there is no advancement
in mathematics, just a bunch of isolated people trying to discover truths on their
own.)
The situation is similar with spoken languages, but not as extreme, it seems.
For instance, if you said to your friend, “I’m hungry”, or “I’m feeling a bit
peckish”, or “Oh my god, I’m starving”, they hear essentially the same message
and would respond roughly the same way in each case. In mathematics, though,
our definitions are far more precise and don’t incorporate the types of nuances
that spoken language permits. Of course, there are benefits and disadvantages to
both philosophies, but in mathematics we strive for precision whenever possible,
so we like our definitions to be exact and unwavering. That said, though, we
have control over what those definitions are! This is why debates over definitions
are so prevalent in the mathematical world: choosing the right definitions for
concepts at hand can make future work with those concepts much easier and
more convenient.

Choosing Definitions Properly

As a concrete example, let’s return to Definition 1.1.2 of a prime number that
we saw in the previous subsection. It said:
Definition. A positive integer p that is larger than 1 is called a prime number
if the only positive divisors of p are 1 and p. A non-prime positive integer is
called a composite number.
There doesn’t seem to be anything questionable about this definition, does
there? Perhaps you would have worded it differently or been more concise or
used a different variable letter or what have you, but the ultimate message would
be the same: a prime number is a certain type of number that has a certain
24 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

property. However you choose to write out what that specific type of number is
(a positive integer larger than 1) and what that property is (having no positive
divisors except itself and 1), you obtain an equivalent definition.
There are some subtle questions behind this definition, though: Why is it
that particular type of number? Why is it that particular property—only being
divisible by 1 and itself—that we care so much about? What if the definition was
slightly different? Would things really change that much? We’ll address these
questions with another question: What do you think of the following alternative
definition of a prime number?

Definition 1.2.1. An integer p that is less than −1 or greater than 1 is called

a prime number if the only positive divisors of p are 1 and p.

Do you notice the subtle difference? All of the numbers that fit the previous
definition of “prime” still fit this one, but now so do negative numbers! Specif-
ically, given any number p that is prime under the old definition, −p is now
prime under the new definition. Is this a reasonable idea? What’s wrong with
having negative prime numbers?
How about this third definition of prime numbers?

Definition 1.2.2. A positive integer p is called a prime number if the only

positive divisors of p are 1 and p.

(Remember that 0 is neither positive nor negative, by convention.) Now, the

negative numbers are out of bounds, but 1 fits this definition. Is this reasonable?
The only positive divisors of 1 are 1 and . . . itself, right?
This is where a debate could arise: perhaps you don’t mind allowing 1 to be
a prime number, but your friend is vehemently against it. Well, without solid
reasons either way, there’s no way to say that either of you is wrong, really;
you just made different choices of terminology, and neither of them change the
inherent property that the only positive divisors of 1 are 1 and itself. As a
similar idea, consider this: whether you call them sandals or thongs or flip-
flops, the fact remains that those types of shoes are appropriate footwear at the
beach.
With historical hindsight and new desires in mind, though, oftentimes one
particular definition is shown to be more appropriate. In the future, we will
look at prime factorizations, a way of writing every (positive) integer as a
product of only prime numbers. For instance, 15 = 3 · 5 and 12 = 2 · 2 · 3 = 22 · 3
and 142857 = 33 · 11 · 13 · 37 are all prime factorizations.
There is a special property about these factorizations, too: in general, a
prime factorization of a positive integer is unique! That is, there is one and
only one way to write a positive integer as a product of prime numbers (since
we think of different orderings of the factors as the same thing, so 105 = 3 · 5 · 7
and 105 = 7 · 3 · 5 are the same factorization). This is something we will prove
rigorously using the first definition we gave above. What if we use the second
definition, or the third? Is this property of uniqueness still true? Why do you
think this uniqueness property is so important? Ultimately, the lesson here is
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 25

that definitions should be driven by both logic and usefulness, and this can
change over time and stir some debate.

