Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs

With Question/Answer Animations

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Summary
 Valid Arguments and Rules of Inference
 Proof Methods
 Proof Strategies
Section 1.6
Section Summary
 Valid Arguments
 Inference Rules for Propositional Logic
 Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
 Building Arguments for Quantified Statements
Revisiting the Socrates Example
 We have the two premises:
 “All men are mortal.”
 “Socrates is a man.”
 And the conclusion:
 “Socrates is mortal.”
 How do we get the conclusion from the premises?
The Argument
 We can express the premises (above the line) and the
conclusion (below the line) in predicate logic as an
argument:

 We will see shortly that this is a valid argument.

Valid Arguments
 We will show how to construct valid arguments in
two stages; first for propositional logic and then for
predicate logic. The rules of inference are the
essential building block in the construction of valid
arguments.
1. Propositional Logic
Inference Rules
2. Predicate Logic
Inference rules for propositional logic plus additional inference
rules to handle variables and quantifiers.
Arguments in Propositional Logic
 A argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions.
All but the final proposition are called premises. The last
statement is the conclusion.
 The argument is valid if the premises imply the conclusion. An
argument form is an argument that is valid no matter what
propositions are substituted into its propositional variables.
 If the premises are p1 ,p2, …,pn and the conclusion is q then
(p1 ∧ p2 ∧ … ∧ pn ) → q is a tautology.
 Inference rules are all argument simple argument forms that will
be used to construct more complex argument forms.
Rules of Inference for Propositional
Logic: Modus Ponens
Corresponding Tautology:
(p ∧ (p →q)) → q

Example:
Let p be “It is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math.”

“It is snowing.”

“Therefore , I will study discrete math.”

Modus Tollens
Corresponding Tautology:
(¬q∧(p →q))→¬p

Example:
Let p be “it is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math.”

“I will not study discrete math.”

“Therefore , it is not snowing.”

Hypothetical Syllogism STOP
Corresponding Tautology:
((p →q) ∧ (q→r))→(p→ r)

Example:
Let p be “it snows.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will get an A.”

“If it snows, then I will study discrete math.”

“If I study discrete math, I will get an A.”

“Therefore , If it snows, I will get an A.”

Disjunctive Syllogism
Corresponding Tautology:
(¬p∧(p ∨q))→q

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math or I will study English literature.”

“I will not study discrete math.”

“Therefore , I will study English literature.”

Addition
Corresponding Tautology:
p →(p ∨q)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will visit Las Vegas.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math or I will visit

Las Vegas.”
Simplification

Corresponding Tautology:
(p∧q) →p

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math and English literature”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math.”

Conjunction
Corresponding Tautology:
((p) ∧ (q)) →(p ∧ q)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“I will study English literature.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math and I will study

English literature.”
Resolution Resolution plays an important role
in AI and is used in Prolog.

Corresponding Tautology:
((¬p ∨ r ) ∧ (p ∨ q)) →(q ∨ r)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will study English literature.”
Let q be “I will study databases.”

“I will not study discrete math or I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math or I will study databases.”

“Therefore, I will study databases or I will study English

literature.”
Using the Rules of Inference to
Build Valid Arguments Opt
 A valid argument is a sequence of statements. Each statement is
either a premise or follows from previous statements by rules of
inference. The last statement is called conclusion.
 A valid argument takes the following form:
S1
S2
.
.
.
Sn

C
Valid Arguments
Example 1: From the single proposition

Show that q is a conclusion.

Solution:
Valid Arguments
Example 2:
 With these hypotheses:
“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.”
“We will go swimming only if it is sunny.”
“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip.”
“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.”
 Using the inference rules, construct a valid argument for the conclusion:
“We will be home by sunset.”
Solution:
1. Choose propositional variables:
p : “It is sunny this afternoon.” r : “We will go swimming.” t : “We will be home by sunset.”
q : “It is colder than yesterday.” s : “We will take a canoe trip.”
2. Translation into propositional logic:

Continued on next slide 

Valid Arguments
3. Construct the Valid Argument
Handling Quantified Statements
 Valid arguments for quantified statements are a
sequence of statements. Each statement is either a
premise or follows from previous statements by rules
of inference which include:
 Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
 The rules of inference for quantified statements are
introduced in the next several slides.
Universal Instantiation (UI)

Example:

Our domain consists of all dogs and Fido is a dog.

