Proofs

Sections 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 of Rosen

 Outline
• Motivation
• Terminology
• Rules of inference:
• Modus ponens, addition, simplification, conjunction, modus tollens, contrapositive,
hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, resolution,
• Examples
• Fallacies
• Proofs with quantifiers
• Types of proofs:
• Trivial, vacuous, direct, by contrapositive (indirect), by contradiction
(indirect), by cases, existence and uniqueness proofs; counter examples
• Proof strategies:
• Forward chaining; Backward chaining; Alerts

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 2

 Motivation (1)
• “Mathematical proofs, like diamonds, are hard
and clear, and will be touched with nothing
but strict reasoning.”

-John Locke
• Mathematical proofs are, in a sense, the only
true knowledge we have
• They provide us with a guarantee as well as an
explanation (and hopefully some insight)
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 3
 Motivation (2)
• Mathematical proofs are necessary in CS
– You must always (try to) prove that your algorithm
• terminates
• is sound, complete, optimal
• finds optimal solution
– You may also want to show that it is more efficient than
another method
– Proving certain properties of data structures may lead to
new, more efficient or simpler algorithms
– Arguments may entail assumptions. You may want to
prove that the assumptions are valid
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 4
 Terminology
• A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true (via a proof)
• A proof is a sequence of statements that form an argument
• Axioms or postulates are statements taken to be self evident or assumed
to be true
• A lemma (plural lemmas or lemmata) is a theorem useful within the proof
of a theorem
• A corollary is a theorem that can be established from theorem that has
just been proven
• A proposition is usually a ‘less’ important theorem
• A conjecture is a statement whose truth value is unknown
• The rules of inference are the means used to draw conclusions from other
assertions, and to derive an argument or a proof

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 5

 Theorems: Example
• Theorem
– Let a, b, and c be integers. Then
• If a|b and a|c then a|(b+c)
• If a|b then a|bc for all integers c
• If a|b and b|c, then a|c
• Corrolary:
– If a, b, and c are integers such that a|b and a|c, then a|
mb+nc whenever m and n are integers
• What is the assumption? What is the conclusion?

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 6

 Proofs: A General How to (1)
• An argument is valid
– If, whenever all the hypotheses are true,
– Then, the conclusion also holds
• From a sequence of assumptions, p1, p2, …, pn,
you draw the conclusion p. That is:
(p1  p2  …  pn)  q

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 7

 Proofs: A General How to (2)
• Usually a proof involves proving a theorem via
intermediate steps
• Example
– Consider the theorem ‘If x>0 and y>0, then x+y>0’
– What are the assumptions?
– What is the conclusion?
– What steps should we take?
– Each intermediate step in the proof must be justified.

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 8

 Outline
• Motivation
• Terminology
• Rules of inference
• Modus ponens, addition, simplification, conjunction, modus
tollens, contrapositive, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive
syllogism, resolution,
• Examples
• Fallacies
• Proofs with quantifiers
• Types of proofs
• Proof strategies
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 9
 Rules of Inference
• Recall the handout on the course web page
– http://www.cse.unl.edu/~cse235/files/LogicalEqui
valences.pdf
• In textbook, Table 1 (page 66) contains a Cheat
Sheet for Inference rules

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 10

 Rules of Inference: Modus Ponens
• Intuitively, modus ponens (or law of detachment) can
be described as the inference:
p implies q; p is true; therefore q holds
• In logic terminology, modus ponens is the tautology:
(p  (p  q))  q
• Note: ‘therefore’ is sometimes denoted , so we
have:
pqpq

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 11

 Rules of Inference: Addition
• Addition involves the tautology
p  (p  q)
• Intuitively,
– if we know that p is true
– we can conclude that either p or q are true (or both)
• In other words: p  (p  q)
• Example: I read the newspaper today, therefore I
read the newspaper or I ate custard
– Note that these are not mutually exclusive

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 12

 Rules of Inference: Simplification
• Simplification is based on the tautology
(p  q)  p
• So we have: (p  q) p
• Example: Prove that if 0 < x < 10, then x  0
1. 0 < x < 10  (0 < x)  (x < 10)
2. (x  0)  (x < 10)  (x  0) by simplification
3. (x  0)  (x  0)  (x = 0) by addition
4. (x  0)  (x = 0)  (x  0) Q.E.D.
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 13
 Rules of inference: Conjunction
• The conjunction is almost trivially intuitive. It
is based on the following tautology:
((p)  (q))  (p  q)
• Note the subtle difference though:
– On the left-hand side, we independently know p
and q to be true
– Therefore, we conclude, on the right-hand side,
that a logical conjunction is true

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 14

 Rules of Inference: Modus Tollens
• Similar to the modus ponens, modus tollens is based on the
following tautology
(q  (p  q))  p
• In other words:
– If we know that q is not true
– And that p implies q
– Then we can conclude that p does not hold either
• Example
– If you are UNL student, then you are cornhusker
– Don Knuth is not a cornhusker
– Therefore we can conclude that Don Knuth is not a UNL student.

