Lecture 5

Methods of proof
Two important questions that arise in the study of mathematics are:
(1) When is a mathematical argument correct?
(2) What methods can be used to construct mathematical arguments?
This section helps answer these questions by describing various forms of correct and incorrect mathematical
arguments.
A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true. We demonstrate that a theorem is true with a sequence
of statements that form an argument, called a proof. To construct proofs, methods are needed to derive new
statements from old ones. The statements used in a proof can include axioms or postulates, which are the
underlying assumptions about mathematical structures, the hypotheses of the theorem to be proved, and
previously proved theorems. The rules of inference, which are the means used to draw conclusions from other
assertions, tie together the steps of a proof.
A form of incorrect reasoning is called a fallacy. The terms lemma and corollary are used for certain types of
theorems. A lemma is a simple theorem used in the proof of other theorems. Complicated proofs are usually
easier to understand when they are proved using a series of lemmas, where each lemma is proved individually.
A corollary is a proposition that can be established directly from a theorem that has been proved. A conjecture
is a statement whose truth value is unknown. When a proof of a conjecture is found, the conjecture becomes a
theorem. Many times conjectures are shown to be false, so they are not theorems.

Rules of inference
We will now introduce rules of inference for propositional logic. These rules provide the justification of the
steps used to show that a conclusion follows logically from a set of hypotheses. The tautology
( p  ( p  q))  q is the basis of the rule of inference called modus ponens, or the law of detachment. This
tautology is written in the following way: p, p  q  q .
Using this notation, the hypotheses are written in a column and the conclusion below a bar. Modus ponens states
that if both an implication and its hypothesis are known to be true, then the conclusion of this implication is
true.
Example. Suppose that the implication “if it is snows today, then we will go skiing” and its hypothesis, “it is
snowing today”, are true. Then, by modus ponens, it follows that the conclusion of the implication, “we will go
skiing”, is true.
Example. The implication “if n is divisible by 3, then n2 is divisible by 9” is true. Consequently, if n is divisible
by 3, then by modus ponens, it follows that n2 is divisible by 9.
Rules of inference Tautology .Name
p pq p  ( p  q) Addition
pq  p ( p  q)  p Simplification
p, q  p  q (( p)  (q))  ( p  q) Conjunction
p, p  q  q [ p  ( p  q)]  q Modus ponens
q, p  q  p [q  ( p  q)]  p Modus tollens
p  q, q  r  p  r [( p  q)  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism
p  q, p  q [( p  q)  p]  q Disjunctive syllogism
An argument is called valid if whenever all the hypotheses are true, the conclusion is also true. Consequently,
showing that q logically follows from the hypotheses p1, p2, …, pn is the same as showing that then implication
( p1  p2  ...  pn )  q is true.
When there are many premises, several rules of inference are often needed to show that an argument is valid.
This is illustrated by the following examples, where the steps of arguments are displayed step by step, with the
reason for each step explicitly stated. These examples also show how argument in English can be analyzed using
rules of inference.
Example. Show that the 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”, and “If we take a
canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset” lead to the conclusion “We will be home by sunset”.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon”, q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday”, r
the proposition “We will go swimming”, s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip”, and t the proposition
“We will be home by sunset”. Then the hypotheses become p  q , r  p , r  s , and s  t . The
conclusion is simply t. We construct an argument to show that our hypotheses lead to the desired conclusion as
follows:
Step Reason
1.  p  q Hypothesis
2.  p Simplification using Step 1
3. r  p Hypothesis
4. r Modus tollens using Steps 2 and 3
5. r  s Hypothesis
3. s Modus ponens using Steps 4 and 5
7. s  t Hypothesis
8. t Modus ponens using Steps 3 and 7
Example. Show that the hypotheses “If you send me an e-mail message, then I will finish writing the program”,
“If you do not send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep early”, and “If I go to sleep early, then I will
wake up feeling refreshed” lead to the conclusion “If I do not finish writing the program”, then “I will wake up
feeling refreshed”.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message”, q the proposition “I will finish writing the
program”, r the proposition “I will go to sleep early”, and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed”.
Then the hypotheses are p  q , p  r and r  s . The desired conclusion is q  s . The following
argument shows that our hypotheses lead to the desired conclusion.
Step Reason
1. p  q Hypothesis
2.  q   p Contradiction of Step 1
3.  p  r Hypothesis
4.  q  r Hypothetical syllogism using Steps 2 and 3
5. r  s Hypothesis
3. q  s Hypothetical syllogism using Steps 4 and 5