Mathematicians Study Patterns

Another benefit of establishing clear and precise definitions is the knowledge
and understanding you gain as a thinker; establishing logical foundations can
be helpful in the future. A major aspect of how human beings learn involves
identifying patterns through everyday experience and then associating ideas,
concepts, words and events with those patterns. Then, one can use those pat-
terns to predict and theorize about abstract ideas, concepts and events.
For instance, it has been studied and shown that human babies initially lack,
but develop over time, the concept of object permanence. If you show a child a
colorful toy that they smile at and enjoy, and then hide it under a cardboard
box, the child doesn’t quite understand that the toy still exists but is just out of
sight. He/she will act as if the object is no longer in existence. At some point,
though, we learn that this isn’t true and that objects that are outside our realm
of vision are still existent. How exactly does this happen? Well, perhaps we
recognize the pattern of many such occurrences where an object “disappears”
and then we find it again later.
Better examples can be found in the natural sciences, and they illustrate
an extra facet of pattern recognition and abstract thinking that is of utmost
importantance, particularly in mathematics and the sciences. One can imagine
that Neanderthals somehow knew that any time they picked up a rock and
held it at arm’s length and then let go, the rock would fall to the ground.
This probably happened over and over and so they “understood” that this
phenomenon is a necessary product of nature. After enough occurrences, it
was likely understood that this would always happen, or, at least, any instance
in which it didn’t happen would cause great confusion and fear. (It is this
type of emotional response which might serve to explain how the infrequent
but powerful occurrences of, say, volcanic eruptions led ancient civilizations to
blame such events on “angry gods”).
None of these observations of events brought these prehistoric human beings
any closer to understanding why the rock would always fall to the ground, or
being able to explain why it would necessarily happen every time. It would
be many milennia before people even began to think to ask why and how this
phenomenon occurred, and even longer before Isaac Newton finally proposed a
model that sought to explain the behavior of gravity (the name given to this type
of phenomenon, eventually). And even now, some say, we still haven’t figured
out precisely how it works. (Go online and Google “loop quantum gravity” and
try to understand that, if you’re curious).
It’s this abstractive leap in thinking—from observations of a pattern to an
epistemological understanding of that pattern—that characterizes a truly inquis-
itive and intellectual thinker, a true scientist, in the best sense of the word.
Whom would you consider the better entomologist: the voracious reader who
has memorized and can list all of the currently-known species of beetle in the
26 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

world, or the laboratory scientist who has examined a variety of species and can
take a new specimen and classify it as a beetle or non-beetle? This is somewhat
of a leading question, but the main point is this: it is far more beneficial to
understand a definition and the motivations behind it than it is to simply know
a bunch of instances that satisfy a certain definition.
This is, arguably, even more important in mathematics. Can you imagine a
mathematician who didn’t know what a prime number was but could merely list
the first 100 prime numbers from memory and was content with that? Of course
not! Part of the beauty, versatility, and appeal of the study of mathematics
is that we examine patterns and phenomena and then choose how to make
the appropriate definitions associated with those patterns. We then use our
newfound understanding of those patterns to make rigorously precise predictions
about other patterns and phenomena. Thoroughly understanding a definition
or concept increases the predictive power, and is far more effective than merely
knowing examples of that definition/concept.

1.2.2 Write Right

Another interesting aspect of mathematics is that, as much as it is a language
unto itself, we rely on an external language to convey the mathematical thoughts
and insights we have. Try rewriting any of the definitions and proofs we’ve
looked at before without using any words. It’s tough, isn’t it? Accordingly, we
want the written language we use to convey mathematical ideas to follow the
same types of standards we apply to the mathematical “sentences” we write:
we want them to be precise, logical, and clear.
Now, deciding on a precise, logical, and clear definition for each of these
three words is a difficult task, in itself. However, we can all agree that it would
be ideal for a proof to be:

• precise: no individual statement should be untrue or interpretable in

multiple ways that would make the truth debatable;

• logical: each step should follow from previous steps with proper motiva-
tion and explanation; and,

• clear: steps should be connected and described with proper English gram-
mar and usage, helping the reader to see what’s going on.

Let’s examine a few “proofs” that disregard these standards and somehow fail
to fit the definition of proof that we have so far.

Bad “Proof ” #1
First, we have a “proof” that 1=2, so we know there must be something wrong
with this one. Can you find the error? Which standard does it violate? Preci-
sion, logic, or clarity?
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 27

“Proof ”. Suppose we have two real numbers x and y, and consider the following
chain of equalities:

x=y
x2 = xy multiply both sides by x
2 2 2
x − y = xy − y subtract y 2 from both sides
(x + y)(x − y) = y(x − y) factor both sides
x+y =y cancel (x − y) from both sides
y+y =y remembering x = y, from the first line
2y = y
2=1 divide both sides by y

The issue here is precision. After factoring in line four, it seems convenient
and wise to divide by the common factor (x − y) to obtain line five; however,
line one tells us that x = y so x − y = 0, and division by zero is not allowed!
Working with the variables x and y was just a way to throw you off the scent
and disguise the division by zero. (While we’re on the topic, why is division by
zero not allowed? Can you think of a reasonable explanation? Think about it
in terms of multiplication.)

