Reference for Methods of Proof

Denition 0.1. A proof of the truth of a propositional statement is a sequence of hypotheses, denitions and valid propositions, ordered appropriately so that applying the rules of inference form a complete argument which infer the conclusion that the proposition is undeniably true. A good proof is one in which the arguments are clear and concise. The best proof would be the most clear and concise proof. Denition 0.2. A conditional proposition is vacuously true if the hypothesis is always false. Showing that a hypothesis of a conditional statement is always false is a valid argument that proves the conditional statement is an implication and is called a vacuous proof Proposition 0.1. To prove a conditional proposition is in fact a logical implication, we need only check that if the hypothesis is true then so is the conclusion. Denition 0.3. Given a conditional proposition p q, a direct proof that p q is a proof that supposes the hypothesis is true and then derives from the truth of the hypothesis that the conclusion is true. A proof that does not follow this scheme is called an indirect proof. Denition 0.4. Given a conditional proposition p q, a proof by contraposition that p q is a proof of the contrapositive of the conditional proposition. Remark 0.1. Proof by contraposition is a type of indirect proof. Proposition 0.2. To prove a biconditional statement p q is in fact a logical equivalence, we need only check that p q and q p. Remark 0.2. By this proposition and the denition of direct proof of a logical implication, a direct proof that a biconditional statement p q is in fact a logical equivalence is a direct proof that p q and q p. Denition 0.5. Given a propositional function, the proposition xP (x) is always false if there is one element a of the domain such that P (a) is false. The value a is called a counterexample and proves the proposition is in fact false (or disproves the proposition). Denition 0.6. A proof by exhaustion of the proposition xP (x) is a proof which goes through each value a of the domain and checks that the statement is P (a) is true. Theorem 0.1. First Principle of Mathematical Induction: Let P (n) be a propositional function where the domain is the set of natural numbers, N. If P (1) and P (k) P (k + 1) for an arbitrary integer k 1, then nP (n). Remark 0.3. This theorem gives us a process to prove the proposition xP (x) is true for the domain of all integers n 1. 1. Basis Step: Prove P (1) is true. 2. Inductive Step: Prove P (k) P (k + 1) for an arbitrary integer k 1 i.e. suppose P (k) is true for an arbitrary integer k then conclude P (k + 1) is true.

Theorem 0.2. Second Principle of Mathematical Induction: Let P (n) be a propositional function where the domain is the set {c, c+1, c+2, . . .} for some c N. If P (c) and P (c)P (c+1). . .P (k) P (k + 1) for an arbitrary integer k 1, then nP (n). Denition 0.7. Given a propositional function, nding a value a in the domain such that P (a) is true is called a constructive proof that xP (x) is true. Proving xP (x) by other means is called a non-constructive proof. Denition 0.8. A conjecture is a proposition, but has not yet been proven true. A theorem is a proposition which is known to be true and leads to many results. A lemma is a proposition which helps prove a theorem. A corollary is a proposition which follows directly from a theorem. Some Important Rules of Inference: 1. Modus Ponens: [p (p q)] q 2. Hypothetical Syllogism: [(p q) (q r)] (p r) 3. Modus Tollens: [q (p q)] p 4. Disjunctive Syllogism: [(p q) q] p 5. Amplication: p [p q] 6. Simplication: [p q] p 7. Conjunction: [(p) (q)] [p q] 8. Resolution: [(p q) (p r)] (q r) 9. Cases: [(p r) (q r)] [(p q) r] 10. Contradiction: [p F ] p 11. Universal Instantiation: xP (x) P (a) for an arbitrary a in D. 12. Existential Generalization: xP (x) P (a) for some a in D. 13. Universal Generalization: P (a) for an arbitrary a in D xP (x). 14. Existential Generalization: P (a) for some a in D xP (x).