Rules of inference for quantified statements

We will now describe some important rules of inference for statements involving quantifiers (they are used
extensively in mathematical arguments, often without being explicitly mentioned).
Universal instantiation is the rule of inference used to conclude that P (c ) is true, where c is a particular member
of the universe of discourse, given the premise xP(x ) . Universal instantiation is used when we conclude from
the statement “All women are wise” that “Lisa is wise”, where Lisa is a member of the universe of discourse of
all women.
Universal generalization is the rule of inference which states that xP(x ) is true, given the premise that P (c )
is true for all elements c in the universe of discourse. Universal generalization is used when we show that
xP(x) is true by taking an arbitrary element c from the universe of discourse and showing that P (c ) is true.
The element c that we select must be an arbitrary, and not a specific, element of the universe of discourse.
Universal generalization is used implicitly in many proofs in mathematics and is seldom mentioned explicitly.
Existential instantiation is the rule which allows us to conclude that there is an element c in the universe of
discourse for which P (c ) is true if we know that xP(x ) is true. We cannot select an arbitrary value of c here,
but rather it must be a c for which P (c ) is true. Usually we have no knowledge of what c is, only that it exists.
Since it exists, we may give it a name c and continue our argument.
Existential generalization is the rule of inference which is used to conclude that xP(x ) is true when a
particular element c with P (c ) true is known. That it, if we know one element c in the universe of discourse
for which P (c ) is true, then we know that xP(x ) is true.
Rule of inference Name
xP( x)  P(c) for an arbitrary c U Universal instantiation
P (c ) for an arbitrary c U  xP(x) Universal generalization
xP(x )  P (c ) for some element c U Existential instantiation
P (c ) for some element c U  xP(x ) Existential generalization
Example. Show that the premises “Everyone in this discrete mathematics class has taken a course in computer
science” and “Maria is a student in this class” imply the conclusion “Maria has taken a course in computer
science”.
Solution: Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class”, and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in
computer science”. Then the premises are x( D( x)  C ( x)) and D(Maria). The conclusion is C(Maria).
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the premises.
Step Reason
1. x( D( x)  C ( x)) Premise
2. D( Maria )  C ( Maria ) Universal instantiation using Step 1
3. D(Maria ) Premise
4. C (Maria ) Modus ponens using Steps 2 and 3

Methods of proving theorems

We will describe how different types of statements are proved. Because many theorems are implications, the
techniques for proving implications are important. Recall that p  q is true unless p is true but q is false. Note
that when the statement p  q is proved, it need only be shown that q is true if p is true; it is not usually the
case that q is proved to be true. The following discussion will give the most common techniques for proving
implications.
The implication p  q can be proved by showing that if p is true, then q must also be true. This shows that
the combination p true and q false never occurs. A proof of this kind is called a direct proof. To carry out such
a proof, assume that p is true and use rules of inference and theorems already proved to show that q must also
be true.
Example. Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is odd, then n2 is odd”.
Solution: Assume that the hypothesis of this implication is true, namely, suppose that n is odd. Then n  2k  1
, where k is an integer. It follows that n  (2k  1)  4k  4k  1  2(2k  2k )  1 . Therefore, n2 is odd
2 2 2 2

(it is 1 more than twice an integer).

