Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

Math 8 Lecture Notes Introduction to Advanced

Mathematics Xin Zhou

https://textbookfull.com/product/math-8-lecture-
notes-introduction-to-advanced-mathematics-xin-
zhou/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Math 302 Lecture Notes Kenneth Kuttler

https://textbookfull.com/product/math-302-lecture-notes-kenneth-
kuttler/

textbookfull.com

Math 2001 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics Agnès

Beaudry

https://textbookfull.com/product/math-2001-introduction-to-discrete-
mathematics-agnes-beaudry/

textbookfull.com

Math 302 Lecture Notes linear algebra and multivariable

calculus Kenneth L. Kuttler

https://textbookfull.com/product/math-302-lecture-notes-linear-
algebra-and-multivariable-calculus-kenneth-l-kuttler/

textbookfull.com

Food and Masculinity in Contemporary Autobiographies:

Cast-Iron Man 1st Edition Nieves Pascual Soler (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/food-and-masculinity-in-contemporary-
autobiographies-cast-iron-man-1st-edition-nieves-pascual-soler-auth/

textbookfull.com
1930 Europe in the Shadow of the Beast Arthur Haberman

https://textbookfull.com/product/1930-europe-in-the-shadow-of-the-
beast-arthur-haberman/

textbookfull.com

Claiming His Queen 1st Edition Goode

https://textbookfull.com/product/claiming-his-queen-1st-edition-goode/

textbookfull.com

Gym Bunny Dom Fitness Book 2 1st Edition Brianna Hale

[Hale

https://textbookfull.com/product/gym-bunny-dom-fitness-book-2-1st-
edition-brianna-hale-hale/

textbookfull.com

Brunch Planner Delicious Brunch Recipes Everyone Should

Know! 2nd Edition Booksumo Press

https://textbookfull.com/product/brunch-planner-delicious-brunch-
recipes-everyone-should-know-2nd-edition-booksumo-press/

textbookfull.com

Realizing the Promise of Precision Medicine The Role of

Patient Data Mobile Technology and Consumer Engagement
Paul Cerrato
https://textbookfull.com/product/realizing-the-promise-of-precision-
medicine-the-role-of-patient-data-mobile-technology-and-consumer-
engagement-paul-cerrato/
textbookfull.com
Advanced R: Data Programming and the Cloud 1st Edition
Matt Wiley

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-r-data-programming-and-the-
cloud-1st-edition-matt-wiley/

textbookfull.com
 MATH 8 LECTURE NOTES

XIN ZHOU

Abstract. This is the set of lecture notes for Math 8 during Spring quarter
of 2018 at UC Santa Barbara. The lectures follow closely [1, 2].

Contents
1. Sets 2
2. Proofs 8
3. Quantifiers 13
4. Number systems 17
5. Decimals 20
6. Inequalities 24
7. Mathematical Induction 25
7.1. Guessing the answer 27
7.2. The Σ notation 27
7.3. Principle of Strong Mathematical Induction. 27
8. Integers 29
9. Prime factorization 32
10. Equivalence relations 37
11. Functions 41
12. Infinity 45
References 50

Date: June 7, 2018.

1
2 XIN ZHOU

We will cover Chapter 1-3, 8, 10-13, 17-19, 21 with additional topics as time
permits. This includes the following topics:
• Sets
• Number systems, decimals
• Proofs
– Direct proof
– Induction
– Proof by contradiction.
• Inequalities
• Prime number
– Prime factorization
• Equivalence relations
• Functions
• Infinity
Remark 0.1. For this class, reading the textbook and doing the homework is
more important than previous math classes you may have taken. Also, you are
expected to write homework proofs neatly and clearly, using complete sentences.
This course covers set theory, logic, functions and equivalence relations, and
techniques of proof, including induction. We will also cover topics in number
theory relating to integers and primes. The goals of the course are to introduce
fundamental mathematical concepts and definitions and to be able to use them
to write clear, logically correct proofs.

1. Sets
A set is just a collection of objects, we call those objects the elements of the
set.
Remark 1.1. Actually, this simple definition for sets is inadequate and gives
rise to contradictions. “The set of all sets” cannot exist. But we will not talk
about this. If you are really interested, you may read any set theory textbook.
How to describe a set?
• the first way is just to make a list of all the objects in the set and put
curly brackets (braces) around the list. For example,
– {1} is a set consisting of the objects 1.
– {π, U CSB, math8} is a set consisting of three objects.
– {1, 2, 3} is a set consisting of the objects 1,2, and 3.
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 3

– Here is a tricky one. {1, {2}} is the set consisting of two objects,
one is just the number 1, and the other one is the set {2}. We can
make a really complicated set,
{1, {2}, {3, {4, 5}}}.
• But the first way is not that convenient to describe a set in some cases.
For instance, if we have infinite number of objects, like all positive
integers, or if there are no explicit expressions for the objects, like the
solution of the equation xπ + x2 − 8 = 0. So we use the following form
{x|P (x)},
where P (x) is a condition or property of x. This is to be read “the set
of all x such that x satisfies the condition P (x)”. Sometimes, we also
use {x ∈ X|P (x)} to denote a set, where X is the domain of x. For
example,
– {x|x is a positive integer}.
– {x|x is a real number, x2 < 2}.
– {x|x is a real number and xπ + x2 − 8 = 0}.
Let me introduce some notations.
• N = {x|x is a natural number} = {1, 2, 3, . . .} (ellipsis indicates that
the list continues in the obvious way). The set of all natural numbers
• Z = {x|x is an integer} = {. . . , −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .}
• Note that in many other textbooks, 0 is also a natural number.
• R = {x|x is a real number}. The set of all real numbers
• Q = {x|x = pq , p, q ∈ Z, and q 6= 0}. The set of all rational numbers.

Definition 1.2. We also define the empty set to be the set consisting of no
objects, and denote by the symbol ∅.

Example 1.3. Consider the following sets

{x|x ∈ R, x2 + 1 = 0} = ∅,

{n|n ∈ N, n is odd and n = k(k + 1) for some k ∈ N} = ∅,

We often use capital letters to denote sets.

Definition 1.4. Let S be a set. If x is an element of S, then we write

x ∈ S,
4 XIN ZHOU

and say x belongs to S. If some other object y does not belong to S, we write
y∈
/ S.
For example, consider the set
{1, {2}, {3, {4, 5}}}}.
We know that
1 ∈ S, {2} ∈ S, {3, {4, 5}} ∈ S,
but 2 ∈
/ S, {4, 5} ∈
/ S.
Definition 1.5. We say that two sets are equal when they consist of exactly
the same elements.
For instance A = {1, 2, 3} = {2, 1, 3}. But here is another set B =
{1, 1, 2, 3}. Since this set contains the same elements with the set A, it is
equal to the set A. Indeed, the definition of a set requires that it contains
distinct objects, so you cannot express a set like that. Consider the following
set
C = {x|x ∈ R, x2 − 2x + 1 = 0} = {1}.

Definition 1.6. Let S be a set. We say that a set T is a subset of S if every

element of T also belongs to S. We write
T ⊆ S.
if T is a subset of S, and
T *S
if not.
Be careful with the notations ⊆ and ∈.
Note that, empty set ∅ is a subset of every set, and any set is a subset of
itself.
Example 1.7. Let S = {1, 2, 3}. Then
{1} ⊆ S, {1, 2} ⊆ S, {1, 3} ⊆ S, {2, 3} ⊆ S, {1, 2, 3} ⊆ S, ∅ ⊆ S.
Example 1.8. Let S = {1, {2}, U CSB}. Then
{1} ⊆ S, {U CSB} ⊆ S, {2} * S, {{2}} ⊆ S.
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 5

Example 1.9. Let S = {1, {2}, {3, {4, 5}}}}. Then

{1} ⊆ S, ∅ ⊆ S,
and
{2} * S
since 2 is not an element of S. But
{{2}} ⊆ S,
Similarly,

{3} * S, {4, 5} * S, {3, {4, 5}} ⊆ S.
How about {1, {2}}? Yes.

For numbers, we have operations like addition and multiplication. For sets,
we also have set operations. Next, we will introduce some set operations.

Definition 1.10. Let A and B be two sets. The union of A and B, written
A ∪ B, is the set consisting of all elements that lie in either A or B (or both).
That is,
A ∪ B = {x|x ∈ A or x ∈ B}.
The intersection of A and B, written A ∩ B, is the set consisting of all
elements that lie in both A and B. That is,
A ∩ B = {x|x ∈ A and x ∈ B}.

Definition 1.11. Let A and B be two sets. Their difference is defined to be

the set
A − B = A \ B = {x|x ∈ A and x ∈
/ B},

B − A = B \ A = {x|x ∈ B and x ∈
/ A},
where \ is backslash.

We can also use Venn diagram to explain those definitions.

Lemma 1.12. Let A and B be two sets. Then by Venn diagram, it is easy to
see that
A ∪ B = (A − B) ∪ (A ∩ B) ∪ (B − A),
and A − B, B − A, A ∩ B are mutually disjoint.
6 XIN ZHOU

Example 1.13. Let A = {1, 2, 3, 4} and B = {3, 4, 5}. We have

A ∪ B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, A ∩ B = {3, 4},

A − B = {1, 2}, B − A = {5}.