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 15

 Rules of Inference: Contrapositive
• The contrapositive is the following tautology
(p  q)  (q p)
• Usefulness
– If you are having trouble proving the p implies q in
a direct manner
– You can try to prove the contrapositive instead!

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 16

 Rules of Inference: Hypothetical Syllogism

• Hypothetical syllogism is based on the following

tautology
((p  q)  (q  r))  (p  r)
• Essentially, this shows that the rules of inference are,
in a sense, transitive
• Example:
– If you don’t get a job, you won’t have money
– If you don’t have money, you will starve.
– Therefore, if you don’t get a job, you’ll starve

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 17

 Rules of Inference: Disjunctive Syllogism

• A disjunctive syllogism is formed on the basis of the

tautology
((p  q)  p) q
• Reading this in English, we see that
– If either p or q hold and we know that p does not hold
– Then we can conclude that q must hold
• Example
– The sky is either blue or grey
– Well it isn’t blue
– Therefore, the sky is grey
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 18
 Rules of Inference: Resolution
• For resolution, we have the following
tautology
((p  q)  (p  r))  (q  r)
• Essentially,
– If we have two true disjunctions that have
mutually exclusive propositions
– Then we can conclude that the disjunction of the
two non-mutually exclusive propositions is true

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 19

 Proofs: Example 1 (1)
• The best way to become accustomed to proofs
is to see many examples
• To begin with, we give a direct proof of the
following theorem
• Theorem:
The sum of two odd integers is even

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 20

 Proofs: Example 1 (2)
• Let n, m be two odd integers.
• Every odd integer x can be written as x=2k+1 for some integer k
• Therefore, let n =2k1+1 and m=2k2+1
• Consider
n+m = (2k1+1)+(2k2+1)
= 2k1+ 2k2+1+1 Associativity/Commutativity
= 2k1+ 2k2+2 Algebra
= 2(k1+ k2+1) Factoring
• By definition 2(k1+k2+1) is even, therefore n+m is even QED

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 21

 Proofs: Example 2 (1)
• Assume that the statements below hold:
• (p  q)
• (r  s)
• (r  p)
• Assume that q is false
• Show that s must be true

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 22

 Proofs: Example 2 (2)
1. (p  q)
2. (r  s)
3. (r  p)
4. q
5. (q  (p  q))  p by modus tollens on 1 + 4
6. (r  p)  p)  r by disjunctive syllogism 3
+6
7. (r  (r  s))  s by modus ponens 2 + 6
QED
QED= Latin word for “quod erat demonstrandum” meaning “that which was to
be demonstrated.” $\hfill\Box$
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 23
 If and Only If
• If you are asked to show an equivalence
p  q “if an only if”
• You must show an implication in both
directions
• That is, you can show (independently or via
the same technique) that (p  q) and (q  p)
• Example
– Show that x is odd iff x2+2x+1 is even
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 24
 Example (iff)
x is odd  x=2k+1, k Z by definition
 x+1 = 2k+2 algebra
 x+1 = 2(k+1) factoring
 x+1 is even by definition
 (x+1)2 is even Since x is even iff x2 is even
 x2+2x+1 is even algebra
QED

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 25

 Outline
• Motivation
• Terminology
• Rules of inference
• Fallacies
• Proofs with quantifiers
• Types of proofs
• Proof strategies

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 26

 Fallacies (1)
• Even a bad example is worth something: it teaches us
what not to do
• There are three common mistakes (at least..).
• These are known as fallacies
1. Fallacy of affirming the conclusion
(q  (p  q))  p
2. Fallacy of denying the hypothesis
(p  (p  q))  q
3. Circular reasoning. Here you use the conclusion as an
assumption, avoiding an actual proof
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 27
 Little Reminder
• Affirming the antecedent: Modus ponens
(p  (p  q))  q
• Denying the consequent: Modus Tollens
(q  (p  q))  p
• Affirming the conclusion: Fallacy
(q  (p  q))  p
• Denying the hypothesis: Fallacy
(p  (p  q))  q
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 28
 Fallacies (2)
• Sometimes, bad proofs arise from illegal
operations rather than poor logic.
• Consider the bad proof 2=1
• Let: a = b
a2 = ab Multiply both sides by a
a2 + a2 – 2ab = ab + a2 – 2ab Add a – 2ab to both sides
2