Since the implication p  q is equivalent to its contrapositive, q  p , the implication p  q can be
proved by showing that its contrapositive, q  p , is true. This related implication is usually proved
directly, but any proof technique can be used. An argument of this type is called an indirect proof.
Example. Give an indirect proof of the theorem “If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd”.
Solution: Assume that the conclusion of this implication is false; namely, assume that n is even. Then n = 2k for
some integer k. It follows that 3n  2  3(2k )  2  6k  2  2(3k  1), so 3n + 2 is even (since it is a multiple
of 2). Since the negation of the conclusion of the implication implies that the hypothesis is false, the original
implication is true.
Suppose that the hypothesis p of an implication p  q is false. Then the implication p  q is true, because
the statement has the form F  T or F  F , and hence is true. Consequently, if it can be shown that p is
false, then a proof, called a vacuous proof, of the implication p  q can be given. Vacuous proofs are often
used to establish special cases of theorems that state that an implication is true for all positive integers (i.e., a
theorem of the kind nP(n) where P (n ) is a propositional function).
Example. Show that the proposition P (0) is true where P (n ) is the propositional function “If n > 1, then n2 >
n”.
Solution: Note that the proposition P (0) is the implication “If 0 > 1, then 02 > 0”. Since the hypothesis 0 >1 is
false, the implication P (0) is automatically true.
Suppose that the conclusion q of an implication p  q is true. Then p  q is true, since the statement has
the form T  T or F  T , which are true. Hence, if it can be shown that q is true, then a proof, called a trivial
proof, of p  q can be given. Trivial proofs are often important when special cases of theorems are proved
(see the discussion of proof by cases) and in mathematical induction.
Example. Let P (n ) be the proposition “If a and b are positive integers with a  b , then a  b ”. Show that
n n

the proposition P (0) is true.

Solution: The proposition P (0) is “If a  b , then a  b ”. Since a  b  1 , the conclusion of P (0) is
0 0 0 0

true. Hence, P (0) is true. This is an example of a trivial proof. Note that the hypothesis, which is the statement
“ a  b ”, was not needed in this proof.
Suppose that a contradiction q can be found so that p  q is true, that is, p  F is true. Then the
proposition p must be false. Consequently, p must be true. This technique can be used when a contradiction,
such as r  r , can be found so that it is possible to show that the implication p  (r  r ) is true. An
argument of this type is called a proof by contradiction.
Example. Prove that 2 is irrational by giving a proof by contradiction.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “ 2 is irrational”. Suppose that p is true. Then 2 is rational. We will
show that this leads to a contradiction. Under the assumption that 2 is rational, there exist integers a and b
with 2  a / b , where a and b have no common factors (so that the fraction a/b is in lowest terms). Since
2  a / b , when both sides of this equation are squared, it follows that 2  a / b . Hence, 2b  a . This
2 2 2 2

means that a2 is even, implying that a is even. Furthermore, since a is even, a = 2c for some integer c. Thus
2b 2  4c 2 , so b 2  2c 2 . This means that b2 is even. Hence, b must be even as well. It has been shown that
p implies that 2  a / b , where a and b have no common factors, and 2 divides a and b. This is a
contradiction since we have shown that p implies both r and r where r is the statement that a and b are
integers with no common factors. Hence, p is false, so that p: “ 2 is irrational” is true.
To prove an implication of the form
( p1  p2  ...  pn )  q the tautology
[( p1  p2  ...  pn )  q]  [( p1  q)  ( p2  q)  ...  ( pn  q)]
can be used as a rule of inference. This shows that the original implication with a hypothesis made up of a
disjunction of the propositions
p1 , p2 ,..., pn can be proved by proving each of the n implications
pi  q, i  1, 2, ..., n , individually. Such an argument is called a proof by cases. Sometimes to prove that an

implication p  q is true, it is convenient to use a disjunction 1

p  p2  ...  pn instead of p as the hypothesis

of the implication, where p and

p1  p2  ...  pn are equivalent.