“All dogs are cuddly.”

“Therefore, Fido is cuddly.”

Universal Generalization (UG)

Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs.

Existential Instantiation (EI) STOP

Example:

“There is someone who got an A in the course.”

“Let’s call her a and say that a got an A”
Existential Generalization (EG)

Example:

“Michelle got an A in the class.”

“Therefore, someone got an A in the class.”
Using Rules of Inference
Example 1: Using the rules of inference, construct a valid
argument to show that
“John Smith has two legs”
is a consequence of the premises:
“Every man has two legs.” “John Smith is a man.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x is a man” and L(x) “ x has two legs”
and let John Smith be a member of the domain.
Valid Argument:
Using Rules of Inference
Example 2: Use the rules of inference to construct a valid argument
showing that the conclusion
“Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.”
follows from the premises
“A student in this class has not read the book.”
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam.”
Solution: Let C(x) denote “x is in this class,” B(x) denote “ x has read
the book,” and P(x) denote “x passed the first exam.”
First we translate the
premises and conclusion
into symbolic form.

Continued on next slide 

Using Rules of Inference
Valid Argument:
Returning to the Socrates Example
Solution for Socrates Example
Valid Argument
Universal Modus Ponens
Universal Modus Ponens combines universal
instantiation and modus ponens into one rule.

This rule could be used in the Socrates example.

Section 1.7
Section Summary
 Mathematical Proofs
 Forms of Theorems
 Direct Proofs
 Indirect Proofs
 Proof of the Contrapositive
 Proof by Contradiction
Proofs of Mathematical Statements
 A proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a
statement.
 In math, CS, and other disciplines, informal proofs which are
generally shorter, are generally used.
 More than one rule of inference are often used in a step.
 Steps may be skipped.
 The rules of inference used are not explicitly stated.
 Easier for to understand and to explain to people.
 But it is also easier to introduce errors.
 Proofs have many practical applications:
 verification that computer programs are correct
 establishing that operating systems are secure
 enabling programs to make inferences in artificial intelligence
 showing that system specifications are consistent
Definitions
 A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using:
 definitions
 other theorems
 axioms (statements which are given as true)
 rules of inference
 A lemma is a ‘helping theorem’ or a result which is needed to
prove a theorem.
 A corollary is a result which follows directly from a theorem.
 Less important theorems are sometimes called propositions.
 A conjecture is a statement that is being proposed to be true.
Once a proof of a conjecture is found, it becomes a theorem. It
may turn out to be false.
Forms of Theorems
 Many theorems assert that a property holds for all elements
in a domain, such as the integers, the real numbers, or
some of the discrete structures that we will study in this
class.
 Often the universal quantifier (needed for a precise
statement of a theorem) is omitted by standard
mathematical convention.
For example, the statement:
“If x > y, where x and y are positive real numbers, then x2 > y2 ”
really means
“For all positive real numbers x and y, if x > y, then x2 > y2 .”
Proving Theorems
 Many theorems have the form:

 To prove them, we show that where c is an arbitrary

element of the domain,
 By universal generalization the truth of the original
formula follows.
 So, we must prove something of the form:
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Trivial Proof: If we know q is true, then
p → q is true as well.

“If it is raining then 1=1.”

 Vacuous Proof: If we know p is false then

p → q is true as well.
“If I am both rich and poor then 2 + 2 = 5.”

[ Even though these examples seem silly, both trivial and vacuous
proofs are often used in mathematical induction, as we will see
in Chapter 5) ]
Even and Odd Integers
Definition: The integer n is even if there exists an
integer k such that n = 2k, and n is odd if there exists
an integer k, such that n = 2k + 1. Note that every
integer is either even or odd and no integer is both
even and odd.