Example 1.14. Let A = [0, 2] and B = [1, 3]. Then

A ∪ B = [0, 3], A ∩ B = [1, 2], A − B = [0, 1), B − A = (2, 3].

Remark 1.15. What about set operations involving more than two sets? We
know that for numbers, there is a default order of operations. For example
2 + 3 ∗ 5,
we know that we should do the multiplication first.
But for set operations, union, intersection, and difference operations are all
equal in the order.
For example, the expression
A∪B∩C
does not make any sense because we do not know which operation we should
do first: should we take the union first, and then the difference, or should we
take the difference first and then the union?
So if we have more than one of these at a time, we have to use parentheses
to indicate which of these operations should be done first.
In order to make this clear, we need to either write
(A ∪ B) ∩ C or A ∪ (B ∩ C).

Example 1.16. Let C = {1, 3, 5, 7}. Then B ∩ C = {3, 5},

(A ∪ B) ∩ C = {1, 3, 5}, A ∪ (B ∩ C) = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}.

Lemma 1.17. Let A and B be two sets. If A ⊆ B, then

A ∪ B = B, A ∩ B = A, A − B = ∅.

Definition 1.18. We say that A and B are disjoint sets if they have no
elements in common, i.e., if A ∩ B = ∅.

Question 1.19. Let A and B be two sets. If A and B are disjoint, i.e.,
A ∩ B = ∅, then
A − B = A, B − A = B.
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 7

We can extend the definitions of union and intersection to many sets. If

A1 , A2 , . . . , An are sets, their union and intersection are defined as
A1 ∪ A2 ∪ . . . ∪ An = {x|x ∈ Ai for some i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n},
A1 ∩ A2 ∩ . . . ∩ An = {x|x ∈ Ai for all i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n},
We also use the following more concise notation
n
[
A1 ∪ A2 ∪ . . . ∪ An = Ai ,
i=1
n
\
A1 ∩ A2 ∩ . . . ∩ An = Ai .
i=1
8 XIN ZHOU

2. Proofs
Let us talk about mathematical proofs. One of the goals of this course is to
learn how to write proofs.
Why we need proofs? There are many math questions and mathematicians
are trying to find answers to those questions. They can do experiments; they
can use computers to simulate; they can also guess and try. Sometimes they
may use those methods to get the answer, but for mathematicians, they are
not convinced unless they can prove it. For many other subjects, in order to
explain something, people propose a theory and this theory can explain 99%
of the cases, but fails the 1%. Later, a new theory will come up and replace
the old one.
we only have two situations: we can prove it or we can’t. Once it is proved,
then it will be always true and will not be replaced.
Example 2.1. There is a very famous conjecture about prime numbers named
Goldbach’s Conjecture: every even n > 2 is the sum of two primes. For
example,
4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, 10 = 5 + 5, 12 = 5 + 7, . . . .
People verified that this is true up to 4 × 1017 . Numerical results suggest that
this is almost true and mathematicians also believe that it is true. But since
there is no proof, we cannot use it as a theorem to prove other results.
Before we talk about proofs, we need to introduce some notations. Let P
and Q are statements or mathematical statements. For example, (we always
use x to denote some real number, and n to denote some natural number):
P1 : x = 2;
P2 : 2 < 3;
P3 : x > 3 and x < 2;
P4 : n is an even integer;
P5 : n = m2 for some integer m.
For P1 , P4 , P5 , we do not know whether it is true or false before we know the
values of x or n. P2 is true, but P3 is false.
Definition 2.2. A mathematical statement is a mathematical sentence that is
either true or false (but not both).
Definition 2.3. We write
P ⇒Q
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 9

to mean that the statement P implies statement Q (It is called implication).

For example,
x = 2 ⇒ x2 < 6.

Remark 2.4. In natural language (and intuitively in mathematics), the state-

ment
P ⇒Q
suggests a relationship between the statement P and Q; namely that the truth
of P somehow forces the truth of Q. However, as a propositional connective,
this relationship between P and Q is not required for logical implication.
The only case that P ⇒ Q is false is that P is true and Q is false.

Other ways of saying P ⇒ Q are

• if P , then Q; If P is true, then Q is true.
• Q if P ;
• P only if Q.

Definition 2.5. The negation of a statement P is the opposite statement,

“not P ”, written as P̄ (some books use ¬P ).

For instance, let us take the negation of all the examples on the previous
page:
P1 : x 6= 2;
P2 : 2 > 3;
P3 : x ≤ 3 or x ≥ 2;
P4 : n is not an even integer;
P5 : n 6= m2 for all integer m; n cannot be written as n = m2 for some
integer m.
Note that P ⇒ Q does not mean that Q ⇒ P . This is easy to understand.
For example, x > 1 ⇒ x > 0, but x > 0 ; x > 1.

Definition 2.6. If for some statements P and Q, if both P ⇒ Q and Q ⇒ P

are true, then we write
P ⇔ Q,
and say that “P if and only if Q” or simply P and Q are equivalent.
For example,
x = 1 ⇔ x3 = 1.
10 XIN ZHOU

Lemma 2.7. An implication and its contrapositive are propositionally equiv-

alent. That is, if P ⇒ Q is true, then we also have Q̄ ⇒ P̄ . This is because
if Q̄ is true, then P cannot be true, as P ⇒ Q.

Example 2.8. Let P be the statement x = 1, and Q the statement x2 < 6.

We have
• P̄ : x 6= 1; Q̄ : x2 ≥ 6.
• P ⇒ Q is true, but Q ⇒ P is not true.
• Q̄ ⇒ P̄ is true, and P̄ ⇒ Q̄ is false.

Example 2.9. Suppose we are given the following facts:

I get A for math 8 only if I finish every homework.
What can be deduced in the following?
a. I get A. (I finish every homework.)
b. I finish every homework. (Nothing)
c. I get B. (Nothing)
d. I do not finish every homework. (I will not get A.)

Definition 2.10. An axiom is a statement in math that is assumed to be true,

without requiring proof.

In general, a proof contains a series of implications, starting with any basic

axioms or given assumptions, until the desired conclusion is reached. Suppose
we want to prove Q is true, and our assumption is P . The process is
P ⇒ P1 ⇒ P2 . . . ⇒ Q.
Using the logic, a proof may have different forms. The most common method
of proof is direct proofs.

Definition 2.11. Direct proofs: starting with any basic axioms or given as-
sumption, use a series of implications to conclude that the desired result is
true.

Example 2.12. The square of an odd integer is odd.

Proof. Let n be an arbitrary odd integer. Since n is odd, it is 1 more than an

even integer; that is, n can be written as 2m + 1 for some integer m.
Therefore, n2 = (1 + 2m)2 = 4m2 + 4m + 1 = 4(m2 + m) + 1. 
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 11

Remark 2.13. We could have written as this proof as the following series of
implications:
n is odd ⇒ n = 2m + 1 ⇒ n2 = 1 + 4(m2 + m) ⇒ n2 is odd.
But, this is too terse and somewhat strange. We are writing proofs so that
people can understand; we are human beings, not computers. We need to use
some English words to make the proof smooth and readable. For example, we
can use “then”, “ therefore”, “hence” and so on. (Certainly, you guys know
English better than I).
We also have indirect proofs, for example, proof by contradiction is a form
of indirect proof. Sometimes, it is almost impossible to give a direct proof, for
instance, if we want to prove the following statements:
• there exists infinitely many prime numbers. If we want to prove this
directly, our only choice is to list infinitely many primes or give a gen-
eral formula for infinitely many primes. But this is almost impossible
or very hard. However, we can easily prove this using proof by contra-
diction.
Definition 2.14. Proof by contradiction: Suppose we want to prove a state-
ment P is true. We first assume that P is false, that is, P̄ is true. We then
start with P̄ to deduce a statement Q which is impossible or contradict our
assumption. Hence, P must be true.
If P̄ is true, then Q is true. Q is false. Hence, P is true.
This uses P̄ ⇒ Q is equivalent to Q̄ ⇒ P . That is, an implication and its
contrapositive are propositionally equivalent.
Example 2.15. There is no greatest even integer.
Proof. Suppose the conclusion is not true. (We take the negation of the the-
orem and suppose it to be true.) Suppose there is a greatest even integer N .
(We must deduce a contradiction.)
Then for every even integer n, N ≥ n.
Now let M = N + 2. Then, M is an even integer. (Because it is a sum of
even integers.) Also, M > N since M = N + 2. Therefore, M is an integer
that is greater than the greatest integer.
This contradicts the assumption that N ≥ n for every even integer n. This
completes the proof. 
Example 2.16. Let n be an integer such that n2 is a multiple of 3. Then n
is also a multiple of 3.
12 XIN ZHOU

Proof. Suppose n is not a multiple of 3. Then, if we divide n by 3, we get a

remainder of either 1 or 2; that is, n is either 1 or 2 more than a multiple of 3.
If the remainder is 1, then n = 1 + 3k for some integer k and
n2 = (1 + 3k)2 = 9k 2 + 6k + 1 = 1 + 3(2k + 3k 2 ).
But this means that n2 is 1 more than a multiple of 3, which contradicts our
assumption that n2 is a multiple of 3.
Similarly, if n = 2 + 3k for some integer k, then
n2 = (3k + 2)2 = 1 + 3(1 + 4k + 3k 2 ).
Hence, we have shown that assuming n is not a multiple of 3 leads to a
contradiction (false statement). 