Example. Prove the implication “If n is an integer not divisible by 3, then n  1(mod 3) ”.
2

Solution: Let p be the proposition “n is not divisible by 3”, and let q be the proposition “ n  1(mod 3) ”. Then
2

p is equivalent to p1  p2 where p1 is “ n  1(mod 3) ” and p2 is “ n  2 (mod 3) ”. Hence, to show that p  q

it can be shown that p1  q and p2  q . It is easy to give direct proofs of these two implications. First,
suppose that p1 is true. Then n  1(mod 3) , so that n  3k  1 for some integer k. Thus,
n 2  9k 2  6k  1  3 (3k 2  2k )  1 . It follows that n 2  1(mod 3) . Hence, the implication p1  q is true.
Next, suppose that p2 is true. Then n  2 (mod 3) , so that n  3k  2 for some integer k. Thus,
n 2  9k 2  12k  4  3 (3k 2  4k  1)  1 . Hence, n 2  1(mod 3) , so the implication p2  q is true. Since

it has been shown that both p1  q and p2  q are true, it can be concluded that ( p1  p2 )  q is true.
Moreover, since p is equivalent to p1  p2 , it follows that
pq is true.
To prove a theorem that is equivalence, that is, one that is a statement of the form p  q where p and q are
propositions, the tautology ( p  q)  [( p  q)  (q  p)] can be used. That is, the proposition “p if and
only if q” can be proved if both the implications “if p, then q” and “if q, then p” are proved.
Sometimes a theorem states that several propositions are equivalent. Such a theorem states that propositions
p1 , p2 ,..., pn are equivalent. This can be written as p1  p2  ...  pn , which states that all n propositions
have the same truth values. One way to prove these mutually equivalent is to use the tautology
[ p1  p2  ...  pn ]  [( p1  p2 )  ( p2  p3 )  ...  ( pn  p1 )] .
This shows that if the implications
p1  p2 , p2  p3 , ..., pn  p1 can be shown to be true, then the

propositions
p1 , p2 ,..., pn are all equivalent.

Mathematical induction
What is a formula for the sum of the first n positive odd integers? The sums of the first n positive odd integers
for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are
1 = 1, 1 + 3 = 4, 1 + 3 + 5 = 9, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 13, 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25.
From these values it is reasonable to guess that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2. We need a
method to prove that this guess is correct, if in fact it is.
Mathematical induction is an extremely important proof technique that can be used to prove assertions of this
type.
The validity of mathematical induction follows from the following fundamental axiom about the set of integers.
The well-ordering property: Every nonempty set of nonnegative integers has a least element.
The well-ordering property can often be used directly in proofs.
Example. Use the well-ordering property to prove the division algorithm. Recall that the division algorithm
states that if a is an integer and d is a positive integer, then there are unique integers q and r with 0  r  d and
a  dq  r .

Solution: Let S be the set of nonnegative integers of the form a  dq where q is an integer. This set is nonempty
since  dq can be made as large as desired (taking q to be a negative integer with large absolute value). By the
well-ordering property S has a least element
r  a  dq 0.

The integer r is nonnegative. It is also the case that r < d. If it were not, then there would be a smaller nonnegative
element in S, namely,
a  d (q0  1) . To see this, suppose that r  d . Since a  dq0  r , it follows that
a  d (q0  1)  (a  dq0 )  d  r  d  0 .Consequently, there are integers q and r with 0  r  d . The proof
that q and r are unique is left as an exercise for the reader.
Many theorems state that P(n) is true for all positive integers n, where P(n) is a propositional function, such as
n(n  1)
1  2  ...  n 
or the statement that n  2 . Mathematical induction is a technique
n
the statement that 2
for proving theorems of this kind. In other words, mathematical induction is used to prove propositions of the
form nP(n) , where the universe of discourse is the set of positive integers.
A proof by mathematical induction that P(n) is true for every positive integer n consists of two steps:
1. Basic step. The proposition P(1) is shown to be true.
2. Inductive step. The implication P(n)  P(n  1) is shown to be true for every positive integer n.
Here, the statement P(n) for a fixed positive integer n is called the inductive hypothesis. When we complete
both steps of a proof by mathematical induction, we have proved that P(n) is true for all positive integers n; that
is, we have shown that nP(n) is true. Expressed as a rule of inference, this proof technique can be stated as
[ P(1)  n( P(n)  P(n  1))]  nP(n) .

