Logic and Proof Methods

A National Scientist
Fr. Nebres has conducted studies in the first-
order logic, as mathematicians, philosophers,
and theoretical computer scientists mostly do
and in infinitary logics. In a series of papers
published in very prestigious international
journals (Notices of the American
Mathematical Society, Journal of Symbolic
Logic, Journal of the Mathematical Society of
Japan) Fr. Nebres studied the
characterization of infinitary sentences
preserved under unions of models. His
supervisor was the distinguished logician
Solomon Feferman, who was a student of
Alfred Tarski, founder of model theory and
considered one of the greatest logicians of all
time. (Courtesy of the National Academy of
Science and Technology - Philippines)
 Topic Outline
A. Logical Propositions
B. Quantifiers
C. Arguments
D. Proof Methods
E. Mathematical Induction

Textbooks: 1. Kurtz, D. Foundations of Abstract Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Singapore. (1992).
2. Aufmann, et al. Mathematics in the Modern World. Rex Book Store,
Inc. Philippines. (2018).
 A. Logical Propositions
• A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not
both true and false.
• Example: Which of the following is a proposition?
1.) Is the moon made of cheese?
2.) x>3.
3.) 3+5 is even.
4.) 3+5=7.
5.) This is a false sentence.
Answer:
1.) Not a proposition
2.) Not a proposition
3.) Proposition
4.) Proposition
5.) Not a proposition
•A proposition is usually written using small letters p, q, r, ... .

•A proposition has a truth value of T if it is true; otherwise, we assign F.

•A simple proposition is a proposition that conveys a single idea. A

compound proposition is a proposition that conveys two or more ideas.

•Combining simple propositions to form a compound proposition uses the

following binary connectives: and, or (inclusive or), if-then, if and only if.

•We can also use the unary connective not to form a new simple
proposition out of a given one.
• Let p and q be propositions. The following are resulting propositions
formed by logic connectives and their usual notations:

Type of Proposition Connective Proposition Symbolic Form

negation not not p ~p
conjunction and p and q pΛq
disjunction or p or q pVq
conditional If...then If p then q p→q
biconditional if and only if p if and only if q p↔q

• The truth value of a compound proposition depends on the truth values of

its simple propositions and its connectives. These possible truth values
are expressed using a truth table.
 Truth Tables

• Usual Truth Table Form

p Proposition p q r Proposition
T T T T
F T T F
T F T
T F F
p q Proposition
F T T
T T
F T F
T F
F F T
F T
F F F
F F
• Negation: ~p has a truth value opposite to the truth value of p
p ~p
T F
F T

• Example: Write the negation of each statement and determine the truth value.
1.) Red is blue.
2.) 1 is not equal to -1.
• Answer:
1.) Red is not blue. (T)
2.) 1 is equal to -1. (F)
• Conjunction: pΛq is true only if both p and q are true
p q pΛq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

• Disjunction: pVq is true if one of p, q is true

p q pVq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
• Exercise: Let p: 3 ≤ 4;
q: 4 is a prime number.

A. Write the following in English and determine the truth value.

1. p Λ q
2. ~p V q

Answer:
1. 3 ≤ 4 and 4 is a prime number. (F)
2. 3 > 4 or 4 is a prime number. (F)
B. Write the following in symbolic form and determine the truth value.
1. 3 > 4 .
2. 3 > 4 and 4 is not a prime number.
3. 3 ≤ 4 or 4 is not a prime number.
Answer:
1. ~p (F)
2. ~p Λ ~q (F)
3. p V ~q (T)

C. Construct the truth table of the following.

~p V q
Answer: p q ~p V q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
 Conditional

• An ad for a laundry detergent fride contains the following statement:

“If you use fride then your wash will be white.”
When can we say that the campaign ad is telling the truth? Telling a lie?
• Conditional: If p then q.
• Antecedent/Premise: p Consequent/Conclusion: q
• Notation: p → q
• Other way of expressing p → q :
p implies q; p is stronger than q; q is a necessary condition for p.
• Truth Table for a Conditional: p q p→q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
• Example: Determine the truth value of each of the following.
1. If 9>4 then 8>3.
2. If 1=-1 then 8>3.
3. If 9>4 then 3>8.
4. If green is red then the moon is made of cheese.
Answer:
1. T
2. T
3. F
4. T
• Example: Construct a truth table for the following
(~p Λ (q → p)) → q.
Answer:
p q (~p Λ (q → p)) → q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

• Two propositions p and q are logically equivalent if they have the “same
truth table”. In this case, we write p ≡ q.
• An Equivalent Form of a Conditional: p→q ≡ ~p v q.
• Example: Write each of the following in its equivalent disjunctive form.
1. If I do not move to Bohol then I will live in Leyte.
2. If 4 is divisible by 2 then 4 is even.”
Answer:
1. I move to Bohol or I will live in Leyte.
2. 4 is not divisible by 2 or 4 is even”.