Sometimes, we need to prove a statement is false - in other words, disproving

it. For some cases, we can use an example to prove that a statement is false;
this example is called a counterexample and we call the method disproof by
counterexample.
Example 2.17. Prove the following statements are false.
(1) All men are Chinese.
(2) Every positive integer is equal to the sum of two integer squares.
Proof. In order to prove a statement is false or disprove it, we only need to
prove its negation is true.
For (a), its negation is “not all men are Chinese”, or equivalently, “there
exists a man who is not Chinese”. How to prove this? We can just find a man
who is not Chinese, and this man will be a counterexample to (a).
For (b), its negation is not every positive integer is equal to the sum of two
integer squares, or “there exists a positive integer that is not equal to the sum
of two squares. 3 will be the counterexample. 
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 13

3. Quantifiers
Next, we introduce two symbols. In mathematics, we will often see two types
of statements. They are so common and important that we will introduce some
symbols to denote them.
Let us consider the following examples:
• There is an integer x such that x3 = 27.
• For some integer x, x2 = −1.
• There exists a positive integer that is not equal to the sum of two
integer squares.
You can see that all the statements have the form: there exists some integer
with a certain property. This type of statements is everywhere in math. So
we will introduce a symbol ∃ (the backward E) to denote “there exists”.
Definition 3.1. The existential quantifier is denoted by the symbol ∃, and
is read “there exists”.
So we can rewrite the above statements as follows:
(1) ∃x ∈ Z such that x3 = 27.
(2) ∃x ∈ Z such that x2 = −1.
(3) ∃x ∈ Z and x > 0 such that x is not equal to the sum of two integer
squares.
They all have the form:
∃x such that P (x),
or simply
∃x(x ∈ X) P (x).
It means that there is at least one value of x for which P (x) is true.
To prove an existence statement is true, we only need to find just one object
satisfying the required property. There might be many objects satisfying the
property, but just one object is enough to conclude that the statement is true.
To prove an existence statement is false, we need to show that no such object
satisfying the required property; that is, for all x, P (x) is false or P (x) is true.
For (1), we know x = 3 satisfies the property. For (2), since there is no such
x, the statement is false. For (3), x = 3 has the required property.

Let us consider another type of statements:

• For all integers n, n2 ≥ 0.
• The cube of any integer is positive.
14 XIN ZHOU

• Every positive integer is equal to the sum of two integer squares.

Similarly, you can see that all the statements have the form: for all integer,
a certain property is true. We will introduce a symbol ∀ (the upside down A)
to denote “for all”.

Definition 3.2. The universal quantifier is denoted by the symbol ∀, and

is read “for all”.

So we can rewrite the above statements as follows:

(4) ∀n ∈ Z, n2 ≥ 0.
(5) ∀x ∈ Z, x3 > 0.
(6) ∀x ∈ Z and x > 0, x is equal to the sum of two integer squares.
They all have the form:
∀x(x ∈ X), P (x).
To show that a “for all” statement is true, we need to prove it is true for all
objects; that is, we need to give a general argument. To show it is false, we
only need to find a counterexample. (4) is obviously true. (5) is false since any
negative integer is a counterexample. (6) is false since 3 is a counterexample.

Actually, many math statements are very complicated and they have more
than one quantifiers. For instance, (6) can be rewritten as
(6) ∀x ∈ Z and x > 0, ∃m, n ∈ Z such that x = m2 + n2 .

Example 3.3. Consider another example:

• for any integer a, there is an integer b such that a + b = 0.
• ∀a ∈ Z, ∃b ∈ Z such that a + b = 0.
• There exists an integer b ∈ Z such that for all integer a ∈ Z, a + b = 0.
• ∃b ∈ Z such that ∀a ∈ Z, a + b = 0.
These two statements look very similar, but they have completely different
meanings - in fact, one is true and one is false. These examples tell you that
the order of quantifiers really matters.

Next, we will study the negation of a statement involving quantifiers.

First, let’s see how to negate the existence statements.

Example 3.4. Consider the following statements:

(1) ∃x ∈ Z such that x3 = 27.
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 15

The negation of this statement is “there does not exist an integer x

such that x3 = 27. In other words, every integer has cube not equal to
27 or for all integers x, x3 6= 27.
∀x ∈ Z, x3 6= 27.
(2) ∃x ∈ Z such that x2 = −1.
∀x ∈ Z, x2 6= −1.
(3) ∃x ∈ Z and x > 0 such that x is not equal to the sum of two integer
squares.
(3) ∃x ∈ Z and x > 0, such that ∀m, n ∈ Z, x 6= m2 + n2 .
There exists a positive integer that is not equal to the sum of two
integer squares.
Its negation is there does not exist a positive integer that is not equal
to the sum of two integer squares. That is, every positive integer is
equal to the sum of two integer squares.
∀x ∈ Z and x > 0, ∃m, n ∈ Z such that x = m2 + n2 .
We can conclude that for the existence statement
∃x, P (x),
its negation is
∀x, P (x).

This means that the negation of an existence statement is just “for all”
statement.

Second, let’s see how to negate the “for all” statements.

Example 3.5. Consider the following:

(4) ∀n ∈ Z, n2 ≥ 0.
∃n ∈ Z such that n2 < 0.
(5) ∀x ∈ Z, x3 > 0.
We can conclude that for the “for all” statement
∀x, P (x),
its negation is
∃x, P (x).

Remark 3.6. To summarize: when forming the negation of a statement in-

volving quantifiers, we change ∃ to ∀, change ∀ to ∃ and negate the conclusion.
16 XIN ZHOU

Example 3.7. For the statements containing more than one quantifiers, we
just do negations step by step as follows:
(7) For any integer x and y, there is an integer z, such that x2 + y 2 = z 2 .
⇔ ∀x ∈ Z, ∀y ∈ Z, ∃z ∈ Z, such that x2 + y 2 = z 2 ;

Its negation is:

∃x ∈ Z, ∃y ∈ Z, (∃z ∈ Z, such that x2 + y 2 = z 2 );
⇔ ∃x ∈ Z, ∃y ∈ Z, ∀z ∈ Z, x2 + y 2 6= z 2 ;

⇔ ∃x ∈ Z, ∃y ∈ Z, such that ∀z ∈ Z, x2 + y 2 6= z 2 .

We finally record the following result for set operations.

Proposition 3.8. (Proposition 17.1) Let A, B, C be sets. Then
A ∩ (B ∪ C) = (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C).
Proof.
x ∈ A ∩ (B ∪ C) ⇔ x ∈ A and x ∈ B ∪ C
⇔ x ∈ A and x ∈ (B or C)
⇔ (x ∈ A and x ∈ B) or (x ∈ A and x ∈ C)
⇔ x ∈ (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C).
We can also prove A ∩ (B ∪ C) ⊆ (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C) and
(A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C) ⊆ A ∩ (B ∪ C).

 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 17

4. Number systems
We will introduce three number systems: the real numbers, the integers and
the rational numbers.
In the past, maybe 2000 or 3000 years ago, people were using integers and
they were also familiar with the fractions. Fractions are just rational numbers.
But it then turned out that the rational√ numbers are not enough to describe
every length. A simple example is 2. Suppose we have a right triangle
with sides a, b, c Pythagorean theorem implies that a2 + b2 = c2 . So people
discovered the irrational numbers.
What are the real numbers? They are just all the rational numbers and
irrational numbers. We can also view the real numbers as follows: If we draw
an infinite straight line and choose a point on this line as the origin. We also
choose a unit of length and label the whole numbers. Real numbers can be
thought of as points on an infinitely long number line.
Obviously, the real numbers have a natural ordering, that is, we can compare
the values of any two real numbers. For instance, suppose x and y are two
real numbers. If x is to the left of y on the real line, then x < y.
Definition 4.1. The integers are just whole numbers, denoted by Z.
Definition 4.2. A real number of the form m n
(m is the numerator and n is
the denominator) where m, n ∈ Z, n 6= 0 is called a rational number, denoted
by Q.
An irrational number is a real number that is not a rationals number.
Note that different fractions can represent the same rational numbers. We
say that the rational m
n
is in lowest terms if no canceling is possible - that is,
m and n have no common factor except 1 or m and n are coprime to each
other.
Definition 4.3. If two integers a and b are said to be relatively prime, mutually
prime, or coprime if the only positive integer that divides both of them is 1.
That is, the only common positive factor of the two numbers is 1. This is
equivalent to their greatest common divisor being 1.
For real numbers, we can do addition and multiplication.
Fact 4.4. (Rule 2.1) For all a, b, c ∈ R,
(1) Commutative law for addition and multiplication: a+b = b+a, ab = ba.
(2) Associative law for addition and multiplication: a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c,
a(bc) = (ab)c.
18 XIN ZHOU

(3) Distributive law: a(b + c) = ab + ac.

These rules are axioms for real numbers and they cannot be proved or de-
duced from other facts.