To prove that the implication

P(n)  P(n  1) is true for every positive integer n, we need to show that P(n
+ 1) cannot be false when P(n) is true. This can be accomplished by assuming that P(n) is true and showing that
under this hypothesis P(n + 1) must also be true.
Example. Use mathematical induction to prove that the sum of the first n odd positive integers is n2.
Solution: P(1): 1 = 12. It is true. Suppose that P(n) is true for a positive integer n; that is,
1  3  5  ...  (2n  1)  n 2 . (Note that the nth odd positive integer is (2n – 1), since this integer is obtained
by adding 2 a total of n – 1 times to 1). We must show that P(n + 1) is true, assuming that P(n) is true. Note that
P(n + 1) is the statement that 1  3  5  ...  (2n  1)  (2n  1)  (n  1) .
2

1  3  5  ...  (2n  1)  (2n  1)  [1  3  ...  (2n  1)]  (2n  1)  n 2  (2n  1)  n 2  2n  1  (n  1) 2

Example. Use mathematical induction to prove the inequality n  2 for all positive integers n.
n

Solution: P(1) is true, since 1  2  2 . Assume that P(n) is true, i.e. n  2 .

1 n

n 1
We need to show that n  1  2 . Adding 1 to both sides of n  2 , and then noting that 1  2 , gives
n n

n  1  2 n  1  2 n  2 n  2 n 1 .
 Glossary
rule of inference – правило вывода; to tie – связывать; fallacy – ошибка, заблуждение
law of detachment – закон отделения; premises – предпосылки; vacuous – пустой
wise – мудрый; instantiation – подтверждение

Exercises for Seminar 5

5.1. What rule of inference is used in each of the following arguments?
a) Alice is a mathematics major. Therefore, Alice is either a mathematics major or a computer science
major.
b) Jerry is a mathematics major and a computer science major. Therefore, Jerry is a mathematics major.
c) If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed. It is rainy. Therefore, the pool is closed.
d) If it snows today, the university will be closed. The university is not closed today. Therefore, it
doesn’t snow today.
e) If I go swimming, then I will stay in the sun too long. If I stay in the sun too long, then I will sunburn.
Therefore, if I go swimming, then I will sunburn.
5.2. Construct an argument using rules of inference to show that the hypotheses “Randy works hard”,
“If Randy works hard, then he is a dull boy”, and “If Randy is a dull boy, then he will not get the job”
imply the conclusion “Randy will not get the job” (dull – глупый).
5.3. What rules of inference are used in the following famous argument? “All men are mortal. Socrates
is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal”.
5.4. For each of the following sets of premises, what relevant conclusion or conclusions can be drawn?
Explain the rules of inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises.
a) “If I take the day off, it either rains or snows”. “I took Tuesday off or I took Thursday off”. “It was
sunny on Tuesday”. “It did not snow on Thursday” (to take off – взять выходной).
b) “If I eat spicy foods, then I have strange dreams”. “I have strange dreams if there is thunder while I
sleep”. “I did not have strange dreams” (thunder – гром).
c) “I am either clever or lucky”. “I am not lucky”. “If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery”.
d) “Every computer science major has a personal computer”. “Ralph does not have a personal
computer”. “Ann has a personal computer”.
e) “All rodents gnaw their food”. “Mice are rodents”. “Rabbits do not gnaw their food”. “Bats are not
rodents” (rodent – грызун; to gnaw – грызть; rabbit – кролик; bat – летучая мышь).
5.5. Prove the proposition P(0), where P(n) is the proposition “If n is a positive integer greater than 1,
then n  n ”. What kind of proof did you use?
2

