1

Exercises
1. Construct the truth table for
(p q) (q p).
Based on the truth table of this proposition, discuss how you can use the methods of proof
to prove a biconditional statement.

p
t
t
f
f

q
t
f
t
f

pq
t
f
t
t

qp
t
t
f
t

(p q) (q p)
t
f
f
t

To say that a certain biconditional statement p q holds true, it should first be proven (i.e.
by using methods of proof) that both p q and q p are both true.
2. Show that the set of integers, Z , is a subset of the set of rational numbers Q.

Proof. We need to show that x Z, x Q.

Property 1. x Z, x = 1x.
Based on the property above, 1 divides all x Z.
Definition 1. r Q if and only if there exists a, b Z such that r = ab , where b 6= 0.
Obviously, 1 6= 0 and 1 Z.
Therefore, by Definition 1, x Z, x Q.
3. Prove that the product of three consecutive integers is divisible by 3.

Proof. We need to show that 3|(n(n + 1)(n + 2)) where n Z.

Theorem 1. Given any integer a and b > 0, there exist unique integers q and r such that
a = bq + r.
Using the theorem above, note that when b = 3, for all a Z, the value of r will always be
equal to 0, 1, or 2.
So for all three consecutive integers n, (n + 1), and (n + 2), each integer will have a corresponding value for r (i.e. 0, 1 or 2).

... -4 -3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...

Also there will always be one and only one from those three numbers that will be divisible
by 3 (i.e. when r = 0) regardless of its position (first, second or third), as seen from above.
The integer divisible by 3 can be expressed as the product 3k where k Z.
For this, we will have three possible cases:
Case 1: n = 3k, n + 1 = 3k + 1, and n + 2 = 3k + 2.
Multiplying everything we get: 3k(3k + 1)(3k + 2), which is clearly divisible by 3.
Case 2: n = 3k 1, n + 1 = 3k, and n + 2 = 3k + 1
Multiplying everything we get 3k(3k 1)(3k + 1), which is also clearly divisible by 3.
Case 3: n = 3k 2, n + 1 = 3k 1, and n + 2 = 3k.
Multiplying everything we get: 3k(3k 1)(3k 2), which is again, clearly divisible by 3.
This proves that regardless, n Z, n(n + 1)(n + 2) will always be divisible by 3.
4. Prove that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is irrational.
Proof. We need to show that for R Q and I
/ Q, R + Q
/ Q. First, we assume the
contrary, i.e. R + I Q.
Suppose that S = R + I.
According to Definition 1, we can express R as xy , and S as another ratio, say m
n , where x, y,
m and n are all integers.
Now we have the following expression.
m
x
= +I
n
y
But solving for I, we shall get the following expression,
I=

m x

n
y

which we know will evaluate to a rational number because the set Q is closed under the
operation subtraction.
This contradicts our assumption that I is irrational.
Therefore, we are left to conclude that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number
is indeed irrational.

5. Does there exist an integer, x, such that x = x1 ?

Proof. We need to show that x Z, x = x1 .
First we take x = 1 and by simple substitution, we can confirm that it satisfies our existential
proposition above (1 = 11 ).
6. Disprove the claim that there is a positive integer n such that n2 + 3n + 2 is a prime number.
Proof. We are to disprove that n Z+ such that n2 + 3n + 2 is a prime number.
Algebraically, n2 + 3n + 2 can be factored into (n + 2)(n + 1).
The result will then depend on 2 cases:
2

Case 1: n is even.
If n is even, it can be expressed as 2k for some k Z+ .
By substitution, we get (2k + 2)(2k + 1).
Note that we can factor out 2 from (2k + 2), and that tells us that the result will not be
in any way prime.
Case 2: n is odd.
If n is odd, it can be expressed as 2k + 1 for some k Z+
Likewise, by substitution, we get (2k + 3)(2k + 2).
Similarly, we could factor out 2 from (2k + 2), and the result will certainly be not a
prime number.
All cases considered, we just proved that n Z+ , n2 + 3n + 2 is definitely not prime.

Exercises
1. Generalized Distributive Property of Sets. Show that for all integers n 2, for all sets
A, B1 , B2 , ..., Bn :
A (B1 B2 ... Bn ) = (A B1 ) (A B2 ) ... (A Bn )
Let X = A (B1 B2 ... Bn ) and x X.
In English, this is simply x is in A and in B1 B2 ... Bn , which also means that x is
in A B1 , or in A B2 , or in ..., or in A Bn .
Translating back to set notation, we get: X {x|x (A B1 ) (A B2 ) ...} which
is basically, the set in the right hand side of the equation.
Let Y = (A B1 ) (A B2 ) ... (A Bn )
In English, this is again simply y is in A and B1 , or in A and B2 , or in ..., or in A and
Bn , which also says that y A and in (B1 , or in B2 , ..., or in Bn .
Translating back to set notation, we get Y {y|y A (B1 B2 ... Bn )}.
We have just proven that X, the set on the left-hand side of the equation, and Y, the set
on the right-hand side of the equation are subsets of each other. Thus, the set equality
A (B1 B2 ... Bn ) = (A B1 ) (A B2 ) ... (A Bn ) holds true for all n 2.
2. Generalized De Morgans Law for Logic Expressions. Show that for all integers n 2,
for all proposition p1 , p2 , ..., pn :
(p1 p2 ... pn ) = p1 p2 ... pn
Let X = (p1 p2 ... pn ) and Y = p1 p2 ... pn
For any theorem A = B, if we can show that A B = 0, and that A B = 1, then
by the complement postulates, M M = 0 and M M = 1, A = B.
X = (p1 p2 ...) by Double Negation.
First we prove that X Y is false.
X Y = (p1 p2 ...pn ) (p1 p2 ...pn ) (P1 p2 ...pn )p1 (P1 p2 ...pn )p2 ... by
Distributive Property. (p1 p1 p1 p2 ...)(p1 p2 p2 p2 ...)... by Distributive Property
again.
3