• Negation of a Conditional: ~(p→q) ≡ p Λ ~q.

• Example: Write the negation of each conditional statement.
1. If I finish the report then I will go to the concert.
2. If 2 + 3 = 5 then 3 + 3 = 7.
Answer:
1. I finish the report and I will not go to the concert.
2. 2 + 3 = 5 but 3 + 3 ≠ 7.
 Related Propositions of the Conditional
• The converse of p→q is q→p.
• The inverse of p→q is ~p→~q.
• The contrapositive of p→q is ~q→~p.

• Example: Write the converse, inverse and contrapositive of the following implication.
If 3 divides 7 then 3 divides 14.

Answer:
Converse: If 3 divides 14 then 3 divides 7.
Inverse: If 3 does not divide 7 then 3 does not divide 14.
Contrapositive: If 3 does not divide 14 then 3 does not divide 7.
• Exercise: Find the truth tables for the converse, inverse and contrapositive of p→q and
compare it with that of p→q. Which of these are logically equivalent?
Answer: p q p→q q→p ~p→~q ~q→~p

T T T T T T

T F F T T F

F T T F F T

F F T T T T

• Example: Determine which of the given statements are equivalent.

a. If I do not live in Cebu City then I do not live in Tisa.
b. If I do not live in Tisa then I do not live in Cebu City.
c. If I live in Cebu City then I live in Tisa.
d. If I live in Tisa then I live in Cebu City.
Answer: b and c; a and d.
 Biconditional
• Biconditional: p if and only if q
• Notation: p↔q
• p↔q is true whenever p and q have the same truth value.
• Truth Table for a Biconditional:
p q p↔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

• Another way of expressing p↔q: p is equivalent to q.

• Equivalent Form of a Biconditional: p↔q ≡ (p→q) Λ (q→p).
• Example: Let p and r represent the following.
p: I will go on vacation.
r: I cannot get a loan.
Write the following symbolic statements in words:
p ↔ ~r.
Answer: I will go on vacation if and only if I can get a loan.

• Example: State whether each biconditional is true or false.

1. 9>4 if and only if 8>3.
2. 9>4 is equivalent to 3>8.
3. 1=-1 is equivalent to 8>3.
4. Green is red if and only if the moon is made of cheese.
Answer:
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
• Note: If a compound proposition is written in symbolic form then
parentheses are used to indicate which simple propositions are grouped
together. However, if a compound proposition is written in English then a
comma is used to indicate which simple statements are grouped together.

• Do ~(p Λ q) and ~p Λ q differ in meaning?

• Example: Let p, q, and r represent the following.

p: You get a promotion.
q: You complete the training.
r: You will receive a bonus.
Write the following proposition in symbolic form:
“If you do not complete the training, then you will not get a promotion and you will not
receive a bonus.”
Answer: ~q → (~p Λ ~r).
• More Example: Consider the following simple statements.
p: Today is Friday.
q: It is raining.
r: I am going to a movie.
s: I am not going to the basketball game.
Write the following compound statements in symbolic form.
1.) Today is not Friday and I am going to a movie.
2.) I am going to the basketball game or I am not going to a movie.
3.) I am going to a movie if and only if it is not raining.
4.) If today is Friday then I am not going to the basketball game.
• More Example: Consider the following statements.
p: The game will be played in Atlanta.
q: The game will be shown on CBS.
r: The game will not be shown on ESPN.
s: The Mets are favored to win.
Write each of the following symbolic statements in words.
1.) p Λ q
2.) q V ~r
3.) ~p → s
 Tautologies and Contradictions
• A tautology is a proposition that is always true. A contradiction is a
proposition that is always false.

• Example: Using truth table, determine if each is a tautology, a contradiction, or neither.