Bad “Proof ” #2
Here’s another proof of a similar “fact”, namely that 0 = 36.

“Proof ”. Consider the equation x2 + y 2 = 25. Rearranging to isolate x tells us

p
x= 25 − y 2

and then adding 3 to both sides and squaring yields

 p 2
(x + 3)2 = 3 + 25 − y 2

Notice that x = −3 and y = 4 is a solution to the original equation, so the final

equation should be true, as well. Plugging in these values for x and y tells us
√
2
0 = (−3 + 3)2 = 3 + 25 − 16 = (3 + 3)2 = 36

Therefore, 0 = 36.

What happened here? Can you spot the illogical step? Perhaps it would
help if we rewrote the steps of the proof using the specific values of the variables
28 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

x and y that we chose towards the end:

(−3)2 + 42 = 25
p
−3 = 25 − 42
 p 2
(−3 + 3)2 = 3 + 25 − 42
0 = 36

It’s obvious now, isn’t it? There’s an issue with applying the square root opera-
tion to both sides of an equation, and it’s dependent on the fact that (−x)2 = x2 .
When we are looking to solve an equation like z 2 = x2 , we have to remember
there are two roots of this equation: z = −x and z = x. Accordingly, starting
from an equation and squaring both sides is a completely logical step (the truth
of the resulting equations follows from the truth of the original equation), but
working the other way is an illogical step (the truth of the squared equation
does not necessarily tell us that the square-rooted equation is also true). This
is an issue with conditional statements or logical implications, an idea we
will discuss in detail later on (in Section 4.5.3). For now, we can summarize
this idea with the following line:

If a = b then a2 = b2 , but if a2 = b2 then a = b or a = −b.

p
This shows why moving from x2 + y 2 = 25 to x = 25 − y 2 in the “proof”
above is an illogical step: we are immediately assuming one particular choice
for the square root when there are two possible options. What would have
happened if we had chosen the negative squarep root there? Try rewriting the
proof with the second step reading −x = 25 − y 2 , instead, and then use the
same values for x and y at the end. What happens? What if you use x = 3 and
y = −4 instead? Or x = −5 and y = 0? Can you describe how to determine
when we should use the positive root x and when we should use the negative
root −x?

Mathematics Uses the “Inclusive Or”

Since this word just arose, let’s mention the use of or in the sentence above.
When we say “a = b or a = −b”, we mean that at least one of the two statements
must be true, possibly both. Now, if both a 6= 0 and b 6= 0, then only one of the
concluding statements can be true; that is, in that context, only one of the roots
(positive or negative) will be the correct one and not both. If b = 0, though,
then both of the concluding statements say the same thing, a = 0, so it would
be illogical to dictate that or means only one of the statements can be true and
doesn’t allow both of them to be true, simultaneously. In other situations, this
distinction makes a more marked difference.
For instance, if you order a sandwich at a restaurant and the waiter asks, “Do
you want fries or potato salad on the side?”, it is understood that you can choose
one of those options, but not both. This is an example of the exclusive or since
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 29

it excludes you from choosing both options. Alternatively, if you forgot to bring
a writing implement to class and are looking for any old way to take notes and
ask your friend, “Do you have a pencil or pen I can borrow?”, it is understood
that you really don’t care which one of the two options is provided, as long as
at least one is available. Maybe your friend has both, and any one of them will
do. This is an example of the inclusive or, and this is the interpretation that
is assumed in all mathematical examples.

