Scribd
Upload
87 views

Methods of Proof

The document defines and explains different methods of proof in mathematics: 1. Direct proof involves assuming the hypothesis is true and deducing that the conclusion is true using rules of inference, axioms, and definitions. 2. Indirect proof or proof by contradiction assumes the hypothesis and negation of the conclusion to derive a contradiction. 3. Proof by contrapositive gives a direct proof that the negation of the conclusion implies the negation of the hypothesis. 4. Proof by cases proves each possible case separately to show the overall statement is true. The document provides examples of direct proofs, indirect proofs, and proof by contraposition to illustrate how each type of proof is structured. It explains the key aspects

Uploaded by

Joyce Clark Malasador Serencio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views

Methods of Proof

The document defines and explains different methods of proof in mathematics: 1. Direct proof involves assuming the hypothesis is true and deducing that the conclusion is true using rules of inference, axioms, and definitions. 2. Indirect proof or proof by contradiction assumes the hypothesis and negation of the conclusion to derive a contradiction. 3. Proof by contrapositive gives a direct proof that the negation of the conclusion implies the negation of the hypothesis. 4. Proof by cases proves each possible case separately to show the overall statement is true. The document provides examples of direct proofs, indirect proofs, and proof by contraposition to illustrate how each type of proof is structured. It explains the key aspects

Uploaded by

Joyce Clark Malasador Serencio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 27

METHODS OF PROOF

Silverlee Dolendo BSEd – II


Mathematics
PROOF is a convincing argument.

We
MATHEMATICIANS
tend to have an
extraordinary high
standards for what
is convincing.
Definition of
Te r m s
Proof Mathematical Axiom
Proof

-is a list of
- an evidence or statements in which -is a statement that
argument every statement is is assumed
establishing or one of the following: to be true, or in the
helping to establish (1) an axiom case of a
a fact or the truth of (2) derived from mathematical
a statement. previous statements system, is used to
by a rule specify the system.
of inference
(3) a previously
Definition of
Te r m s

An axiom is a proposition that we assume to be true without any


justification (other than, perhaps, because our intuition says so).
Because axioms are unjustified propositions we try to avoid
creating too many of them. A theorem is a proposition which we
justify by means of a proof.
Definition of
Te r m s
Mathematical Mathematical Logical Rule of
Rule of Argument Inference
Inference
-is a list of
-is a method for statements. Its last -is a method
deriving a new statement is called that depends on
statement that may the logic alone for
depend on conclusion. deriving a new
inferential rules of a statement from a
mathematical set of other
system as well as statements.
on logic.
 The goal of the proof is to show
that the conclusion logically follows
the given propositions (or premises).

 For the content of the proof, each


propositions must be a valid
assertion: they must be based on a
given statement
( premise), or they must follow from
the premise via logical equivalences
or rules of inferences.
TYPES
OF
PROOFS
Suppose we wish to prove an implication
p → q. Here are some strategies we have
•Direct Proof: Assumeavailable
p, and thento
usetry.
the rules of
inference, axioms, definitions, and logical equivalences to
prove q.
• Indirect Proof or Proof by Contradiction : Assume p and ¬q
and derive a contradiction r ∧ ¬r.
•Proof by Contrapositive: (Special case of Proof by
Contradiction.) Give a direct proof of ¬q → ¬p. Assume ¬q
and then use the rules of inference, axioms, definitions,
and logical equivalences to prove ¬p.(Can be thought of as
a proof by contradiction in which you assume p and ¬q and
arrive at the contradiction p ∧ ¬p.)
Suppose we wish to prove an implication
p → q. Here are some strategies we have
available
•Proof by Cases: If the hypothesisto try.be separated into
p can
cases p 1 ∨ p 2 ∨ · · · ∨ p k , prove each of the propositions, p 1
→ q, p 2 → q, . . . , p k → q, separately. (You may use
different methods of proof for different cases.)
•Trivial Proof: If we know q is true then p → q is true
regardless of the truth value of p.
• Vacuous Proof: If p is a conjunction of other hypotheses
and we know one or more of these hypotheses is false,
then p is false and so p → q is vacuously true regardless of
the truth value of q.
DIRECT PROOFS
-A direct proof is a mathematical argument that uses
rules of inference to derive the conclusion from the
premises.
-Direct proof employs the method of assuming the
hypothesis to be true and then logically deducing that
the conclusion is true using known facts.
Direct proof of P ⟹ Q. If  P then  Q.

Proof

Assume P is TRUE

Therefore, Q is TRUE
Thus, P⟹Q.
 In the statement occurred
Let x be an integer. If x is odd, then x+1 is even.
the sentence, “let x be an
Let x be an odd integer. odd integer.” This is not the
antecedent of the
 x= 2k+1 for some integer k ∈ Z implication (which is “if x is
Then x+1=2k+2=2(k+1) an odd integer”), but is
 Since the sum of two integers is an rather something called
integer, k+1∈ Z and therefore, a hypothesis, which
x+1= 2(k+1)  is even provides the context in
Hence, if x is odd, then x+1 is even. which the theorem takes
place. In this case, we
would be unable to say
that x is odd (or even, for
that matter) unless x is an
integer.
INDIRECT PROOFS
-An indirect proof uses rules of inference on the negation of the
conclusion and on some of the premises to derive the negation
of a premise.
-Indirect proof whereas hangs upon the idea that assuming
the conjecture to be false we lead to a contradiction which in
turn leads to the case the conjecture should be true.
PROOF BY
 -  isCONTRADICTION
often regarded as completely strange
when first encountered, but you will become
used to it after a while. This proof technique
essentially relies on two facts.

•If you assume something is true (say R) and


then reach a contradiction, the thing you
assumed must have been false (¬R).
•For any proposition, (¬ ¬R)  is equivalent
to R.
PROOF BY
CONTRADICTION
PROOF BY
 -InCONTRAPOSITIVE
this proof technique, instead of
proving the implication directly, we
instead prove its contrapositive directly,
and then use the stated equivalence.
Proof by contraposition of P⟹Q. . If  P then Q.

Proof

Assume ¬Q , therefore ¬P.

 Hence, (¬Q) ⟹ (¬P).
Therefore P⟹Q .
PROOF BY CASES
-Show a statement is true by showing all possible cases are true
Proof by cases of (P ∨ Q) ⟹ R. If either  P or  Q, then R.
LET’S TRY
LET’S TRY
THE END

You might also like