0% found this document useful (0 votes)
192 views100 pages

Chapter 1 Part 3

Uploaded by

Nina Ad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
192 views100 pages

Chapter 1 Part 3

Uploaded by

Nina Ad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 100

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

Sec*on 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
Revisi*ng 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 Proposi*onal
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
Proposi*onal 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.

Hypothe*cal Syllogism
Corresponding
Tautology:
((p q) (qr))(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.

Disjunc*ve 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.

Addi*on
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.

Simplifica*on (Weakening)
Corresponding
Tautology:
(pq) 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.

Conjunc*on
Corresponding
Tautology:
(
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.
Resolu*on
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
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 Quan*fied
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 Instan*a*on
(UI)

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

All dogs are cuddly.

Therefore, Fido is cuddly.

Universal Generaliza*on
(UG)
Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs.

Existen*al Instan*a*on
(EI)
Example:

There is someone who got an A in the


course.
Lets call her a and say that a got
an A

Existen*al
Generaliza*on (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
Solu*on 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
Sec*on Summary
Mathematical Proofs
Forms of Theorems
Direct Proofs
Indirect Proofs
Proof of the
Contrapositive
Proof by Contradiction
Proofs of Mathema*cal
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

Defini*ons
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 Condi*onal
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 learn
more about the integers in Chapter
4.

Proving Condi*onal
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 Condi*onal
Statements: p q
Definition: The real number
r is rational if there exist
integers p and q where q0
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
w where v
= pu + qt

Thus
the
sum
is rational.

Proving Condi*onal
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 Condi*onal
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 Condi*onal
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 Tp 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 Contradic*on
A preview of Chapter 4.

: Use a proof by contradiction to give


a proof that 2 is
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 Contradic*on
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 Bicondi*onal
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 unde\ined.

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

Sec*on 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. c
2. b
3. c
4. a
5. b
a
6. Continued on next slide

Proof by Cases
Case
(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 xy 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)

Nonconstruc*ve 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.

2
is irrational. Consider the
numbers x and y with xy rational,
namely x = 2 and y = 2.
But if 2 2 is irrational,
then we can let x
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, ). The two parts of a
uniqueness proof are
Existence: We show that an element x
with the property exists.
Uniqueness: We show that if yx, 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.
I
f this doesnt 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 Quan*fied
Asser*ons
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 Quan*fied
Asser*ons
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 Quan*fied
Asser*ons
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. Fermats
Last Theorem was conjectured more
than 300 years ago. It has only
recently been finally solved.
Fermats
Last
Theorem:
The
equation
xn

= zn
has no solutions in integers x, y,
and z, with xyz0 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(
40/2 = 20, T( 20/2 =
10,
T( 10/2 = 5, T(5) =
16/2 = 8,
T(8) = 8/2 = 4, T(4) = 4/2 = 2,
T(2) = 2/2 = 1
The conjecture has been veri\ied using
computers up to 5.6 1013 .
Addi*onal Proof
Methods
Later we will see many other
proof methods:
Mathematical induction, which is a
useful method for proving
statements of the form ),
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.

You might also like