Unclear Arguments
The last two bad “proofs” failed because of issues with precision and logical
correctness. The third condition we require of a good proof is that it be clear :
we want the writing to explain what the proof-writer accomplishes in each step
and why that accomplishment is relevant. In other words, we don’t want the
reader to stop at any point and ask, “What does that sentence mean?” or
“Where did that come from?” or similar questions born from confusion. If it
helps, think about writing a proof in terms of explaining it to your friend in your
class, or the grader who will be reading your homework assignment, or a family
member of similar intelligence. Reread your own writing and try to anticipate
any questions that might arise or any clarifications that might be asked of you,
and then address those issues by rewriting.
There are several ways that a proof could fail this condition and come across
as unclear. For one, the words and sentences might fail to properly explain the
steps and motivations of the proof, and this could actually be because there are
too many words (obscuring the proof by overburdening the reader) or because
there are too few words (not giving the reader enough information to work with)
or because the words chosen are confusing (not properly explaining the proof).
These are issues with the language of the proof.
Mathematically, any number of issues could arise, in terms of clarity. Per-
haps the proof-writer suddenly introduces a variable without stating what type
of number it is (an integer, a real number, etc.) or skips a few steps of arith-
metic/algebra or uses new notation without defining what it means first or . . .
None of these acts is technically wrong or illogical, but they can certainly cause
confusion for a reader. Can you think of any other ways that a proof can be
unclear? Try to think of a language-based one and a mathematical one.

Bad “Proof ” #3
Let’s state a simple fact about a polynomial function and then examine a
“proof” about that fact. Read the argument carefully and try to pinpoint some
sentences or mathematical steps that are unclear.
Fact: Consider the polynomial function f (x) = x4 − 8x2 + 16. This function
satisfies f (x) ≥ 0 for any value of x.

“Proof ”. No matter what the value of x is that we plug into the function f of x
we can write the value that the function puts out by factoring the polynomial,
30 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

like this:
f (x) = x4 − 8x2 + 16 = (x − 2)2 (x + 2)2
Now, any number z must be less than −2, or greater than 2, or strictly between
−2 and 2, or equal to one of them. When z > 2 then z − 2 and z + 2 are both
greater than 0 so f (z) > 0. When z < −2 then both terms are negative and a
negative squared is positive so f (z) > 0, too. When −2 < x < 2, a similar thing
happens, and when x = 2 or x = −2 one of the terms is 0 so f = 0. Therefore,
what we were trying to prove has to be true.
What is there to criticize in this proof? First of all, is it correct? Is it
precise? Logical? Clear? Where is it unclear? Try to identify the statements,
both linguistic and mathematical, that are even slightly unclear, and try to
amend them appropriately. Without pointing out any of the individual errors,
we offer below a much better, clearer proof of the fact above.
Proof. We begin by factoring the function f (x) by considering it as a quadratic
function in the variable x2

f (x) = (x2 )2 − 8x2 + 16 = (x2 − 4)2

Next, we can factor x2 − 4 = (x + 2)(x − 2) and rewrite the original function as

2
f (x) = (x + 2)(x − 2) = (x + 2)2 (x − 2)2

Now, for any real number x, (x + 2)2 ≥ 0 and (x − 2)2 ≥ 0, since a squared
quantity is always nonnegative. A product of two nonnegative terms is also
nonnegative, so f (x) = (x + 2)2 (x − 2)2 ≥ 0, for any value of x.
What are the differences between the first “proof” and this second proof? Does
your rewritten proof look like this second one, as well?
One of the critiques of the first “proof” is that it does not fully explain the
situation where −2 < x < 2; rather, it merely says that something “similar”
happens and does not actually carry out any of the details. This is a common
situation in mathematics (where some steps of a proof are “left to the reader”)
and it is a convenient technique that can sometimes avoid tedious arithmetic/al-
gebra and make reading a proof easier, faster, and more enjoyable. However, it
should be used sparingly and with caution. It is important, as a proof-writer, to
make sure that those steps do work, even if you are not going to present them
in your proof; you should consider providing the reader with a short summary
or hint as to how those steps would actually work. Also, a proof-writer should
try not to use this technique on steps that are crucial to the ultimate result of
the proof.
In this particular case, the actual steps of factoring are skipped completely
and the analysis of the case where −2 < x < 2 is only mentioned in passing, yet
these are essential components of the proof! It is such a short proof, anyway,
that showing these steps does not represent a great sacrifice in brevity or clarity.
Again, this brings up the point of proof-writing as an art, as much as a science:
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 31