Next, we will prove some facts about real numbers.

The first fact is that rational numbers are relatively dense on the real line.

Proposition 4.5. (Proposition 2.1) Between any two distinct rationals there
is another rational.

Proof. Let r and s be two rationals. We can assume r < s, otherwise the proof
processes the same way by flipping r and s. Let t = 12 (r + s). We now prove
that t is a rational, and r < t < s (this is the mathematical meaning of saying
t is between r and s).
We first prove that t is a rational. Since r, s are rationals, r = m
n
, s = pq for
some m, n, p, q ∈ Z and n 6= 0, q 6= 0. Then
 
1 1 m p mq + np
(r + s) = + = .
2 2 n q 2nq
Since mq + np, 2nq ∈ Z and 2nq 6= 0, we know t is a rational.
r s
Next we prove r < t < s. Since by assumption r < s, we have 2
< 2
.
Therefore
r r r s
r = + < + = t;
2 2 2 2
similarly one can prove t < s.
So we finish the proof. 
√
Proposition 4.6. (Proposition 2.3) 2 is not rational.
√
Proof. Let us prove by contradiction. Assume by contradiction that 2 is a
rational. Then
√ m
2 = , for some m, n ∈ Z and n 6= 0.
n
m
We can assume that n is in its lowest terms.
Take the squares, we have:
m2
2= =⇒ m2 = 2n2 .
n2
Therefore m2 is an even integer. Next we prove the statement:
(P): if m ∈ Z and m2 is even, then m is even.
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 19

Proof. We prove by contradiction. If m is not even, then m = 2k + 1

for some k ∈ Z. Therefore
m2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k 2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k 2 + 2k) + 1,
is odd. This is a contradiction to the assumption that m2 is even. So
m is even, and we finish the proof. 
2
Now go back to the proof.Since m is an even integer, by the above statement
we know that m is also an even integer. Write m = 2k for some k ∈ Z, then
2n2 = m2 = (2k)2 = 4k 2 =⇒ n2 = 2k 2 .
Hence n2 is an even integer. Using the above statement again, n is an even
integer. Therefore 2 is a common factor of m and n. This is a contradiction
√
to the assumption that m n
is in its lowest terms. As a conclusion, 2 is not
rational. 
Proposition 4.7. (Proposition 2.4) Let a be a rational number and b an ir-
rational.
(1) Then a + b is irrational.
(2) If a 6= 0, then ab is also irrational.
Proof. We will prove this by contradiction. 
Question 4.8. Consider the following.
(1) a rational + a rational = rational.
(2) a rational + an irrational = irrational.
(3) an irrational + an irrational =?
(4) a rational × a rational = rational.
(5) a rational × an irrational = ?
(6) an irrational × an irrational=?
Proposition 4.9. (Proposition 2.5) Between any two real numbers there is
an irrational.
Proof. The idea is to use the fact that the sum of a rational number and an
irrational number is irrational.
Let a and b be any two real numbers. Suppose a < b. We can choose a large
positive integer such that √
2
< b − a.
n√
If a is a rational number, then a + n2 is an irrational between a and b. If a is
an irrational, then a + n1 is an irrational that lies between a and b. 
20 XIN ZHOU

5. Decimals
We introduce the decimal notation. Decimal notation is the writing of num-
bers in a base 10 numeral system.
We know that every point on the real line represents a real number and
we can write out some of them, for example, the whole
√ numbers, the rational
numbers, and maybe some irrational numbers, like 2. But how about other
irrational numbers. We need to find a way to express all real numbers. So
we use decimal notation which is the writing of numbers in a base 10 numeral
system.
Example 5.1. Suppose a real number has decimal expression:
a0 .a1 a2 a3 ,
where a0 is an integer and a1 , a2 , a3 are integers between 0 and 9. We know
that this number equals to
a1 a2 a3
a0 + + 2 + 3.
10 10 10
For example,
1
100, 1.5, = 0.5,
2
1
(one third) = 0.3333 . . . , π = 3.14159265358979323846264338 . . . .
3
123.456: the 3 is in the Ones position, meaning 3 ones (which is 3); the 2
is in the Tens position meaning 2 tens (which is twenty); and the 1 is in the
Hundreds position, meaning 3 hundreds; the 4 is in the Tenths position; the
5 is in the Hundredths position; the 6 is in the Thousandths position.
What if a decimal has an infinite (non-terminating) fractional part? What
does that meaning? In order to make it a little bit more precise, we need the
following lemma. Given
a0 .a1 a2 . . . ,
this equals to the sum of the series
∞
X ak
a0 + k
.
k=1
10
Proposition 5.2. Let x be a real number.
1. If x 6= 1, then
x(1 − xn )
x + x2 + x3 + . . . + xn = .
1−x
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 21

2. If −1 < x < 1, then the sum to infinity

x
x + x2 + x3 + . . . =.
1−x
1
For example, if we let x = 10 (one tenth), then
1 1 1 1
+ 2 + 3 + ... = .
10 10 10 9
Next, we will show that every real number has a decimal expression and the
expression is almost unique. First, we prove the following:
Proposition 5.3. (Proposition 3.2) Every real number x has a decimal ex-
pression
x = a0 .a1 a2 a3 . . . ,
where a0 is an integer and a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . are integers between 0 and 9.
Proof. 
We now know that every real number has a decimal expression, a natural
question is that is the decimal expression unique, that is: can the same real
number have two different decimal expression? The answer is Yes. Let us see
an example
0.99999 . . . = 1.
We will next show that this is the only case that a real number has two
different decimal expressions. With this proposition, we can say that the
decimal expression is almost unique.
Proposition 5.4. Suppose that a0 .a1 a2 a3 . . . and b0 .b1 b2 b3 . . . are two different
decimal expressions for the same real number. Then one of these expressions
ends in 9999 . . . and the other ends in 000 . . . .
Proof. We may assume that a0 = b0 = 0(Since we can divide by 10 or 100,...).
Let x be the real number that has two expressions, that is,
x = 0.a1 a2 a3 . . . = 0.b1 b2 b3 .
Let the first place where the two expressions disagree be the k-th place (k
could be 1 of course). Thus,
x = 0.a1 a2 . . . ak−1 ak . . . = 0.a1 a2 . . . ak−1 bk . . . ,
where ak 6= bk . We may assume that ak > bk , hence ak ≥ bk + 1. Note that we
have
x ≥ 0.a1 a2 . . . ak−1 ak 0000
22 XIN ZHOU

and
x ≤ 0.a1 a2 . . . ak−1 bk 9999 = 0.a1 a2 . . . ak−1 (bk + 1)000.
Hence, all the inequalities are indeed equalities. It follows that ak = bk + 1
and
x = 0.a1 . . . ak 000 = 0.a1 . . . (ak − 1)999 . . . .

We know that real numbers include rational numbers and irrational num-
bers. So we want to know what are the decimal expressions for rationals and
irrationals? Certainly, they should be different. So what is the difference?
Example 5.5. Let us first consider some rational numbers.
1 1 7 8
2, = 0.5, = 0.333 . . . , = 1.16666 . . . , = 1.142857142857 . . . .
2 3 6 7
You can see that they are either finite or infinite, and if it is infinite, then
there is a sequence of digits that eventually repeats forever. We call such a
decimal expression periodic.
If a periodic decimal has the form (repeating decimal with b1 . . . bl repeating)
a0 .a1 a2 . . . ak b1 b2 . . . bl b1 b2 . . . bl . . . ,
then we write it as
a0 .a1 . . . ak b1 . . . bl .
That a rational number must have a finite or recurring decimal expansion
can be seen to be a consequence of the long division algorithm, in that there
are at most q − 1 possible nonzero remainders on division by q, so that the
recurring pattern will have a period less than q.
Rational numbers have finite or infinite repeating decimal expressions while
irrational numbers have infinite non-repeating decimal representations.
Proposition 5.6. The decimal expression for any rational number is (finite
or) periodic.
Proof. Consider a rational number m n
(m, n ∈ Z). Think about how we get
the decimal expression for a fraction.
m = a0 n + b0 , 0 ≤ b0 ≤ n − 1.
10b0 = a1 n + b1 , . . .
If some bi = 0, then we get a finite decimal. Suppose for all bi 6= 0. Note that
bi is an integer between 0 and n−1, so at most after n steps, bi will repeat. 
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 23

Example 5.7. Consider 9/8.

9 = 1 ∗ 8 + 1; 10 ∗ 1 = 1 ∗ 8 + 2; 10 ∗ 2 = 2 ∗ 8 + 4; 10 ∗ 4 = 5 ∗ 8.
So we have 9/8 = 1.125.
Consider 8/7.
8 = 1 ∗ 7 + 1; 10 ∗ 1 = 1 ∗ 7 + 3; 10 ∗ 3 = 4 ∗ 7 + 2; 10 ∗ 2 = 2 ∗ 7 + 6;
10 ∗ 6 = 8 ∗ 7 + 4; 10 ∗ 4 = 5 ∗ 7 + 5; 10 ∗ 5 = 7 ∗ 7 + 1; 10 ∗ 1 = 1 ∗ 7 + 3; . . .
So we have 8/7 = 1.142857142857 . . ..
Proposition 5.8. Every periodic decimal is rational.
Proof. The idea is that if we can do some operations that make the decimal
to be a finite decimal, then we are done since very finite decimal must be a
rational number.
Let x = a0 .a1 a2 . . . ak b1 b2 . . . bl . We may assume a0 = 0. Then
10k x = a0 a1 a2 . . . ak .b1 b2 . . . bl , 10l+k x = a0 a1 a2 . . . ak b1 b2 . . . bl .b1 b2 . . . bl ,
and
10l+k x − 10k x = a0 a1 a2 . . . ak b1 b2 . . . bl − a0 a1 . . . ak .