1. (~p Λ (q → p)) → q.
2. p Λ ~p
3. p V ~ p
Answer: 1. Neither
2. Contradiction p p Λ ~p
T F
F F

3. Tautology p p V ~p
T T
F T
• Example: Determine if each is a tautology, a contradiction, or neither.
1. My shirt is red.
2. My shirt is red and my shirt is not red.
3. My shirt is red or my shirt is not red.

Answer:
1. Neither
2. Contradiction
3. Tautology
 B. QUANTIFIERS
• From the previous section, we concluded that x>3 is not a proposition.
We write p(x):x>3 and look at it as a propositional function. How to make it a
proposition?
• First, by assigning specific values to the variable x.
• Second, by quantification. In this case, we need a set D which will act as a
domain containing possible values for the variable and the following
quantifiers:

i.) Universal Quantifier: “for all”

- we use the notation “Ɐ” and for propositional function p(x) and
domain D, “ x  D, p(”xis ) true whenever p(x) is true for every
substitution of values of x from D. Otherwise, it is false.
 ii.) Existential Quantifier: “there exists”
- we use the notation “Ǝ” and for propositional function p(x) and
domain D, “ x  D  p(x) ” is true whenever p(x) is true for at least
one substitution of value of x from D. Otherwise, it is false.

• If the domain is finite, say, D = {x1,x2,...,xn}:

ⱯxϵD, p(x) can be interpreted as p(x1)Λp(x2)Λ...Λp(xn) ;
ƎxϵD ϶ p(x) can be interpreted as p(x1)Vp(x2)V...Vp(xn) .
• To negate quantified statements:
~(ⱯxϵD, p(x)) ↔ ƎxϵD ϶ ~p(x)
~(ƎxϵD ϶ p(x)) ↔ ⱯxϵD, ~p(x)
• Example: Consider the propositional function p(x):x>3. Let D1 = {1,2,3,4,5}, D2 = {0,1,2},
D3 = {4,5,6}. Determine if each is true or false.
1. ⱯxϵD1, x>3.
2. Ǝ xϵD1 ϶ x>3.
3. ⱯxϵD2, x>3.
4. Ǝ xϵD2 ϶ x>3.
5. ⱯxϵD3, x>3.
6. Ǝ xϵD3 ϶ x>3.

Answer:
1. F
2. T
3. F
4. F
5. T
6. T
• Example: Let p(x): “x is a logic student” and q(x): “x understands quantifiers”. Let D be a set of
students, not necessarily logic students. Consider the following statements.
a.) All logic students understand quantifiers.
b.) Every student is a logic student and understands quantifiers.
c.) There is a logic student who does not understand quantifiers.
1. Transform each of the statements into symbolic form.
2. Give the negation of each statement.

Answer:
1. a.) ⱯxϵD, p(x) → q(x).
b.) ⱯxϵD, p(x) Λ q(x).
c.) ƎxϵD ϶ (p(x) Λ ~q(x)).
2.
a.) ~(ⱯxϵD, p(x) → q(x)) ↔ ƎxϵD ϶ ~(p(x) →q(x)) ↔ ƎxϵD ϶ (p(x) Λ ~q(x))
English: There exists a student which is a logic student but does not understand
quantifiers.

b.) ~(ⱯxϵD, p(x) Λ q(x)) ↔ ƎxϵD ϶ (~p(x) V ~q(x))

English: There is a student which is not a logic student or does not understand
quantifiers.

c.) ~(ƎxϵD ϶ (p(x) Λ ~q(x))) ↔ ⱯxϵD, (p(x) → q(x))

English: If the student is a logic student then the student understand quantifiers.
 Multiple Quantifiers
• Many statements in mathematics involve more than one quantifier.

• Consider the following:

1.) For evey even integer n, there exists an integer k such that
n = 2k.
2.) For every odd integer n, there exists an integer k such that
n = 2k + 1.
3.) Let f : A → B and a ϵ A. Then f is continuous at a if and only
if for any ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that for any x ϵ A
where |x - a| < δ, |f(x) - f(a)| < ε.
• Example: Let q(x,y): “x ≥ y” with x ϵ S = {1, 2} and y ϵ T = {-1, 1, 3}. Determine the truth value
of each of the following.
1. ⱯxϵS, ƎyϵT ϶ q(x,y).
2. ƎxϵS ϶ ⱯyϵT, q(x,y).
3. ⱯxϵS, ⱯyϵT, q(x,y).
4. ƎxϵS ϶ ƎyϵT ϶ q(x,y).