choosing when to leave some of the verification of details to the reader can be
tricky. In this particular instance, showing all of the steps is important.
That being said, though, the second proof we showed here is much clearer.
Moreover, it completely avoids the case analysis that appears in the first “proof”!
There was an issue of clarity with one of the cases in the first “proof”, but rather
than simply expound the details in the amended version, we opted to scrap that
technique altogether and use a shorter, more direct proof. Now, this is not to
say that the technique of the first proof is incorrect. Were we to fill in the
gaps of the argument of the first “proof”, we would obtain a completely correct
proof. However, some of the steps in that technique are redundant. Notice that
the cases where −2 < x < 2 and where x > 2 are actually identical, in a sense:
the factors satisfy (x − 2)2 > 0 and (x + 2)2 > 0 in both cases. In fact, this is
true of the first case, where x < −2, as well! So why separate this argument
into three separate cases when the same ultimate observation is applied to all
three of them? In this case, it is best to combine them into one (also using the
knowledge that when x = 2 or x = −2, one of the factors is 0). Again, using
that expanded technique is certainly not incorrect; rather, it just adds some
unnecessary length to the proof.
We mentioned the term “case” and the phrase “case analysis” in the above
paragraphs without properly defining or explaining what we mean. For now,
we want to postpone a discussion of these terms until we thoroughly discuss
logic in Chapter 4. If you’re itching for immediate gratification regarding this
issue, though, you can skip ahead to Section 1.4.4 and check out the “Hungarian
friends” problem, which contains some intricate case analyses.

1.2.3 Pick Logic

We have used the word “logical”, and its associated forms, quite frequently,
already, without fully explaining what we mean by it. We realize this seems to
go against the precision and clarity that we have been so strongly advocating
thus far, but we also have to admit that, unfortunately, it is extremely difficult
to provide a thorough definition of logic.

Games
If you’re looking for a decent heuristic understanding of logic, try thinking about
it in terms of “logic puzzles” like Sudoku or Kakuro. These puzzles/games
are built around very specific rules that are established and agreed upon from
the very beginning, and then the solver is presented with a starting board and
expected to apply those rules in a rigorous manner until the puzzle is solved. For
instance, in Sudoku, remembering the conditions that each digit from 1 through
9 must appear exactly once in every row, column, and 3 × 3 box allows the
solver to systematically place more and more numbers in the grid, continually
narrowing down the large number of potential “solutions” to find the unique
answer that the starting grid of numbers yields. An important aspect of this
solving process is that at no time is it necessary (or wise, at that) to guess;
32 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

every step should be guided by a rational choice given the current situation and
the established rules of the puzzle, and within that framework, the puzzle is
guaranteed to be solvable (given enough time, of course).
Mathematical logic is a little different, in some respects, but the essence is
the same: there are established rules of how to play the game and every move
should be guided by those rules and current knowledge, and nothing else. This is
what we mean when we say that writing mathematical proofs should be governed
by logic: every step, from one truth to another, should follow the agreed-upon
rules and only reference those rules or already-proven facts. The “game” or
“puzzle” that we’re playing in a proof (and in mathematics, in general) is not
as clear-cut as a Sudoku puzzle. Even more confusing, though, is the idea that
sometimes we start playing an unwinnable game and don’t realize it!
This idea of an “unwinnable game” is an astounding, surprising, and down-
right powerful conclusion of the work of mathematician Kurt Gödel, a 20th
century Austrian logician. His Incompleteness Theorems address an inherent
problem with strong logical systems: there can be True statements that aren’t
provable within that system. We are unable to provide a thoroughly detailed
explanation of some terms here (namely, logical system and provable), but hope-
fully you see that there is something weird going on here. How could this be
possible? If something is True in mathematics, can’t we somehow show that it
is true? How else would we know that it is true?

Some Mathematical History

To begin to address these natural questions, let’s step a little further back in
time and discuss the beginnings of logic as a full-fledged branch of mathematics.
One thing to keep in mind throughout this discussion is that we can’t completely
address every topic that comes up, and that this may feel dissatisfying, and we
understand that. Part of the beauty of mathematics is that learning about any
one topic brings up so many other questions and concepts to think about, and
these can be addressed, as well, with more mathematics. Context is important,
though, and for the context of this book, we just don’t have the time and
space to address all of these tangentially-related topics. We are not trying to
hide anything from you or sweep some issues under the rug; rather, we’re just
dealing with the reality of making sure we’re not forcing you to read 10,000
pages on the entire history of mathematics just to get our point across!
You will probably study many of the people that we mention below (and the
work they did) further along in your mathematical careers. At that point, you’ll
have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the subject built by hands-
on experience with the material, and you’ll be better-equipped to tackle the
issues therein. For now, we are merely introducing these people out of interest.
Mathematics has a rich and interesting history, and it helps to be aware of it!
Here, we will try to present a concise yet meaningful interpretation of logic—its
history, motivations, and meaning—that fits with the current context.
The mathematicians and philosophers in the mid- to late-19th century who
first studied the ideas that would evolve into modern logic were interested in
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 33