Example 5.9. Consider x = 0.123. Then
10 ∗ x = 1.23, 100 ∗ 10x = 123.23.
This gives
122 61
990x = 122, x = = .
990 495
24 XIN ZHOU

6. Inequalities
An inequality is a statement about real numbers involving one of the symbols
“>, “≥, “< or “≤; for example, x > 2 or x2 − 4y ≤ 2x + 2. In this chapter we
shall present some elementary notions concerning manipulation of inequalities.
Here are the rules concerning the ordering of the real numbers.

Rules: given x, y ∈ R:
(1) either x > 0, x < 0 or x = 0;
(2) if x > y, then −x < −y;
(3) if x > y, c ∈ R, then x + c > y + c;
(4) if x > 0, y > 0, then xy > 0;
(5) if x > y, y > z, then x > z.
Note that (3) =⇒ (2), since if x > y, then x + (−x − y) > y + (−x − y), and
this implies −y > −x.

In what follows (in class) we discussed Example 5.1 to Example 5.15 in

textbook. (We omit them here since we followed exactly the same as in the
textbook.)
 MATH 8 SPRING 2018 UCSB 25

7. Mathematical Induction
Mathematical induction is a mathematical proof technique. It is a very
powerful tool to prove a statement involving positive integers.
Let us first consider the following statements:
(1) The sum of the first n positive odd integers is equal to n2 . That is
∀n ∈ N, P (n).
Here, P (n) is “the sum of the first n positive odd integers is equal to
n2 ”.
(2) If p > −1 then (1 + p)n ≥ 1 + np.
We can easily check that statement (1) is true for many positive integers.
1 = 12 ; 1 + 3 = 22 ; 1 + 3 + 5 = 32 ; 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 42 .
In order to prove this “for all” statement, we need to show it is true for
all positive integer n. There are infinitely many positive integers, and it is
impossible to verify all of them. So how can we prove this statement for all n?
The answer is just the principle of mathematical induction. It is the follow-
ing.
Theorem 7.1. (Principle of mathematical induction) Suppose that for each
positive integer n we have a statement P (n). If we prove the following two
things
(1) P (1) is true.
(2) for all n ∈ N, if P (n) is true then P (n + 1) is also true.
then P (n) is true for all positive integers n.
Remark 7.2. The first step is called the base step and the second second step
is called the inductive step.
Example 7.3. The sum of the first n positive odd integers is equal to n2 .
Proof. The base step: this is trivial, since 1 = 1.
For the inductive step, we first assume that P (n) is true, where n is any
fixed natural number, we need to prove that P (n + 1) is true. Since P (n) is
true, we have
1 + 3 + 5 + . . . + (2n − 1) = n2 .
This implies that
1 + 3 + 5 + . . . + (2n − 1) + (2n + 1) = n2 + 2n + 1 = (n + 1)2 ,
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
here approach our modern handwriting forms. These examples are
enough to show how the more cursive writing styles and our own
handwriting have been developed from the Roman capitals.
Roman books and correspondence were written in such hands,
and Dr. Haverfield has pointed out, as such scribblings on tiles were
obviously in many cases by labourers in the brickfields, it follows
that the common people in British towns had come to talk Latin. Dr.
Haverfield went on to question whether town workmen even spoke
Celtic. “Had they known Celtic well, it is hardly credible that they
should not have sometimes written in that language. No such scrawl
has been found in Britain. This total absence of Celtic cannot be
mere accident” (Romanization). This argument overlooks a
probability that Latin was a written language, while Celtic was not.
We hardly realise our direct and full classical inheritance, and the
fact that Londinium was a Roman city for three and a half centuries.
Here the Latin Pantheon must have been completely absorbed into
the common texture of traditional thought; here boys would have
carried texts of Virgil in their satchels, and here, again, the story of
the Gospel must have been brought in its first westward expansion.
Inscriptions.—In the notes which follow, I am more than ever off
my proper ground, and, moreover, they are likely to be very dreary
to any one who does not feel the romance of early London and
Britain through all the dryasdust detail in which we have to work.
An important inscription was found in 1850 under St. Nicholas
Lane. It was described in the same year (Gent. Mag. xi. p. 104): “A
large slab with the following Roman inscription in well-cut letters 5
in. or 6 in. in length:

NVMC
PROV
BRITA

It is doubtful if the fourth letter in the first line be C or O. The stone

is in fine preservation, and others ought to have been discovered,
but the excavators were not permitted to turn either to the right or
to the left, notwithstanding a gentleman offered to pay any
expense.” This must have been Roach Smith, who, as the practical
repetition of the phrases given below shows, must have been the
author of the note. An MS. letter, which is in my possession, is as
follows:
“Strood, Wednesday, P.M.

“My dear Fairholt,—I have given Richards £10 for you.... In the
Guildhall is a fragment of a large inscription from Nicholas Lane which we
should give rather large. It lay just within the lower door of the Library.
The letters are deeply cut and should be shown clear. Can you see if the
stone be broken? [Sketch.] Note if letter 4, line 1, be a C, and please
measure it. It is most important. I suppose it is half the original length.—
Yours sincerely,
“C. R. Smith.”

Fig. 130.
 Fig. 131.

The stone had disappeared and has never been heard of since.
The size was recorded by Birch as 2 ft. 4 in. high, and 3 ft. wide on
the face. V.C.H. says 6 ft. long, but this is a mistake. Fortunately a
careful drawing of the stone was made by Archer, which is preserved
in the British Museum (Fig. 130). Archer’s drawing confirms Roach
Smith’s reading of C at the end of the first line next a vertical joint.
My sketch by Roach Smith seems to be the only other record (Fig.
131). In Illustrations of Roman London, he says: “It was found close
to a wall, and there is reason to think other stones having the
remainder of the inscription were not far off from the one excavated.
In the present year (1859), being desirous to compare it with my
sketch, I ascertained it was not to be found. The stone was between
2 and 3 ft. in length. The fourth letter in the first line appeared to
me when I made the sketch more like a C (which I considered it to
be) than it seems to be in the woodcut. From the magnitude of the
stone and the character of the letters it is clear that the inscription
surmounted the entrance of some public edifice, apparently a
temple. It is probably the commencement of a dedication which
occupied two or four stones. The wider distance from the top than of
the third line from the bottom weighs in favour of the belief that we
have only the first quarter. There can be no doubt that NVM should
read Numini, and that PROV BRITA should be read Provincia
Britannia; the supposed equal length of the second stone and the
number of letters required, render this reading obvious. Seneca and
Tacitus concur as to a temple having been erected in Britain to the
Emperor Claudius; the latter locates it at Camuludunum. This temple
was probably erected soon after the subjugation of the Trinobantes.
It may be readily conceived that Londinium possessed some edifice
dedicated to that emperor. Although it is impossible to decide
positively, we cannot avoid associating the historical evidence with
an inscription which must have been of an early period, of a rare
class, and almost unique in this country.” This idea that there were
formerly four stones is now much strengthened by the fact that a
curiously similar temple dedication is illustrated by Espèrandieu (iv.
p. 126) from D’Yzeures. This inscription begins Numinibus
Augustorum and is on four equal stones with joints meeting at the
centre, thus +. Hübner (C.I.L. vii. No. 22) gives the boundary to the
right of the London stone as a fracture, and restored the inscription
with Num. Caes. et Genio in the top line. It is at once apparent that
this would not space out properly with the single words of second
and third lines. Haverfield leaves out Genio and reads, “To the
Divinity of the Emperor and to the Province of Britain.” This, I
suppose, might be possible in a contracted inscription, but I am
drawn back to Roach Smith’s view, and would venture to suggest the
possibility of some such restoration as:

NVM·C|L·AVG·
PROV|INCIA
BRITA|NNIAE
etc. etc.

I am ignorant whether it would be possible to have a dedication

from the Province of Britain to Claudius in such a form, but if so it
would be a record of great significance. The fourth letter was
certainly C, because an O would not have avoided the joint. The
letters in the top line were about 6 in. high, and the whole was of
fine style. As Hübner says, it is doubtless of the first century. It was
certainly affixed to a temple dedicated to an Emperor-divinity. The
complete inscription probably occupied four stones.
2. Several brick inscriptions are of special interest, as most of
them contain the name London. There are two varieties: (a)
P.PR.BR. in a label; and (b) P.P.BR.LON (Figs. 132 and 133). The
former (a) has large letters, and they are enclosed in a tablet: it
seems of earlier style than the other. Wright says of the second:
“The most probable interpretation is Proprætor Britanniæ Londinii;
this has a peculiar interest as showing that London was the seat of
government of the province.” When Wright wrote only a roof tile of
variety (a) seems to have been known, but now there are several
plain tiles at the Guildhall and one at the British Museum which have
the same mark. All these are alike in having four notches in their
long edges, and one flat side of each is scored over with lines to give
better hold for plastering. It seems that these tiles must have been
used for lining walls, nails being driven in at the notches; their size is
16 in. by 11 in.