We will need this basic fact about the integers in some

of the example proofs to follow. We will learn more
about the integers in Chapter 4.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Direct Proof: Assume that p is true. Use rules of inference,
axioms, and logical equivalences to show that q must also
be true.
Example: Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is an odd
integer, then n2 is odd.”
Solution: Assume that n is odd. Then n = 2k + 1 for an
integer k. Squaring both sides of the equation, we get:
n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k +1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1= 2r + 1,
where r = 2k2 + 2k , an integer.
We have proved that if n is an odd integer, then n2 is an
odd integer.
( marks the end of the proof. Sometimes QED is
used instead. )
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
Definition: The real number r is rational if there exist
integers p and q where q≠0 such that r = p/q
Example: Prove that the sum of two rational numbers
is rational.
Solution: Assume r and s are two rational numbers.
Then there must be integers p, q and also t, u such
that

where v = pu + qt
w = qu ≠ 0
Thus the sum is rational.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Proof by Contraposition: Assume ¬q and show ¬p is true also. This is
sometimes called an indirect proof method. If we give a direct proof of
¬q → ¬p then we have a proof of p → q.
Why does this work?
Example: Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n is
odd.
Solution: Assume n is even. So, n = 2k for some integer k. Thus
3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 =6k +2 = 2(3k + 1) = 2j for j = 3k +1
Therefore 3n + 2 is even. Since we have shown ¬q → ¬p , p → q
must hold as well. If n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd (not even) ,
then n is odd (not even).
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
Example: Prove that for an integer n, if n2 is odd, then n is
odd.
Solution: Use proof by contraposition. Assume n is even
(i.e., not odd). Therefore, there exists an integer k such
that n = 2k. Hence,
n2 = 4k2 = 2 (2k2)
and n2 is even(i.e., not odd).
We have shown that if n is an even integer, then n2 is even.
Therefore by contraposition, for an integer n, if n2 is odd,
then n is odd.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Proof by Contradiction: (AKA reductio ad absurdum).
To prove p, assume ¬p and derive a contradiction such as
p ∧ ¬p. (an indirect form of proof). Since we have shown
that ¬p →F is true , it follows that the contrapositive T→p
also holds.
Example: Prove that if you pick 22 days from the calendar,
at least 4 must fall on the same day of the week.
Solution: Assume that no more than 3 of the 22 days fall
on the same day of the week. Because there are 7 days of
the week, we could only have picked 21 days. This
contradicts the assumption that we have picked 22 days.
Proof by Contradiction
 A preview of Chapter 4.
Example: Use a proof by contradiction to give a proof that √2 is
irrational.
Solution: Suppose √2 is rational. Then there exists integers a and b
with √2 = a/b, where b≠ 0 and a and b have no common factors (see
Chapter 4). Then

Therefore a2 must be even. If a2 is even then a must be even (an

exercise). Since a is even, a = 2c for some integer c. Thus,

Therefore b2 is even. Again then b must be even as well.

But then 2 must divide both a and b. This contradicts our assumption
that a and b have no common factors. We have proved by contradiction
that our initial assumption must be false and therefore √2 is
irrational .
Proof by Contradiction
 A preview of Chapter 4.
Example: Prove that there is no largest prime number.
Solution: Assume that there is a largest prime
number. Call it pn. Hence, we can list all the primes
2,3,.., pn. Form

None of the prime numbers on the list divides r.

Therefore, by a theorem in Chapter 4, either r is prime
or there is a smaller prime that divides r. This
contradicts the assumption that there is a largest
prime. Therefore, there is no largest prime.
Theorems that are Biconditional
Statements
 To prove a theorem that is a biconditional statement,
that is, a statement of the form p ↔ q, we show that
p → q and q →p are both true.
Example: Prove the theorem: “If n is an integer, then n is
odd if and only if n2 is odd.”
Solution: We have already shown (previous slides) that
both p →q and q →p. Therefore we can conclude p ↔ q.

Sometimes iff is used as an abbreviation for “if an only if,” as in

“If n is an integer, then n is odd iif n2 is odd.”
What is wrong with this?
“Proof” that 1 = 2

Solution: Step 5. a - b = 0 by the premise and

division by 0 is undefined.
Looking Ahead
 If direct methods of proof do not work:
 We may need a clever use of a proof by contraposition.
 Or a proof by contradiction.
 In the next section, we will see strategies that can be
used when straightforward approaches do not work.
 In Chapter 5, we will see mathematical induction and
related techniques.
 In Chapter 6, we will see combinatorial proofs
Section 1.8
Section Summary
 Proof by Cases
 Existence Proofs
 Constructive
 Nonconstructive
 Disproof by Counterexample
 Nonexistence Proofs
 Uniqueness Proofs
 Proof Strategies
 Proving Universally Quantified Assertions
 Open Problems
Proof by Cases
 To prove a conditional statement of the form:

 Use the tautology

 Each of the implications is a case.