many of the same issues we are trying to investigate here: How do we know
something is True? How can we express that truth? What types of “somethings”
can we even declare to be True or not? Breaking down mathematical language
to its very roots, these mathematicians studied ways to combine a fixed set of
symbols in very specific ways to create more complicated statements, but in the
grand scheme of things, these statements were still rather simple. This is not
meant to be a knock against their efforts; one must start somewhere, after all,
and these people were working from the ground up.
One of the first major efforts was to investigate the foundations of arithmetic,
or the study of the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, . . . ). Much like Euclid sought
to study geometry by establishing a short list of accepted truths, or axioms,
and then derive truths from these given assumptions, Italian mathematician
Giuseppe Peano established a set of axioms for the natural numbers, while
others approached the topic from a slightly different viewpoint. Meanwhile,
this newfound appreciation for being rigorous and decisive about truths and
proving those truths led David Hilbert and others to bring up some issues with
Euclid’s axioms, specifically the parallel postulate.
This work on geometry and arithmetic naturally led into further, intricate
study of other areas of mathematics and fervent attepmts to axiomatize fields
like analysis of the real numbers. Karl Weierstrass, in studying this topic, pro-
duced some mind-blowing examples of functions with strange properties. For
instance, try to define a continuous function that is not differentiable anywhere.
(If you’re unfamiliar with these terms from calculus, don’t worry about it; suf-
fice it to say, it’s difficult.) Finally, Richard Dedekind was able to establish a
rigorous, logical definition of the real numbers, derived entirely from the natural
numbers, and not dependent on some vague, physical notion that a continuum
of numbers must exist.
Later on, this study branched off slightly into the study of sets, or collections
of objects. The groundwork for much of this area was laid by Georg Cantor
towards the end of the 19th century. He was the first to truly study the theory
of infinite sets, establishing the controversial idea that there are different “sizes”
of infinity. That is, he showed that some infinite sets are strictly bigger than
other infinite sets. This idea was so controversial at the time, that he was hated
by many other mathematicians! Nowadays, we realize Cantor was right. (This
also gives you a flavor of what we’ll discuss later in Section 7.6. Take this as an
intriguing example: the set of odd integers and the set of even integers are the
same size, sure, but they are both also the same size as the set of all integers.
However, the set of all real numbers is strictly bigger!)
Indeed, some mathematicians were quite shocked by Cantor’s discoveries,
and even the great Bernhard Riemann thought the development of set theory
would be the scourge of mathematics (at first, anyway). This was not the case,
though, and it has flourished since then, with many mathematicians working on
ways to represent all of mathematics in just the right way and understand the
“foundations” of mathematics. In a way, you can think of set theory as the study
of the basic objects that all mathematicians are working with, ultimately, in a
way similar to the fact that all of chemistry is done by appropriately combining
34 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

elements of the periodic table in more and more complicated ways.

A further development from these topics was the study of symbolic logic,
which is a bit more concrete than the abstract ideas we’ve mentioned so far,
and whose basic ideas we will be studying frequently in the beginning chapters
of this book. This area covers how we can combine mathematical equations
and symbols with language-based symbols and connectors to make meaningful
mathematical statements that are able to be confirmed as true via a proof.
This is an incredibly important component of mathematics, in general, and
this book, in particular. Individual viewpoints are certainly more nuanced and
specific than this, but, in general, most mathematicians are of the mindset that
there are many mathematical truths out there waiting to be discovered and we
spend our time learning about the truths we have already uncovered with the
hopes of exposing even more of those truths. It’s like a giant archaelogical dig,
whereby studying the bones and artifacts we’ve already unearthed will help us
to predict what kinds of other treasures we will find and where, which tells us
where to look and how to dig once we get there. In a way, logic is that process
that is abstracted from the digging by one step: logic is the study of the digging
process. It tells us how we can actually take our mathematical knowledge and
learn from it and combine it with other knowledge to prove further truths from
that.
Now, this is not a precise analogy, mind you, and the study of abstract logic
is far more complicated and intricate. For our purposes, in this book, though,
this is a sufficiently reasonable way to think of logic. We will learn about some
of the first principles and basic operations of symbolic logic and apply this
knowledge to our study of writing proofs. It will help us to actually understand
what a proof even is, it will help guide the construction of proofs that we want
to write, it will allow us to critique proofs that may be incorrect, and it will
ultimately help us understand just how mathematics works, as a whole.