Fig. 132.

Fig. 133.
 The explanation of Hübner adopted in the new British Museum
Guide is that P. in (a) and (b) both “represent the publicani who
farmed the taxes (the ‘publicans’ of the Gospels) of the province of
Britain in London.”
Nothing is so expert a matter as Latin inscriptions, and it would be
absurd for one who is entirely ignorant to pretend to a difference of
opinion. I may, however, venture to point out that Hübner himself
does not seem very certain, and that the difference of the two forms
seems to coincide with the historical fact that earlier Britain was one
province and that later it was subdivided. Variety (a), I have little
doubt, is a second-century inscription (similar labels are found on
pigs of lead of the time); while form (b) is quite late (probably end
of fourth century). The first variety I should like to suggest
represents the governor of the undivided province, and the second
the subdivided province with its centre at London. If I am not
entirely outside the possibilities of the case there is some
confirmation of Wright’s view in the fact that other tiles bear the
stamps of high authorities; thus a tile at Silchester has the name of
the Emperor Nero in a circle, and other tiles are known stamped
with the marks of army and navy commands.
3. At the British Museum is a silver ingot (found on the site of the
Tower of London), stamped with an inscription given as

EXOFFL
HONORINI

and described thus: “Ex Of[ficina] Fl[avii ?] Honorini: found with

gold coins of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius.” The reading FL
at the end of the first line is probably adopted because the Emperor
Honorius had also the name Flavius; but to my eyes the letters look
more like FE. Other similar marks on silver show that we need not
expect an emperor’s name. (One in the British Museum reads EX OF
PATRICI.) Roach Smith read the London inscription, EX OFFI, and
explained the whole “From the workshop of Honorinus.” I may
suggest Felix Honorinus.
4. Lying in the grass in front of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, is a
large white stone, bearing only T II in what appears to be Roman
work and style. It was found near its present site about forty years
ago, and was accepted as Roman and explained as a boundary
(terminus) mark. It may be noted that it lies close to the line of the
presumed Roman road along Tothill Street to the river. The nearest
parallel I have seen is a stone found near Falkirk, described in
Haverfield’s addition to the C.I.L. (No. 1264): T III (turma tertia).
5. An inscription at the Guildhall
MATR ...
VICINIA-DESVO-RES ........

is, as has been pointed out, a record of the restoration of some

edifice or sculpture dedicated to the mother goddesses. The lettering
is on the half of the crowning member of a cornice which may have
been over a narrow door, and Roach Smith was probably right in
assuming the existence of a small temple.
6. A sketch of the inscription found on a mosaic floor near Pudding
Lane is preserved at the Society of Antiquaries: it has indications not
brought out by printing it in type, and an expert could probably
gather more from it than has been made out.
7. The sarcophagus from Clapton at the Guildhall has a much-
defaced inscription on the front panel ending apparently, as the
catalogue says, with the name MARITIMIVS. Here, again, it is
possible that careful examination by experts would bring out further
facts.
These inadequate, indeed incompetent, notes on a few selected
inscriptions are at least enough to show that the inscriptions of
Londinium are worth the attention of properly equipped scholars. A
carefully illustrated account of them might be made interesting to all
intelligent citizens and help them to get really into their minds an
idea of the Roman age in London.

From a Relief at Bath.

 CHAPTER X

THE CRAFTS

I
N his account of Roman London, the late Dr. Haverfield writes
(J.R.S., vol. i.): “The citizens appear to have been Roman or
definitely Romanised. Of Roman speech in London we have an
isolated but sufficient proof. A tile dug up in Warwick Lane, in 1886,
bore an inscription, meaning, apparently, ‘Austalis (Augustalis) goes
off on his own every day for a fortnight.’ It seems to follow that
some of the bricklayers [makers] of Londinium could write Latin. In
the lands ruled by Rome, education was better under the Empire
than at any time since until about 1848. The occupations of these
Roman or Romanised civilians are unknown to us. Articles
manufactured on the Continent were certainly imported. There were
also exports of grain, cloth (or wool), and lead, and so forth. We
may believe that Roman London devoted its time to financial rather
than industrial activity.”
Evidence for the practice of arts in Londinium is really
considerable. It was doubtless first of all a port, and probably
originated as the seaport of the pre-Roman city of Verulamium; but
it became the largest city in Britain, the chief distributing centre and
the artistic capital. We are apt to think of Dover, or rather
Richborough, as the chief port of the country, but London itself was
the largest consumer, and the line of traffic was rather to the mouth
of the Rhine than to Boulogne. Londinium was a little Alexandria in
the West, and represented Britain as the other did Egypt. The
building of such a city called together many able craftsmen—
builders, sculptors, painters and mosaic workers. There must also
have been shipbuilders and a due proportion of craftsmen-
producers, potters, bone- and metal-workers, shoemakers, clothiers
and the rest. An enormous quantity of pottery has been found, much
of fine imported wares, but the most part varieties of native fabric,
of which a large proportion was doubtless made of local clay. The
site of St. Paul’s Cathedral was covered with “pot-earth,” and the
town potteries seem to have been here.
Native Pottery.—In the British Museum
are some valuable MS. notes made in the
years 1674-79, “by Mr. John Conyers,
apothecary, at the ‘White Lion,’ in Fleet
Street” (Sloane, 958, 816, 937). In
mentioning St. Faith’s Chapel, at St. Paul’s,
he says that his father and mother were
there married forty-five years since (from Fig. 134.
1677). Incidentally, he speaks of two
brothers, and of being “at Epping Forest hunting ye hare, but ye
frost prevented the scent.” This is a late example of the sporting
customs of ancient London. His observations refer to excavations on
the site of St. Paul’s and along the Fleet. In regard to the former it
appears certain that there were a number of Roman rubbish pits on
the site, similar to those recently excavated on the Post Office site.
Here also were found pottery-kilns and glass furnaces with pottery,
bone and other objects. This seems to have been a manufacturing
quarter of the city unoccupied by dwellings. Some sketches show
that the pottery kilns were circles of small diameter, having a raised
floor supported on a central post, like a table, all of clay and broken
stuff roughly formed; the lower stage or fire chamber was thus a
ring around the central prop, and in the raised “floor” were several
small holes. There must have been an external pit with a stoke-hole,
and also a flue from the fire chamber. Four such kilns were found
close together, forming a quatrefoil group. The dome of the kiln
seems to have been roughly new formed over the pottery to be fired
(Fig. 134). Conyers, in the account of finds on the site of St. Paul’s,
gives sketches of the kilns found at St. Paul’s with several kinds of
pots: “Figures of two kinds of kilns or furnaces of various pots, jugs,
etc., of different kinds of earth and pottery. One kiln in loamy ground
about 26 ft. deep, near the place where the Mercat-house stood in
Oliver’s time. The discovery made in 1677 on digging the foundation
of the north-east cross part of St. Paul’s amongst gravel-pits and
loam-pits.... Coffins lay over this loamy kiln, the lowest coffins made
of chalk, and this supposed to be about Domitian’s time. This kiln
was full of ye worst sort of pots, lamps, urns, and not many were
saved whole. Four of these [kilns] had been made in the sandy-loam
in the fashion of a cross on the ground; the foundations of these left
standing 5 ft. from top to bottom, and better, and as many feet in
breadth, and had no other matter for its form or building but the
outward loam crusted hardish by the heat burning the loam red like
brick. The flooring in the middle, supported by and cut out of loam
and helped with old-fashioned Roman tiles, sherds, but very few,
and such as I have seen used for repositories for urns in ye fashion
of little ovens, and they plastered within with a reddish mortar; but
here was no mortar, but only ye sandy loam for cement.... A censer
or lamp, whitish earth; one great earthen dish; earthen lamp gilded
with electrum,” etc. etc.
Again, Conyers says the labourers under part of the place where
St. Paul’s Cross stood, 25 ft. or 30 ft. deep, as the earth ceased to
be black and came to the yellow sand, found earthen potsherds as
red and fine as sealing-wax, and upon some inscriptions, “De
Ovimini,” “De Parici,” “De Quintimani,” “Victor,” “Janus Ricino.”
[These were Samian, but he goes on to describe very accurately
native pottery.] “And pots like broken urns, which were curiously laid
on the outside with like thornpricks of rose trees, in the manner of
raised work. Other were of cinnamon colour, urn fashion, and as if
gilded with gold but faded. Some of strange fashion, jugs bent in so
as to be six-square, raised work upon them pricked as curious
raisers of paste may imitate; some like black earth for pudding pans,
on ye outside indented and crossed quincunx fashion. They had
some odd colours (not blue) in these times and a way of glazing
different to what now; the red earth bare away the bell.”
“Now, besides red pots,” says Conyers, “such as have inscriptions
in the bottoms [i.e. Samian], there were black pots with inscriptions
and part of white earth and the glazing black, and both these might
be made in ye places, as well as a gilded sort of earthenware. There
was a brownish sort inclining to yellow, and the gilding easily coming
off. Now, whether this was a thin wash of gold colour or foliated, I
know not, yet I think foliated [really mica]. Other pots and urns of a
whitish yellow and a soft kind of earth and shells strewed at the
bottom inside. Now, other pots as thin as glass with raised work,
and these as of a silvered or bell-metal coloured glazing. The
imagery, hounds, hares, stags, thorns, trees and branching,
flourishings—all raised work. Then I have lamps of gilded British-
work [local] and coarse whitish-yellow colours, and bottles and pots
for dropping, of the same colours.” In one of his repetitions, Conyers
mentions “great potsherds and ears of six-gallon pots.” He also gives
sketches of many of the vessels. Doubtless those drawn were in
most cases whole vessels and they are of the coarser wares, other
than Samian. It is probable, therefore, that they were pottery made
on the spot. Dr. Harwood, describing the excavations in the site of
St. Mary Woolnoth in 1724, says that “Roman foundations were
found made of offal of brick kilns and furnaces” (Soc. Antiq.
Minutes).
It would be an easy thing to identify in our collections vessels
which conform to the types sketched by Conyers and then to form a
group of actual pots which presumably were made in London. This
coarse and ordinary ware is usually classed as “Roman,” but it was in
a large degree a Celtic inheritance. The black wares of “carinated”
profile (Figs. 135 and 136) and more or less “cordonned”
decorations are very like Marne pottery of the Celtic period. It seems
quite likely that the potteries of Londinium may have existed before
the Roman Conquest.
 Fig. 135.