Proof by Cases
Example: Let a @ b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise
a @ b = max{a, b} = b.
Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
(a @b) @ c = a @ (b @ c)
(This means the operation @ is associative.)
Proof: Let a, b, and c be arbitrary real numbers.
Then one of the following 6 cases must hold.
1. a ≥ b ≥ c
2. a ≥ c ≥ b
3. b ≥ a ≥c
4. b ≥ c ≥a
5. c ≥ a ≥ b
6. c ≥ b ≥ a
Continued on next slide 
Proof by Cases
Case 1: a ≥ b ≥ c
(a @ b) = a, a @ c = a, b @ c = b
Hence (a @ b) @ c = a = a @ (b @ c)
Therefore the equality holds for the first case.

A complete proof requires that the equality be shown

to hold for all 6 cases. But the proofs of the
remaining cases are similar. Try them.
Without Loss of Generality
Example: Show that if x and y are integers and both x∙y and x+y are even,
then both x and y are even.
Proof: Use a proof by contraposition. Suppose x and y are not both even.
Then, one or both are odd. Without loss of generality, assume that x is odd.
Then x = 2m + 1 for some integer m.
Case 1: y is even. Then y = 2n for some integer n, so
x + y = (2m + 1) + 2n = 2(m + n) + 1 is odd.
Case 2: y is odd. Then y = 2n + 1 for some integer n, so
x ∙ y = (2m + 1) (2n + 1) = 2(2m ∙ n +m + n) + 1 is odd.

We only cover the case where x is odd because the case where y is odd is
similar. The use phrase without loss of generality (WLOG) indicates this.
Existence Proofs Srinivasa Ramanujan
(1887-1920)

 Proof of theorems of the form .

 Constructive existence proof:
 Find an explicit value of c, for which P(c) is true.
 Then is true by Existential Generalization (EG).
Example: Show that there is a positive integer that can be
written as the sum of cubes of positive integers in two
different ways:
Proof: 1729 is such a number since
1729 = 103 + 93 = 123 + 13

Godfrey Harold Hardy

(1877-1947)
Nonconstructive Existence Proofs
 In a nonconstructive existence proof, we assume no c
exists which makes P(c) true and derive a
contradiction.
Example: Show that there exist irrational numbers x
and y such that xy is rational.
Proof: We know that √2 is irrational. Consider the
number √2 √2 . If it is rational, we have two irrational
numbers x and y with xy rational, namely x = √2
and y = √2. But if √2 √2 is irrational,
then we can let x = √2 √2 and y = √2 so that xy
= (√2 √2 )√2 = √2 (√2 √2) = √2 2 = 2.
Counterexamples
 Recall .
 To establish that is true (or is false)
find a c such that P(c) is true or P(c) is false.
 In this case c is called a counterexample to the
assertion .
Example: “Every positive integer is the sum of the
squares of 3 integers.” The integer 7 is a
counterexample. So the claim is false.
Uniqueness Proofs
 Some theorems asset the existence of a unique element with a
particular property, !x P(x). The two parts of a uniqueness proof
are
 Existence: We show that an element x with the property exists.
 Uniqueness: We show that if y≠x, then y does not have the property.
Example: Show that if a and b are real numbers and a ≠0, then
there is a unique real number r such that ar + b = 0.
Solution:
 Existence: The real number r = −b/a is a solution of ar + b = 0
because a(−b/a) + b = −b + b =0.
 Uniqueness: Suppose that s is a real number such that as + b = 0.
Then ar + b = as + b, where r = −b/a. Subtracting b from both
sides and dividing by a shows that r = s.
Proof Strategies for proving p → q
 Choose a method.
1. First try a direct method of proof.
2. If this does not work, try an indirect method (e.g., try to
prove the contrapositive).
 For whichever method you are trying, choose a strategy.
1. First try forward reasoning. Start with the axioms and
known theorems and construct a sequence of steps that end
in the conclusion. Start with p and prove q, or start with ¬q
and prove ¬p.
2. If this doesn’t work, try backward reasoning. When trying to
prove q, find a statement p that we can prove with the
property p → q.
Backward Reasoning
Example: Suppose that two people play a game taking turns removing, 1, 2, or 3 stones at
a time from a pile that begins with 15 stones. The person who removes the last stone wins
the game. Show that the first player can win the game no matter what the second player
does.

Proof: Let n be the last step of the game.