Applications of Logic: Theoretical Computer Science

One very important application of the ideas and results of logic is in the develop-
ment and study of computer science, particularly theoretical computer science
and computability theory. This particular branch of mathematics was initially
motivated by one of David Hilbert’s Twenty-Three Problems: this was a list
of famously unsolved conjectures in the world of mathematics at the time of
their publishing, in 1900. Problem number ten dealt with solving Diophan-
tine Equations, which are equations of the form
a1 xp11 + a2 xp22 + a3 xp33 + · · · + an xpnn = c
where a1 , a2 , . . . , an and c are fixed, given constants, p1 , . . . , pn are fixed natural
numbers, and x1 , x2 , . . . , xn are variables that are left to be determined so that
they make the equation true.
Given an equation like this, one might wonder whether there are any solu-
tions at all and, if so, just how many there are. Furthermore, if we’re given
that the fixed constants ai and c are all rational numbers, we might wonder
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 35

whether we can ensure that there is a solution where all of the variables xi are
also rational numbers. Some theoretical results have been established regarding
this particular problem, but Hilbert’s tenth problem, as stated in 1900, asked
whether there was “a process according to which it can be determined in a finite
number of operations” whether there is a solution to a given equation where all
of the variables xi are rational numbers. They didn’t have a proper notion or
definition of this term at the time, but what Hilbert was asking for was an algo-
rithm that would take in the values of the constants ai and c and output True
or False depending on whether there exists a solution with the desired property.
An important part of his question was that this “process” takes a finite number
of steps before outputting an answer.
A student at Cambridge in the United Kingdom by the name of Alan Turing
began working on this problem years later by thinking of a physical machine
that would be executing the steps required to output an answer to the posed
problem. Some subsequent publications of his described his invention, what we
now call a Turing Machine, which is an interesting theoretical device that could
be used to answer some problems in formal logic, but also represents many of the
ideas that go into building modern computers. We say it’s a theoretical device
because the nature of its definition ensures that it is not physically feasible to
build and operate, but it handles some theoretical problems quite well, including
the aforementioned tenth problem of Hilbert. More specifically, this machine
gave rise to a proper definition for what we mean when we say that something is
computable, or able to be determined in a finite number of steps, and this helped
to establish a proper notion of an algorithm. It would be unfair of us to discuss
these topics without also mentioning Alonzo Church, who was working on similar
problems at the same time as Turing. Their names, together, are placed on the
Church-Turing thesis which relates the work of the Turing machine to the more
theoretical, formal logic-based notion of computability.

What Will We Do with Logic?

While all of these topics in set theory and logic are inherently interesting and
immensely important to mathematics, in general, we simply don’t have enough
time and space to discuss them in detail. Instead, let’s focus a bit more on
the notions of logic that we’ll be using in writing and critiquing mathematical
proofs.
We will consider: (1) what kinds of “things” we can actually state and prove,
(2) how we can combine “things” that we know to be true to produce more
complex truths, and (3) how we can explain how we arrived at the conclusion
that those “things” are, indeed, True. For lack of a better term, we say “things”
since we don’t yet have a formal definition of mathematical statement, which
is really the type of “thing” that we will be proving. In essence, a mathematical
statement is a combination of symbols and sentences from the languages of
mathematics and English (in this book, at least) that can be verified as either
True or False, but not both or neither. A proof, then, amounts to arranging
a sequence of steps and explanations that use true mathematical statements
36 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