Fig. 136.

Many of the decorated pots in our

museums are so clearly described by
Conyers that they, too, can be identified. It
is evident, for instance, that Castor-ware
vessels with hunting scenes in slip were as
well represented in the finds as they are in
our museums to-day. Hunting itself must
have been much in the people’s minds, with
chariot races and the gladiator “matches.”
Sporting subjects, such as are mentioned
by Conyers, are plentifully represented in
our museums. In Fairholt’s sketch-book I
 Fig. 137. find a
drawing of a
pot found in
Cateaton Street (Fig. 137). There is
also a sketch of a fragment of a
similar urn found at Chesterford (Fig. Fig. 138.
138). Compare the sculpture, Fig. 62.
The piece engraved in Wright’s book
as an example of a British hunting dog was also from a sketch by
Fairholt of a London fragment. He also drew a piece found in
Bishopsgate Street, which shows the heads of four horses, one over
the other. This is explained by a complete pot at the British Museum,
from Colchester, which has reliefs of racing chariots as mentioned
before (p. 51). On another Colchester vase are Gladiators with their
names scratched above. The eagle (Fig. 139) is from a fragment at
Silchester.

Fig. 139.

Fig. 140.
 After having identified the pottery actually made in London, and
the other native sources from which other wares were brought, we
might go on to determine how far this native pottery is Celtic and
how far Roman. Fig. 140, restored from a large fragment of very
coarse make in the London Museum, and said to have been found at
Mortlake, must have been made long before the Roman invasion.
Figs. 135 and 136 are urns of Upchurch ware, carefully made and of
lustrous black surface. The forms of these are not Roman. The
“spirit” of all is of Bronze Age and Mycenæan character. The black
pottery with “carinated” profiles found in London, and now in our
museums, may be Upchurch ware, but from Conyers’ account and
sketches it seems probable that black and grey pottery was made
locally. In the museums, there are a few examples which seem to be
clearly Celtic, as, for example, a large fragment at the British
Museum with white stripes over a grey fabric. There seems,
however, to have been a curious disinclination to recognise Celtic art,
and a desire to call all Roman.
Samian.—The early prosperity of London is well shown by the
great quantity of Samian ware which has been found of the period
about 60-85, and by the examples of the work of the best makers,
such as Vitalis, Rubricius, Saturnus and Rufinus. Of the first-named
there are some excellent vases in the collection at South Kensington;
he distributed his pottery from Carthage to Carlisle, and from
Pompeii to London. Saturnus has half a chapter to himself in a big
book on the Roman pottery found in Trier. The Samian question is
too vast for me to attempt to deal with it here, and I can merely
note one or two details. In Fairholt’s sketch-books at the Victoria and
Albert Museum there are several drawings of Samian fragments. One
of these, which I have not seen elsewhere, is an excellent example
of animals running under trees—a scheme taken over into our
Castor-ware, which Dr. Haverfield thought might be a Celtic tradition
(Romanization). (Fig. 141, and compare Fig. 138.) At the Guildhall
are nearly a dozen fragments of a rare kind of Samian vase, in which
the ornament of figures and foliage was applied in separate units,
the leaves, etc., being linked up by stalks skilfully done by the
“barbotine” method. Three larger and some smaller fragments come
from a vase of rather globular shape which was very similar to a
vase found at Cornhill, one of the chief treasures of the Roman
Room at the British Museum. The latter is well described in Mr.
Walter’s Catalogue of Roman Pottery, which is the best account
available of pottery found in London. It is not observed that the
Guildhall fragments contain a figure which is half lost in the restored
vase at the British Museum. On the other hand, comparison with the
latter would make it easy to restore the Guildhall example. The
details of both were formed by the same stamps. I give in Figs. 142
and 143 the scheme of the decoration: B was the general shape of
the pot.
Two or three other sherds at the
Guildhall belonged to a somewhat
similar but smaller urn which had
Bacchic subjects—a satyr with goat
legs, and a faun before whom is a
wine jar into which he seems to be
Fig. 141. dropping grape juice. These figures
were evidently also set between
scrolls of vegetation, and this
also can be restored. Again
there is a sherd of a vine pattern
similar to Fig. 142, but, I think,
from a third pot. There is also a
figure from a dark-grey pot,
which must have been yet
another of the same kind. (For
the last word on Samian pottery,
Fig. 142.
see Oswald and Price’s Terra
Sigillata.)
A volume on the pottery found in London by a specialist, like that
on Silchester, would be certain to bring out valuable historical results
on the existence and persistence of Celtic wares, on importations
before the Claudian Conquest, and on the large quantity of imports
in early Roman days.
Glass.—Much broken glass is
usually found on Roman sites,
vessels, window-panes, etc., and
it was probably wrought, in
many centres, from imported
material. Evidence of this has
been found at Silchester and
elsewhere (see Mr. T. May’s
Warrington). Some window
glass was described by Price as
Fig. 143. “plate polished on one side and
ground on the other”; this
probably means that it was cast
and that the rough side came next the mould.
Conyers, describing the finds on the side of St. Paul’s in 1675,
says: “The labourers told me of some remains that were found up
and down near the place of the other pot-kilns, and these had a
funnel to convey the smoke, which might serve for glass furnaces.
For though not any pots with glass in them whole in the furnaces
were there found, yet broken crucibles, or tests for molting of
glasses, together with boltered glasses such as are to be seen
remaining at glass-houses amongst the broken glass, which were
glasses spoilt in the making, were there found, but not plenty, and
especially coloured and prepared for jewel-like ornament, but mostly
such as for cruets or glasses with a lip to drop withal of a greenish
light blue colour. Of any sort of glass there was but little; so that the
glasswork might be scarce, for I think a hundred times more of pots
was found to one of glass....
“Now doth appear the Romans had excellent mechanics, pot
makers, stampers of coins, and excellent workers in glass, for
amongst those Roman pots were found glass beads as big as could
be put on your little finger, and these hollow within and of blue glass
wrought or enamelled with yellow glass, and blue beads of the
colour of a Turkoise stone. Divided were these beads with threads as
big as pack thread. Amongst the rest, great pins made of bone or
ivory, etc., heads of many like the great brass-pins, and others
vermicular or screw-head, others like the Pope’s triple crown; of
these fell to my share as many as a pint-pot would hold.... Taken up
a speculum of metal to show the face, of fine bell-metal. There were
also found brass embossments with glass set instead of better
jewels, which I keep, and glass drops that were loose, and the
bottom of an old-fashioned crucible which had glass melted in it, and
there were also pieces of necks of glass cruets to pour out by.”
Much of the large number of plainer glass vessels in our museums
was doubtless made in the London glass works from imported metal,
and probably some ornamental pieces were also manufactured.
Thomas Wright thought that glass itself was made in Roman days on
the coast near Brighton where “pebbles of glass” have been found;
but from comparatively late records of glass making about Rye, etc.,
the Roman origin of the “pebbles” seems unlikely.
In the British Museum are some fragments of glass vessels having
moulded reliefs of chariot races and combats, with the names of the
competitors above them. T. Wright illustrates “a fragment of a very
remarkable cup in green glass found in the Roman Villa at Hartlip in
Kent.... Roach Smith possessed two similar fragments found in
London, one of which is identical with the Hartlip fragment in its
design and appears to be from the same mould; the other is from a
vessel of a different shape and has a quadriga in bas-relief. We have
before had occasion to observe how popular gladiatorial contests
and the games of the circus were among the Roman inhabitants of
this island, and how often we find them represented on the pottery
as on the glass.” If a glass vessel found in Kent is exactly like
another found in London, it is probable that the former was itself
obtained in London, where both may have been made. One of the
fragments in the British Museum is from Colchester. We have seen
before how that some of the Castor-ware pots were decorated with
similar racing chariots, and one of these was found in London and
the other in Colchester. Racing chariots also decorate a leaden box
found in London and described below.
Glass vessels having reliefs of racing chariots have been found on
the Continent, and in the British Museum Guide it is said that our
examples “probably came from a Belgian workshop, as a glass of the
same kind has been found at Couvin, in the province of Namur,
bearing two of the same competitors’ names in a four-horse chariot
race. Race cups of this kind date about A.D. 100, and have been
found in France, Belgium and Germany. The six cups or fragments
found in Britain were no doubt imported across the Channel.” There
is, I think, room for some doubt. In any case there seems to be
ample evidence that glassware was made in Britain and in
Londinium.
Much glass of finer quality was imported.
There is in the Guildhall Museum a
fragment signed by a maker of Sidon, and
fragments of several small plaques in the
British Museum having patterns wrought in
the substance are of a kind found in Egypt.
At the Egyptian exhibition of the Burlington
Club, 1921, similar plaques were shown,
some having sprigs of flowers, and one a
single rose petal pattern in yellow, white
Fig. 144. and red on the dark ground (cf. Fig. 145).
The three pieces at the British Museum are
all different and all can be restored. Fig.
144 is from Roach Smith. Fig. 145 is a
rough indication of the pattern of another,
and the third is a variant of Fig. 144. These
interesting and beautiful little fragments are
obscure from age; they might with great
advantage be partially repolished, laid out
on restored drawings, and be made much
of. The recent rearrangement of the
contents of the Roman Room at the British
 Fig. 145. Museum, and the admirable new Guide,
have so greatly increased the interest of the
objects that I want still more. I also wish
that the London things in the collection could be shown together.
Roach Smith never intended his objects to be separated.
Enamels.—Conyers’ phrases about coloured glass “prepared for
jewel-like ornament,” and “the brass embossments with glass set
instead of jewels,” apparently refer to enamels and seem to imply
that enamelled objects were made at the London glass works.
A large number of small enamelled
objects, from little bowls to brooches, have
been found in Britain. The art of enamelling
was known here before the Roman age, but
objects having several colours seem to be
“Roman,” although there are Celtic
characteristics in the patterns, and it is
agreed that there was a native manufacture
(British Museum Guide, p. 95) of such
enamels. The finest piece is a “casket” in
the form of a little vase with a handle. This
handle has turned-up ends of a kind
frequently found in Alexandrian silverwork.
Fig. 146.
One of the bands of enamel is a
meandering stem and vine leaves. This
beautiful object was found in Essex, and there is in the British
Museum another little enamelled bowl also found not far from
London, at Braughing, Hertfordshire. The details in these two pieces
are very similar, so are those of a little enamelled cock found near
the Royal Exchange. Notice the use of long triangular forms and
narrow saw-edged fillets. It seems probable that all were made in
London, and further evidence is found in a remarkable enamelled
plate taken out of the Thames (Fig. 146). This “being an unfinished
piece, was probably made in this country”—and city, I would add. In
colouring and technique this plate (probably part of a memorial) is
very like the objects already mentioned. A leaf form on it which ends
 in a tendril is found also on the
Braughing bowl; both these
pieces might have come from
one shop. The type of ornament
is remarkably Celtic. In the
Guide it is said that “debased
Amazon shields can be
recognised, and Riegel has
pointed out that the panel is not
Fig. 147. a unit, but belongs to a larger
all-over pattern which could be
repeated indefinitely, and
reveals an artistic tendency of the later Roman Empire.” I do not
agree with either of these statements. The pattern seems to me to
have been designed as a reversed scroll pattern, subdivided by
setting down oval forms in the spaces to counterchange the colour in
a typically Celtic manner. In the diagram (Fig. 147), A is the pattern
type; B is the application to the space; C is the subdivision of the
spaces completing the design. In D and E, I have made an original
design on the same principle. Other details in the filling of the space
at the top are Celtic. Notice again a heart-shaped form at X. This
form is frequent in small seal-boxes, several of which have been
found in London, of which F is from one lately added to the Guildhall
collection. It is probable, I think, that such enamels were made in
London by Celtic artists. An enamelled harness plate found in
London and illustrated by Roach Smith is like others found in
Somersetshire (see G). A small brooch in the form of a fish at the
London Museum may be early Christian.
Leadwork.—Britain was the chief source for lead in the later
Roman era. Of about a hundred and twenty Roman pigs of lead in
the museums of Europe, about half were of British origin, as appears
from the inscriptions. Cast sheet lead was used for coverings. Some
actually in position was found lining the bottom of the hot bath at
Bath in 1864. It was afterwards sold for £70! Mr. Irvine, in an article
on the Corinthian temple at Bath, assumes that the roof was covered
with lead. He says that the sheet lead found in Bath was about
three-eighths of an inch thick and showed that it was cast on a
sand-bed. Melted lead was found at St. Albans under conditions
which suggested that it had come from the roof of the Basilica. We
may be satisfied that lead was used for important roofs. Lead pipes
are also found.
Many lead coffins have been found in and about London—about a
dozen in all—and they were doubtless made in the city. The fashion
of using lead coffins seems to have originated in the Romanised East
about the time of the recognition of Christianity, and those found in
London follow the general type very closely. I give in Fig. 148 a
rough sketch made in Constantinople twenty-five years ago of a lead
coffin found at Sidon. Another coffin from Sidon has recently been
acquired by the British Museum. Figs. 149, 150 and 151 are from
coffins found in London.
Fig. 148.
 Fig. 149.