5.6. Prove that the square of an even number is an even number using a) a direct proof; b) an indirect
proof.
5.7. Find a formula for the sum of the first n even positive integers. Use mathematical induction to
prove this formula.
n 1
5.8. Use mathematical induction to prove that 3  3  5  3  5  ...  3  5  3(5  1) / 4 whenever n
2 n

is a nonnegative integer.
1 1 1 1
   ...  n
5.9. Find a formula for 2 4 8 2 by examining the values of this expression for small values
of n. Use mathematical induction to prove your result.
5.10. Prove that 3  n! whenever n is a positive integer greater than 6.
n

5.11. Use mathematical induction to show that 3 divides n  2n whenever n is a nonnegative integer.
3

1 1 1 1
1    ...  2  2 
5.12. Prove that 4 9 n n whenever n is a positive integer greater than 1.

Exercise for Homework 5

5.13. What rule of inference is used in each of the following arguments?
a) Kangaroos live in Australia and are marsupials. Therefore, kangaroos are marsupials (marsupial – сумчатое
животное).
b) It is either hotter than 100 degrees today or the pollution is dangerous. It is less than 100 degrees outside
today. Therefore, the pollution is dangerous.
c) Linda is an excellent swimmer. If Linda is an excellent swimmer, then she can work as a lifeguard. Therefore,
Linda can work as a lifeguard.
d) Steve will work at a computer company this summer. Therefore, this summer Steve will work at a computer
company or he will be a beach bum (bum – бездельник).
e) If I work all night on this homework, then I can answer all the exercises. If I answer all the exercises, I will
understand the material. Therefore, if I work all night on this homework, then I will understand the material.
5.14. Construct an argument using rules of inference to show that the hypotheses “If it does not rain or if it is
not foggy, then the sailing race will be held and the lifesaving demonstration will go on”, “If the sailing race is
held, then the trophy will be awarded” and “The trophy was not awarded” imply the conclusion “It rained”.
5.15. What rules of inference are in the following argument? “No man is an island. Manhattan is an island.
Therefore, Manhattan is not a man”.
5.16. For each of the following sets of premises, what relevant conclusion or conclusions can be drawn? Explain
the rules of inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises.
a) “If I play hockey, then I am sore the next day”. “I use the whirlpool if I am sore”. “I did not use the whirlpool”
(sore – больной; whirlpool – водоворот).
b) “If I work, it is either sunny or partly sunny”. “I worked last Monday or I worked last Friday”. “It was not
sunny on Friday”. “It was not partly sunny on Friday”.
c) “All insects have six legs”. “Dragonflies are insects”. “Spiders do not have six legs”. “Spiders eat dragonflies”
(insect – насекомое; dragonfly – стрекоза).
d) “Every student has an Internet account”. “Homer does not have an Internet account”. “Maggie has an Internet
account”.
e) “All foods that are healthy to eat do not taste good”. “Tofu is healthy to eat”. “You only eat what tastes good”.
“You do not eat tofu”. “Cheeseburgers are not healthy to eat”.
f) “I am either dreaming or hallucinating”. “I am not dreaming”. “If I am hallucinating, I see elephants running
down the road”.
5.17. Prove the proposition P(1), where P(n) is the proposition “If n is a positive integer, then n  n ”. What
2

kind of proof did you use?

5.18. Prove that if n is an integer and 3n  2 is even, then n is even using a) an indirect proof; b) a proof by
contradiction.
n 1
5.19. Use mathematical induction to prove that 2  2  7  2  7  ...  2  (7)  (1  (7) ) / 4 whenever
2 n

n is a nonnegative integer.
1 1 1
  ... 
5.20. Find a formula for 1  2 2  3 n(n  1) by examining the values of this expression for small values
of n. Use mathematical induction to prove your result.
5.21. Prove that 1  1! 2  2! ...  n  n ! (n  1)!  1 whenever n is a positive integer.
5.22. Use mathematical induction to show that 5 divides n  n whenever n is a nonnegative integer.
5