2(a2 – ab) = (a2 – ab) Factor, collect terms

2 =1 Divide both sides by (a2 – ab)
So, what is wrong with the proof?
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 29
 Outline
• Motivation
• Terminology
• Rules of inference
• Fallacies
• Proofs with quantifiers
• Types of proofs
• Proof strategies

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 30

 Proofs with Quantifiers
• Rules of inference can be extended in a straightforward manner
to quantified statements
• Universal Instantiation: Given the premise that xP(x) and c 
UoD (where UoDis the universe of discourse), we conclude that
P(c) holds
• Universal Generalization: Here, we select an arbitrary element in
the universe of discourse c  UoD and show that P(c) holds. We
can therefore conclude that xP(x) holds
• Existential Instantiation: Given the premise that xP(x) holds, we
simply give it a name, c, and conclude that P(c) holds
• Existential Generalization: Conversely, we establish that P(c)
holds for a specific c  UoD, then we can conclude that xP(x)

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 31

 Proofs with Quantifiers: Example (1)
• Show that “A car in the garage has an engine problem” and “Every car in
the garage has been sold” imply the conclusion “A car has been sold has
an engine problem”
• Let
– G(x): “x is in the garage”
– E(x): “x has an engine problem”
– S(x): “x has been sold”
• Let UoD be the set of all cars
• The premises are as follows:
– x (G(x)  E(x))
– x (G(x)  S(x))
• The conclusion we want to show is: x (S(x)  E(x))

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 32

 Proofs with Quantifiers: Example (2)
1. x (G(x)  E(x)) 1st premise
2. (G(c)  E(c)) Existential instantiation of (1)
3. G(c) Simplification of (2)
4. x (G(x)  S(x)) 2nd premise
5. G(c)  S(c) Universal instantiation of (4)
6. S(c) Modus ponens on (3) and (5)
7. E(c) Simplification from (2)
8. S(c)  E(c) Conjunction of (6) and (7)
9. x (S(x)  E(x)) Existential generalization of (8)
QED

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 33

 Outline
• Motivation
• Terminology
• Rules of inference:
• Fallacies
• Proofs with quantifiers
• Types of proofs:
• Trivial, vacuous, direct, by contrapositive (indirect), by
contradiction (indirect), by cases, existence and uniqueness
proofs; counter examples
• Proof strategies:
• Forward chaining; Backward chaining; Alerts

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 34

 Types of Proofs
• Trivial proofs
• Vacuous proofs
• Direct proofs
• Proof by Contrapositive (indirect proof)
• Proof by Contradiction (indirect proof, aka refutation)
• Proof by Cases (sometimes using WLOG)
• Proofs of equivalence
• Existence Proofs (Constructive & Nonconstructive)
• Uniqueness Proofs
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 35
 Trivial Proofs (1)
• Conclusion holds without using the premise
• A trivial proof can be given when the
conclusion is shown to be (always) true.
• That is, if q is true, then pq is true
• Examples
– ‘If CSE235 is easy implies that the Earth is round’
– Prove ‘If x>0 then (x+1)2 – 2x  x2’

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 36

 Trivial Proofs (2)
• Proof. It is easy to see:
(x+1)2 – 2x
= (x2 + 2x +1) -2x
= x2 +1
 x2
• Note that the conclusion holds without using
the hypothesis.

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 37

 Vacuous Proofs
• If the premise p is false
• Then the implication pq is always true
• A vacuous proof is a proof that relies on the fact that no
element in the universe of discourse satisfies the premise
(thus the statement exists in vacuum in the UoD).
• Example:
– If x is a prime number divisible by 16, then x2 <0
• No prime number is divisible by 16, thus this statement is true
(counter-intuitive as it may be)

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 38

 Direct Proofs
• Most of the proofs we have seen so far are
direct proofs
• In a direct proof
– You assume the hypothesis p, and
– Give a direct series (sequence) of implications
– Using the rules of inference
– As well as other results (proved independently)
– To show that the conclusion q holds.