One discovered many years ago in South London, illustrated in

Archæologia, vol. xvii., had on it two little figures like Minerva—
probably Britannia. Another found at Sittingbourne, recently set out
for exhibition at the British Museum, has little Medusa heads and
pairs of lions watching a vase (Fig. 152).
Fig. 150.
 Fig. 151

A round lead box, for the reception of burnt bones, found in

London and now in the British Museum, has repeated on it a relief of
a four-horse chariot. This is described in the Guide as the chariot of
the Sun; but comparison with other chariot-racing groups on the
pottery and glass vessels shows that these reliefs must also
represent a chariot race (Fig. 153). This fact adds to the probability
that the glass vessels with reliefs of racing chariots were also made
in Londinium. Fig. 154 is from a simpler lead box found in London;
compare the rings with the painted pattern described at the bottom
of p. 169.
 Fig. 152.

Fig. 153. Fig. 154.

Pewter.—A large quantity of pewter ware, vessels and dishes, has

been discovered in Britain. Many ingots of the metal were found in
the last century at Battersea in the river. Lysons figured a fragment
of “lead” found at Lydney stamped with a name, and this may have
been pewter. The ingots of pewter were doubtless of British origin,
and it is very probable that the finished objects of this metal were
manufactured here. Many of the dishes have engraved centres of a
type of design which can hardly be earlier than the fourth century.
This engraving was filled with black composition imitating niello. The
ingots bear marks which show that they belong to a time when
Christianity was recognised.
In the London Museum is a dish with an engraved centre, and at
the British Museum are some plain dishes signed with the name of
the owner or maker, Martinus, which were found in Southwark. Most
of the finds of pewter ware have been made in south-east England,
and London is the most likely place of origin. Lysons illustrates a dish
found at Manchester (it is now in the British Museum) with an
engraved centre so like those found in the south of England that it is
probable it also was made in the south. These dishes were finished
in a lathe; at the back they have traces of three projections by which
they were held in turning but afterwards cut away.
Bone, Leatherwork, etc.—We have seen above that Conyers
speaks of the large quantity of bone objects found in excavations. Of
the St. Paul’s site he says: “And amongst ye heap or mixture of
rubbish, hartshorn sawed into pieces, old heifers’ horns, and
abundance of boars’ tusks—some in their jaw bones which shows
that they did often hunt ye wild boar.... It is very remarkable that
ivory-work and great pins made of bone and bodkins of great
numbers was found buried together with store of boars’ teeth, of
oysters and other shells, Roman coins and ornamental beads, of
blue like enamel and the fibulæ they used to fasten their garments,
earthenware with inscriptions and glass was found in gravel pits near
St. Paul’s School.” Several carved pieces of similar style in the
London Museum—notably little reliefs of gladiators—suggest that
there were expert bone carvers in London. A bone pin with a figure
of Fortuna found in London, and a carving of a sphinx from
Colchester—both in the British Museum—are really beautiful work.
The admirable fragments of an ivory scabbard found in Greenwich
Park in 1906 can hardly be London work.
A considerable number of beautifully-made leather shoes having
elaborately pierced patterns are doubtless of local work. One found
at South-fleet, now at the British Museum, was coloured purple and
decorated with gilding, as is recorded on a drawing at the Society of
Antiquaries, made when it was newly found.
The site of London is still unexhausted; even while I am writing
this I see in the morning’s paper, “Recent excavations in Lothbury
have brought to light relics of Roman occupation—bone bodkins,
oyster shells and broken pottery. The bodkins are large, and it is
thought that they were probably used in mat-making.” London must
have been an art-producing centre for two thousand years.

Locally made Pottery.