For all propositions joined by the disjunction symbol, there will always be values similar
to p1 p1 . Those values will always be equal to false no matter what because of the
Negation Law. Thus, X Y indeed has a value of false.
Next we prove that X Y is true.
(p1 p2 ...) (p1 p2 ...) as it is given.
(p1 (p1 p2 ...)) (p2 (p1 p2 ...))... simply because (B A) A = (B A) (C A).
By associativity it can be expressed as: (p1 p1 ) (p2 ...pn )....
All the propositions similar to p1 p1 will always evaluate to true and thus the result
of all the propositions conjuncted with that shall be evaluated to true.
Hence, X Y is true.
We already proved that (p1 p2 ... pn ) (p1 p2 ... pn ) is false, and (p1 p2
... pn ) (p1 p2 ... pn ) is true. Thus, (p1 p2 ... pn ) = p1 p2 ... pn
is indeed true.

Exercises
1. Prove or disprove: If a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational.

Proof.
Let a = 2 and b = 21 . Both numbers are clearly rational.

1
Then ab = a 2 = 2 which clearly cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers and which
is thus, irrational.
We have presented a case that have just disproved the claim that if a and b are rational
numbers, then ab is rational.

2. Prove that for all integers n, n is either even or odd but not both.
Proof.
Case 1: n is even
If n is even, then it can be expressed as n = 2k for some integer k.
Adding 1 to both sides, we get: (n + 1) = 2k + 1.
By definition, (n + 1) is odd.
Case 2: n is odd
If n is odd, then it can be expressed as n = 2m + 1 for some integer l.
Adding 1 to both sides we get: (n + 1) = (2m + 2).
From this we can factor out 2 and so were left with: (n + 1) = 2(m + 1), which is clearly
even by definition.
Conclusion
We have just arrived to a contradiction, thus for all integers n, n is either even or odd
but not both is not true.

3. Prove that given a real number x, there exists unique numbers n and , such that x = n ,
n is an integer, and 0  < 1.
Proof.
Case 1: x Z
For all x that satisfies the condition for this case, x can clearly be expressed as x = n 
where n = x and  = 0.
Case 2: x
/Z
For all x that satisfies the condition for this case, x can be expressed as x = dxe (x
bx rf loor) where by definition, dxe is an integer and 0 (x bx rf loor) < 1.
Conclusion
For all possible cases, it is indeed true that given a real number x, there exists unique
numbers n and , such that x = n , n is an integer, and 0  < 1.

4. Prove that the terms of the sequence {an } defined as:

a1 = 1, a2 = 3
n 3, an = an2 + 2an1 are all odd numbers.
Proof.
a3 = 1 + 2(3) = 7 and
a4 = 3 + 2(7) = 17 ...
Clearly, an even number when added to an odd number results to an odd number:
Let m = 2k, an even number and n = 2k + 1, an odd number.
Therefore, m + n = 2(2k) + 1 which is obviously odd.
For all n 3, an = an2 + 2an1 , an2 always be odd since all preceding terms of an are odd,
and 2(an1 ) is even by definition.
This clearly proves that for all n 3, an = an2 + 2an1 , an will always be odd.
5. n 6, n! > 2n3

Proof.
i. Base case: n = 6
6! > 2(6)3
720 > 432, thus the base case holds true.
ii. Induction step: Assume true for n = k where k 6:
k! > 2k 3
5

We need to show that it is also true for n = k + 1:

(k + 1)! > 2(k + 1)3
(k + 1)(k!) 2(k + 1)3 > 0
Also, (k + 1)(2k 3 ) 2(k + 1)3 > 0
But based on our assumption, k! > 2k 3 .
Thus, (k + 1)(k!) 2(k + 1)3 > (k + 1)(2k 3 ) 2(k + 1)3 .
Removing 2(k + 1)3 from both sides, we get (k + 1)(k!) > (k + 1)(2k 3 ).
Dividing both sides with (k + 1) which is clearly positive, we finally arrive to k! > 2k 3
which was supposed to be true.
Thus the proposition is true for n = k + 1 and n 6, n! > 2n3 .