Step n: Player1 can win if the pile contains 1,2, or 3 stones.
Step n-1: Player2 will have to leave such a pile if the pile that he/she is faced with has 4
stones.
Step n-2: Player1 can leave 4 stones when there are 5,6, or 7 stones left at the beginning of
his/her turn.
Step n-3: Player2 must leave such a pile, if there are 8 stones .
Step n-4: Player1 has to have a pile with 9,10, or 11 stones to ensure that there are 8 left.
Step n-5: Player2 needs to be faced with 12 stones to be forced to leave 9,10, or 11.
Step n-6: Player1 can leave 12 stones by removing 3 stones.
Now reasoning forward, the first player can ensure a win by removing 3 stones and leaving
12.
Universally Quantified Assertions
 To prove theorems of the form ,assume x is an
arbitrary member of the domain and show that P(x)
must be true. Using UG it follows that .
Example: An integer x is even if and only if x2 is even.
Solution: The quantified assertion is
x [x is even  x2 is even]
We assume x is arbitrary.
Recall that is equivalent to
So, we have two cases to consider. These are
considered in turn.
Continued on next slide 
Universally Quantified Assertions
Case 1. We show that if x is even then x2 is even using
a direct proof (the only if part or necessity).
If x is even then x = 2k for some integer k.
Hence x2 = 4k2 = 2(2k2 ) which is even since it is an
integer divisible by 2.
This completes the proof of case 1.

Case 2 on next slide 

Universally Quantified Assertions
Case 2. We show that if x2 is even then x must be even (the
if part or sufficiency). We use a proof by contraposition.
Assume x is not even and then show that x2 is not even.
If x is not even then it must be odd. So, x = 2k + 1 for some
k. Then x2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1
which is odd and hence not even. This completes the proof
of case 2.
Since x was arbitrary, the result follows by UG.
Therefore we have shown that x is even if and only if x2 is
even.
Proof and Disproof: Tilings
Example 1: Can we tile the standard checkerboard
using dominos?
Solution: Yes! One example provides a constructive
existence proof.

Two Dominoes

The Standard Checkerboard One Possible Solution

Tilings
Example 2: Can we tile a checkerboard obtained by
removing one of the four corner squares of a standard
checkerboard?
Solution:
 Our checkerboard has 64 − 1 = 63 squares.
 Since each domino has two squares, a board with a
tiling must have an even number of squares.
 The number 63 is not even.
 We have a contradiction.
Tilings
Example 3: Can we tile a board obtained by removing
both the upper left and the lower right squares of a
standard checkerboard?

Nonstandard Checkerboard Dominoes

Continued on next slide 

Tilings
Solution:
 There are 62 squares in this board.
 To tile it we need 31 dominos.
 Key fact: Each domino covers one black and one white
square.
 Therefore the tiling covers 31 black squares and 31
white squares.
 Our board has either 30 black squares and 32 white
squares or 32 black squares and 30 white squares.
 Contradiction!
The Role of Open Problems
 Unsolved problems have motivated much work in
mathematics. Fermat’s Last Theorem was conjectured
more than 300 years ago. It has only recently been
finally solved.
Fermat’s Last Theorem: The equation xn + yn = zn
has no solutions in integers x, y, and z, with xyz≠0
whenever n is an integer with n > 2.

A proof was found by Andrew Wiles in the 1990s.

An Open Problem
 The 3x + 1 Conjecture: Let T be the transformation
that sends an even integer x to x/2 and an odd integer
x to 3x + 1. For all positive integers x, when we
repeatedly apply the transformation T, we will
eventually reach the integer 1.
For example, starting with x = 13:
T(13) = 3∙13 + 1 = 40, T(40) = 40/2 = 20, T(20) = 20/2 = 10,
T(10) = 10/2 = 5, T(5) = 3∙5 + 1 = 16,T(16) = 16/2 = 8,
T(8) = 8/2 = 4, T(4) = 4/2 = 2, T(2) = 2/2 = 1
The conjecture has been verified using computers up
to 5.6 ∙ 1013 .
Additional Proof Methods
 Later we will see many other proof methods:
 Mathematical induction, which is a useful method for
proving statements of the form n P(n), where the
domain consists of all positive integers.
 Structural induction, which can be used to prove such
results about recursively defined sets.
 Cantor diagonalization is used to prove results about the
size of infinite sets.
 Combinatorial proofs use counting arguments.