and sentences to connect these truths together and yield the desired truth of a
specific statement at the end. Our study of logic will deal with just how we can
combine those steps and guarantee that our proof leads to the correct assesment
of truth at the end.
More specifically, we will examine what a mathematical statement really
is and how we can combine them to produce more complicated statements.
The words and and or will be particularly important there, since those two
words allow us to combine two mathematical statements together in new and
meaningful ways. We will also look at conditional mathematical statements,
which are statements of the form “If A, then B” or “A implies B”. These
are really the bread and butter of mathematical statements and a majority of
important mathematical theorems are of this form. These statements involve
making some assumptions or hypotheses (contained in the statement A), and
using those assumed truths to derive a conclusion (contained in the statement
B). Look back at the statement of the Pythagorean Theorem in Section 1.1.1
and notice how it is in the form of a conditional statement. (Could it be written
another way? Try writing the statement of the theorem in a non-conditional
form and think about whether it is an inherently different statement in that
form. Find another famous mathematical theorem that is in the form of a
conditional statement and try doing the same change of format.)
Another important idea in mathematics, and one that will show up all the
time in proof-writing, is the concept of a variable. Sometimes we want to talk
about a type of mathematical object in generality without assigning it a specific
value and this is accomplished by introducing a variable. You have likely seen
this happen all the time in your previous study of mathematics, and we’ve even
done it already in this book. Look again at the Pythagorean Theorem statement
in Section 1.1.1. What do the letters a, b, c represent? Well, we didn’t state it
explicitly, but we know that these are positive real numbers that represent the
lengths of the three sides of a right triangle. What triangle? We didn’t mention
a specific one or point to a specific drawing or anything like that, but you knew
all along what we were talking about. Moreover, the proofs we examined didn’t
depend on what those values actually are, merely that they are positive real
numbers with certain properties. This is incredibly useful and important and,
in a way, it saves time since we don’t have to individually consider all possible
right triangles in the universe (of which there are infinitely-many!) and can
reduce the whole idea into one compact statement and proof.
One thing we can do with variables is quantify them. This involves making
claims about whether a statement is true for any potential value of a variable, or
maybe for just one specific value. For instance, in the Pythagorean Theorem,
we couldn’t claim that a2 + b2 = c2 for any positive real numbers a, b, c; we
had to impose extra assumptions on the variables to obtain the result we did.
This is an example of universal quantification: “For all numbers a, b, c with
this property and that property, we can guarantee that . . . ” Similarly, we can
quantify existentially: “There exists a number n with this property.”
Can you think of a theorem/fact that we have examined so far that uses
existential quantification? Look again at the proof that there are irrational
1.2. EXPOSITION EXHIBITION 37

numbers a and b such that ab is rational. Notice that this claim we proved is
of the existence type: we claimed that there are two such numbers with the
desired properties, and we then proceeded to show that there must, indeed,
be those numbers. Now, the interesting part of that proof was that it was
nonconstructive; that is, we were able to prove our claim without saying what
the numbers a and b actually are, explicitly. We narrowed it down to two choices
but never made a claim as to which one is the correct choice, merely that one
of the pairs must work.

1.2.4 Obvious Obfuscation

As a preview of these logical concepts that we’ll be examining in mathematical
detail later on, let’s take some real-world, language-based examples of these
ideas.

Conditional Statements
First, let’s investigate conditional statements. Mathematical theorems fre-
quently take the form of a conditional statement, but these types of statements
also appear in everyday language all the time, sometimes implicitly (which can
only add to the confusion). For instance, people talk sometimes about what
they would do with their lottery winnings, saying something like
If I win the lottery, then I will buy a new car.
The idea is that the second part of the statement, after the “then”, is dependent
on the first part of the statement, which is associated with the “if”. When the
conditions outlined in the “if” part are satisfied, the actions outlined in the
“then” part are guaranteed to take place.
The part of a conditional statement associated with the “if” is known as
the hypothesis (or sometimes, more formally, the antecedent). The part
associated with the “then” is known as the conclusion (or, more formally, the
consequent).
Sometimes the conclusion of the conditional is more subtle, or the verb tenses
in the sentence are such that it doesn’t even include the word “if”. Take the
following quote from the film Top Gun, for example:
It’s classified. I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.
The idea here is that the first part, “I could tell you”, is a hypothesis in disguise.
The sentence “If I told you, I would have to kill you” would have the same logical
meaning as the actual film quote; however it doesn’t convey the same forceful,
dramatic connotations. It’s quite common to actually not include the word
“then” in the conclusion of a conditional statement; while reading the sentence,
you might even add the word in your mind without realizing. Take the following
lyrics from a song by the band The Barenaked Ladies, say:
If I had $1,000,000, we wouldn’t have to walk to the store.
If I had $1,000,000, we’d take a limousine ’cause it costs more.