Answer:
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
 C. Arguments
• An argument consists of a set of propositions called premises and
another proposition called the conclusion. An argument is valid if the
conclusion is true whenever all the premises are assumed to be true.
Otherwise, we say it is invalid.
• In symbol, suppose p1, p2, ... , pn are the premises and q is the conclusion.
Then an argument is of the form
(p1 Λ p2 Λ ... Λ pn) → q.

•Another way of writing an argument is: p1

p2
.
.
.
pn
q
• Example: 1. p1: If Aristotle was human then Aristotle was mortal.
p2: Aristotle was human.
 q : Therefore, Aristotle was mortal.

2. p1: The fish is fresh or I will not order the fish.

p2: The fish is fresh.
 q : Therefore, I will order the fish.

3. p1: If she does not get on the plane then she will regret it.
p2: She does not regret it.
 q : Therefore, she gets on the plane.
• Example: Write the first two arguments above in symbolic forms using its simple
propositions.
Answer:
1. Let p: Aristotle was human;
q: Aristotle was mortal.

p→q
 p__ that is, ((p → q) Λ p) → q.
q

2. Let p: The fish is fresh;

q: I will order the fish.

p V ~q
 p__ that is, ((p V ~q) Λ p) → q.
q
 How to determine the validity of an argument?

• Using Truth Table to Determine the Validity of an Argument

i.) Transform the argument in symbolic form.

ii.) Construct a truth table that shows the truth value of each premise
and the truth value of the conclusion for all combinations of truth
values of the simple propositions.

iii.) If the conclusion is true in every row of the truth table in which all
the premises are true, the argument is valid. If the conclusion is
false in some row in which all the premises are true, the argument
is invalid.
• Example: Determine if each of the arguments is valid or invalid using truth tables.
1. p → q 2. p V ~q
p____ p____
q  q

Answer: 1. Valid p q ((p → q) Λ p) → q

T T T
T F T
F T T
F F T

2. Invalid p q ((p V ~q) Λ p) → q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
• When the number of simple propositions grow large, truth table procedure
becomes inefficient. Thus, we make use of a list of verified tautologies in
writing a sequence of statements which starts from the premises and ends
up with the conclusion. We do this via a two-column table.

• In this demonstration of validity, we make use of a list of well-known

tautologies. We anchor our propositions and reasons from them.

• Example: Prove the validity of the following argument.

I will not go to Japan or I will go to Hong Kong.
If I visit my uncle then I will go to Singapore.
If I go to Hong Kong then I will not go to Singapore.
If I go to Japan then I will not visit my uncle.
Answer: Proposition Reason

Let p: I will go to Japan;

q: I will go to Hong Kong; 1. ~p V q Premise
r: I will visit my uncle;
2. r → s Premise
s: I will go to Singapore.
3. q → ~s Premise
Thus, the symbolic form of the argument
above is 4. s → ~q Contrapositive (3)
~p V q
5. r → ~q Hypothetical Syllogism
r→s (2,4)
q → ~s 6. q → ~r Contrapositive (5)
 p →~r
7. p → q Implication a (1)

8. p → ~r Hypothetical Syllogism
(6,7)
• Example: Determine whether the following argument is valid.

If I read a literature book then I start to fall asleep .

If I start to fall asleep then I drink soda.
If I drink soda then I eat a candy bar.
 If I read a literature book then I eat a candy bar.
Answer:
Let p: I read a literature book; Proposition Reason
q: I start to fall asleep ;
r: I drink soda; 1. p → q Premise
s: I eat a candy bar.
2. q → r Premise
Thus, the symbolic form of the argument
3. r → s Premise
above is
p→q 4. p → r Hypothetical Syllogism
q→r (1,2)
r→s 5. p → s Hypothetical Syllogism
 p→s (4,3)
Example: Prove the validity of each of the arguments or provide a counter-example.
1. r→t 2. s V ~t
~p →r r → ~s
~t r_____
 p  t
Answer:
1.Valid Proposition Reason
1. r → t Premise

2. ~p → r Premise

3. ~t Premise

4. ~r Modus Tollens (1,3)

5. p Modus Tollens (2,4)

2. Invalid
 Exercise on Proving Arguments
1. Prove the following argument:
(p Λ q) V (p → q)
~p V ~ q_______
~p V q
a.) using truth table
b.) using the two-column proof.