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 39

 Proof by Contrapositive (indirect proof)

• Recall that (pq)  (q p)

• This is the basis for the proof by contraposition
– You assume that the conclusion is false, then
– Give a series of implications to show that
– Such an assumption implies that the premise is false
• Example
– Prove that if x3 <0 then x<0

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 40

 Proof by Contrapositive: Example
• The contrapositive is “if x0 then x3  0”
• Proof:
1. If x=0  x3=0  0
2. If x>0  x2>0  x3>0 QED

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 41

 Proof by Contradiction
• To prove a statement p is true
– you may assume that it is false
– And then proceed to show that such an assumption leads a
contradiction with a known result
• In terms of logic, you show that
– for a known result r,
– (p  (r  r)) is true
– Which yields a contradiction c = (r  r) cannot hold
• Example: 2 is an irrational number

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 42

 Proof by Contradiction: Example
• Let p be the proposition ‘2 is an irrational number’
• Assume p holds, and show that it yields a contradiction
• 2 is rational
 2 =a/b, a, b R and a, b have no common factor (proposition r)
Definition of
rational numbers
 2=a2/b2 Squarring the equation
 (2b2=a2) (a2 is even)  (a=2c ) Algebra
 (2b2=4c2)  (b2=2c2) (b2 is even)  (b is even) Algebra
 (a, b are even)  (a, b have a common factor 2)  r
 (p  (r  r)), which is a contradiction
So, (p is false)  (p is true), which means 2 is irrational

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 43

 Proof by Cases
• Sometimes it is easier to prove a theorem by
– Breaking it down into cases and
– Proving each one separately
• Example:
– Let n  Z. Prove that 9n2+3n-2 is even

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 44

 Proof by Cases: Example
• Observe that 9n2+3n-2=(3n+2)(3n-1)
• n is an integer (3n+2)(3n-1) is the product of
two integers
• Case 1: Assume 3n+2 is even
 9n2+3n-2 is trivially even because it is the product
of two integers, one of which is even
• Case 2: Assume 3n+2 is odd
 3n+2-3 is even  3n-1 is even  9n2+3n-2 is even
because one of its factors is even 
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 45
 Types of Proofs
• Trivial proofs
• Vacuous proofs
• Direct proofs
• Proof by Contrapositive (indirect proof)
• Proof by Contradiction (indirect proof, aka refutation)
• Proof by Cases (sometimes using WLOG)
• Proofs of equivalence
• Existence Proofs (Constructive & Nonconstructive)
• Uniqueness Proofs
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 46
 Proofs By Equivalence (Iff)
• If you are asked to show an equivalence
p  q “if an only if”
• You must show an implication in both
directions
• That is, you can show (independently or via
the same technique) that (p  q) and (q  p)
• Example
– Show that x is odd iff x2+2x+1 is even
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 47
 Example (iff)
x is odd  x=2k+1, k Z by definition
 x+1 = 2k+2 algebra
 x+1 = 2(k+1) factoring
 x+1 is even by definition
 (x+1)2 is even Since x is even iff x2 is even
 x2+2x+1 is even algebra
QED

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 48

 Existence Proofs
• A constructive existence proof asserts a theorem by providing
a specific, concrete example of a statement
– Such a proof only proves a statement of the form xP(x) for some
predicate P.
– It does not prove the statement for all such x
• A nonconstructive existence proof also shows a statement of
the form xP(x), but is does not necessarily need to give a
specific example x.
– Such a proof usually proceeds by contradiction:
• Assume that xP(x) xP(x) holds
• Then get a contradiction

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 49

 Uniqueness Proofs
• A uniqueness proof is used to show that a
certain element (specific or not) has a certain
property.
• Such a proof usually has two parts
1. A proof of existence: xP(x)
2. A proof of uniqueness: if xy then P(y))
• Together we have the following:
x ( P(x)  (y (xy  P(y) ) )
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 50
 Counter Examples
• Sometimes you are asked to disprove a
statement
• In such a situation you are actually trying to
prove the negation of the statement
• With statements of the form x P(x), it
suffices to give a counter example
– because the existence of an element x for which
P(x) holds proves that x P(x)
– which is the negation of x P(x)
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 51
 Counter Examples: Example
• Example: Disprove n2+n+1 is a prime number
for all n1
• A simple counterexample is n=4.
• In fact: for n=4, we have
n2+n+1 = 42+4+1
= 16+4+1
= 21 = 3×7, which is clearly not prime
QED
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 52
Counter Examples: A Word of Caution
• No matter how many examples you give, you
can never prove a theorem by giving examples
(unless the universe of discourse is finite—
why?—which is in called an exhaustive proof)
• Counter examples can only be used to
disprove universally quantified statements
• Do not give a proof by simply giving an
example

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 53

 Proof Strategies
• Example: Forward and backward reasoning
• If there were a single strategy that always worked for proofs,
mathematics would be easy
• The best advice we can give you:
– Beware of fallacies and circular arguments (i.e., begging the question)
– Don’t take things for granted, try proving assertions first before you
can take/use them as facts
– Don’t peek at proofs. Try proving something for yourself before
looking at the proof
– If you peeked, challenge yourself to reproduce the proof later on.. w/o
peeking again
– The best way to improve your proof skills is PRACTICE.

Predicate Logic and Quantifiers 54