2. Transform the following argument to symbolic form and prove using the two-column proof.
If he reads the manuscript then he will like it.
If he likes it then he will publish it.
If he publishes it then you will get royalties.
You did not get royalties.________________
Therefore, he did not read the manuscript.
 D. Proof Methods
• What do we do in mathematics?

• A theorem is a mathematical statement whose truth is established by a

logical sequence of mathematical propositions called proof.

• A theorem can always be expressed in a conditional form.

• An Example of a Theorem:
Theorem 1: If m and n are even integers then m + n is an even integer.

• With Quantifiers: Let Z be the set of all integers. We can write this theorem as:
Theorem 1: Ɐm ϵ Z, Ɐn ϵ Z, ((m is even) Λ (n is even)) → (m+n is an even integer).
 Let us now introduce the three fundamental proof methods.

A. Direct Proof
- we start by assuming the hypothesis and develop a sequence of
logical-mathematical consequences until we reach the conclusion.

Theorem 1: If m and n are even integers then m + n is an even integer.

Proof of Theorem 1:
Suppose m and n are even integers. By the definition of even integers,
there exist integers k and s such that m = 2k and n = 2s. It follows that
m+n = 2k+2s = 2(k+s)
where k+s must also be an integer. Thus, m+n is an even integer. □
 Note that for a theorem p→q, contrapositive tautology provides: p → q ≡ ~q → ~p.
That is, to prove p→q, it is enough to show ~q → ~p.

B. Contrapositive Proof
- we assume the negation of the conclusion and develop a sequence of
logical-mathematical consequences until we reach the negation of the
hypothesis.

Theorem 1: Let m and n be integers. If m and n are even then m + n is an even integer.
Proof of Theorem 1:
Suppose m and n are integers. Assume m+n is not even; that is, odd. Then there
exists integer k such that m + n = 2k + 1. Now, either m is even or odd. If m is odd, we are
done. Suppose m is even. Then there exists an integer s such that m = 2s. This implies
that
n = (m + n) - m = 2k + 1 - 2s = 2(k - s) + 1
where k - s must be an integer. Hence, n is a odd integer and this completes the proof. □
 For a theorem p→q, the reductio ad absurdum principle says: p → q ≡ (pΛ~q) → c
where c is a contradiction. That is, to prove p→q, it is enough to show that assuming p
and ~q always implies a contradiction or inconsistency.

C. Proof by Contradiction
- we assume the hypothesis with the negation of the conclusion and
develop a sequence of logical-mathematical consequences until we
reach a contradiction.

Theorem 1: If m and n are even integers then m + n is an even integer.

Proof of Theorem 1:
Suppose m and n are even integers with m + n is odd. Then there exist integers
k and s such that m = 2k and m + n = 2s + 1.This means that
n = (m + n) - m = 2s + 1 - 2k = 2(s - k) + 1
where s - k must be an integer. Thus, n is an odd integer. This contradicts our
assumption that n is even. This completes the proof. □
• Example: Provide detailed proofs for the following.
1.) If m and n are odd integers then m - n is even.
2.) If m and n are odd integers then mn is odd.
3.) Let n be an integer. If n2 is even then n is even.
4.) There are infinitely many prime numbers.
 E. Mathematical Induction
• Denote by N the set of all natural numbers; that is, N = {1,2,3,...}. Several
times, we encounter statements involving the natural numbers.

1
• Example: 1 .)  n  N , 1  2  ...  n  n ( n  1 ).
2
2 .)  n  N , 3 | n 3  n .
n
 3 
3 .)  n  N , n  13 , n    .
2

 2 

• To prove these statements, we need a special property of natural

numbers.
• Principle of Mathematical Induction (PMI): Let S be a subset of N with the
property that
i.) 1 ϵ S;
ii.) Ɐk ϵ N, if k ϵ S then k + 1 ϵ S.
Then S = N.

For application: we let S be the set of all natural numbers in which a given
property is satisfied.
 1
Theorem 2: nN,1 2 ... n  n(n 1).
2
Proof: Let S be the set of all natural numbers such that the property is true. We show that S = N
by proving parts (i) and (ii) in PMI. Firstly, take n = 1. Then
1 1
(1)(1  1)  ( 2)  1
2 2
and so 1 ϵ S. Secondly, assume k ϵ S. That is,
1
1  ...  k k ( k  1).
2
1
This implies 1  ...  k  ( k  1)  k ( k  1)  ( k  1)
2
 ( k  1)k  2 
1
2
1
 ( k  1)(( k  1)  1).
2
Hence, k +1 ϵ S. By PMI, S = N. Therefore, the statement is true for every natural number. □
• Analysis of the proof using PMI
Base Step: Prove for the least element, in this case, n = 1. Show that
the property is satisfied by 1.
Induction Hypothesis: Assume that the property is satisfied by a
k ϵ N.
Prove for k + 1: We prove that k + 1 satisfies the property.

Theorem 3: n  N,3 | n3  n.

Proof: This is a good exercise. □

• Generalized PMI: Let Z be the set of all integers; that is,
Z = {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}.
Let S be a subset of Z with the property that
i.) no ϵ S
ii.) Ɐk ϵ Z, k ≥ no,if k ϵ S then k + 1 ϵ S.
Then {nZ : n  no}S.
n
3
Theorem 4: n  Z , n  13, n    .
2

2
Proof: Let S be the set of all integers such that the statement is true. Take no=13. Note that
13
1594323  3 
132  169    .
8192 2 k
3
Thus, 13 ϵ S. Let k ϵ Z such that k ≥13. Assume k satisfies the property; that is, k2    .
2
It follows that
2 2 k k 1
 1 2  1  2 3 2 33 3
k  1  1   k  1   k  k      
2
.
 k  13  2 22 2
Thus, k + 1 ϵ S. By Generalized PMI, n  Z : n  13  S and so the property is true for
all n ϵ Z with n ≥ 13. □

Theorem 5: Ɐn ϵ Z, n ≥ 4, 2n < n!.

Proof: This is a good exercise. □
 Well-Ordering Principle
(WOP): Let S be a non-empty set of natural numbers. Then S has a least
element.

Theorem 5: 2 is irrational.

r
Proof: Suppose 2 .
2 is rational; that is, there exist natural numbers r and s such that
s
Consider the set S = {k ϵ N : k = n 2 for some n ϵ N}. Since r  s 2 , r ϵ S and so S is non-
empty. By WOP, S has a least element say x. Thus, there exists y ϵ N such that x  y 2. Now,
y    
2  1  x  y.Because 0  2  1  1, 0  x  y  y 2  1  y and it follows that
x  y 2  x  y  2  S .
This contradicts the minimality of x in S. Therefore, 2 must be irrational. □
Theorem 6: Let a and b be natural numbers. Then there exist integers q,r such that a = bq + r
with 0  r  b .
Proof: This is a challenging exercise. (Hint: Form the set S = {a - bk : k ϵ Z, a  bk  0} ). □

More Exercises: Prove the following theorems using PMI or WOP.

1.) n  N ,1  3  5  ...  (2n  1)  n
2

n(n  1)( 2n  1)
2.) n  N ,12  2 2  ...  n 2 
6
3.) n  N ,3 | 4 n
2

4.) Ɐn ϵ N, any non-empty set of cardinality n has 2n subsets.

 PMI and WOP

Theorem 7: PMI → WOP.

Proof: Assume the PMI. Suppose S is a non-empty subset of N. We do this by contradiction,
assume S does not have a least element. Consider the complement N\S. Define the set
T = {x ϵ N : Ɐ1≤ y ≤ x, y ϵ N\S}. If 1 ϵ S then it will become the least element of S which
contradicts our assumption. Thus, 1 ϵ N\S. By definition of T, 1 ϵ T. Suppose k ϵ T. Then 1,...,k
are elements of N\S. If k + 1 ϵ S then it becomes the least element of S, which contradicts the
assumption. Thus, k + 1 ϵ N\S. Since 1,..., k - 1, k, k + 1 are all in N\S, then k + 1 ϵ T. By PMI, T
= N. Since T  N \ S  N, N\S = N and S = Ø. This is absurd. Our proof is complete. □

Theorem 8: WOP → PMI.

Proof: This is another challenging exercise. □
Para sa Matematika!
Para sa nasod!