Chapter 3 Problem Solving Reasoning Part 1

Mathematical Reasoning

Mathematical reasoning refers to the ability of a person to analyze problem

situations and construct logical arguments to create both conceptual foundations and
connections to be able to process the available information and solve problems. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) stated that people who can reason
and think analytically “tend to note patterns, structure, or irregularities in both real-world
situations and symbolic objects; ask if those patterns are accidental or if they occur for a
reason; and conjecture and prove.” Mathematical reasoning requires more than simply
memorizing facts but thinking beyond rules and procedures to form one’s own questions
and conjectures.

When is mathematical reasoning correct? What methods can be used to construct

effective mathematical reasoning?

Module 1 Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning is the process of reaching general conclusions based on specific

examples.

Example:

1. Every object that I release from my hand will fall to the ground. Therefore, the
next object I release from my hand will fall to the ground.
2. Every crow I have ever seen is black. Therefore, all crows are black.
3. Based on available data, the Earth has revolved around the sun following an
elliptical path for millions of years. Therefore, the Earth will continue to revolve
around the sun in the same manner next year.

1.a Using Inductive Reasoning to Predict a Number

When you examine a list of numbers and predict the next number in the list
according to some pattern you have observed, you are using inductive reasoning.

Example:

a. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, ?
b. 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ?

Solution:

a. Each successive number is 3 larger than the preceding number. Thus we predict
the next number in the list is 3 larger than 15, which is 18.
b. The first two numbers differ by 2. The second and the third numbers differ by 3. It
appears that the difference between any two numbers is always 1 more than
the preceding difference. Since 10 and 15 differ by 5, we predict that the next
number in the list will be 6 larger than 15, which is 21.
1.b Using Inductive Reasoning to Make a Conjecture

Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed based on incomplete information.

Example:

Consider the following procedure. Pick a number. Multiply the number by 8, add 6
to the product, divide the sum by 2, and subtract 3.
Complete the above procedure for several different numbers. Use inductive
reasoning to make a conjecture about the relationship between the size of the resulting
number and the size of the original number.

Solution:

Original Resulting
Number Number
𝟓𝟓 5 × 8 = 40 40 + 6 = 46 46 ÷ 2 = 23 23 − 3 = 20 20
𝟔𝟔 6 × 8 = 48 48 + 6 = 54 54 ÷ 2 = 27 27 − 3 = 24 24
𝟕𝟕 7 × 8 = 56 56 + 6 = 62 62 ÷ 2 = 31 31 − 3 = 28 28

We started with 5 and followed the procedure to produce 20. Starting with 6 as our
original number produces a result of 24. Starting with 7 produces a result of 28. In each of
these cases, the resulting number is four times the original number. We conjecture that
following the given procedure produces a number that is four times the original number.

1.c Using Inductive Reasoning to Solve an Application

Scientists often use inductive reasoning. For instance, Galileo Galilei (15-64-1642)
used inductive reasoning to discover that the time required for a pendulum to complete
one swing, called the period of the pendulum, depends on the length of the pendulum.
Galileo did not have a clock, so he measured the periods of pendulums in “heartbeats.”
The following table shows some results obtained for pendulums of various lengths. For
convenience, a length of 10 inches has been designated as 1 unit.

Length of pendulum in units Period of pendulum in heartbeats

1 1
4 2
9 3
16 4
25 5
36 6

a. If a pendulum has a length of 49 units, what is its period?

b. If the length of a pendulum is quadrupled, what happens to its period?

Solution:

a. In the table, each pendulum has a period that is the square root of its length. Thus
we conjecture that the pendulum with a length of 49 units will have the period of 7
heartbeats.
 b. In the table, a pendulum with a length of 4 units has a period that is twice of the
pendulum with a length of 1 unit. A pendulum with a length of 16 units has a period
that is twice that of a pendulum with a length of 4 units. It appears that quadrupling
the length of a pendulum doubles its period.

Conclusions based on inductive reasoning may be incorrect. As an illustration, consider

the circles shown below. For each circle, all possible line segments have been drawn to
connect each dot on the circle with all the other dots on the circle. To produce the
maximum number of regions, the dots on a circle must be places so that no three line
segments that connect the dots intersect at a single point.

For each circle, count the number of regions formed by the line segments that
connect the dots on the circle. The results are as follows:

Number of dots 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max number of regions 1 2 4 8 16 31

There appears to be a pattern. Each additional dot seems to double the number of
regions. But the pattern stops. The maximum number of regions created after placing
the sixth dot is 31. Continuing the process with yield 57 regions with 7 dots. This is a
good example to keep in mind. Just because a pattern holds true for a few cases, it
does not mean the pattern will continue. When you use inductive reasoning, you have
no guarantee that your conclusion is correct.
Counterexamples

A statement is a true statement if it is true in all cases. If you can find ONE case for
which a statement is not true, called a counterexample, then the statement is a false
statement.

Example: Verify that each of the following statements is a false statement by finding
a counterexample.

For all numbers x:

a. |𝑥𝑥| > 0
b. 𝑥𝑥 2 > 𝑥𝑥
c. √𝑥𝑥 2 = 𝑥𝑥

Solution:

A statement may have many counterexamples, but we need only find one
counterexample to verify that the statement is false.

a. Let 𝑥𝑥 = 0. Then |0| = 0. Because 0 is not greater than 0, we have found a

counterexample. Thus "𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥, |𝑥𝑥| > 0" is a false statement.
b. For 𝑥𝑥 = 1 we have 12 = 1. Since 1 is not greater than 1, we have found a
counterexample. Thus "𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥, 𝑥𝑥 2 > 𝑥𝑥 is a false statement.
c. Consider 𝑥𝑥 = −3. Then �(−3)2 = √9 = 3. Since 3 is not equal to -3, we have found a
counterexample. Thus, "𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥, √𝑥𝑥 2 = 𝑥𝑥" is a false statement.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive Reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion by applying general

assumptions, procedures, or principles.

Example:

1. All men are mortal. I am a man. Therefore, I am mortal.

(General Principle: If p implies q and p holds, then q must follow.)
2. Given two supplementary angles with one of them measuring 120 degrees, the
measure of the other angle is 60 degrees.
(General Principle: Supplementary angles add up to 180.)
3. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 6𝑥𝑥 = 12, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥 = 2.
(General Principle: If a, b, and c are real numbers and 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 = 𝑏𝑏, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏.)

Inductive Reasoning vs. Deductive Reasoning

Comparing these two approaches further, consider science and mathematics.

Science is the application of inductive reasoning to build knowledge based on
observable evidence. That is why every statement is considered a theory. The only way to
prove it is to collect more evidence. However, there is always the possibility that future
evidence could prove the statement false. On the other hand, mathematics is deductive
reasoning applied to relations among patterns, shapes, forms, structures and even
changes. Deductive reasoning is always valid. Nevertheless, to make correct deductions,
a complete understanding of the relevant abstract principles is required. Errors occur
either by applying principles incorrectly or by starting with incorrect assumptions.

Rules of Interference

Deductive reasoning makes use of undefined terms, formally defined terms, axioms,
theorems, and rules of interference.

A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true. It is formulated by using a

sequence of statements that form an argument, called a proof. The statements used in
proof may include axioms, which are underlying assumptions about mathematical
structures, the hypothesis of the theorem to be proved, and previously proved theorems.
The rules of interference tie together the steps of a proof.

Before moving on to the rules of interference, here is a reminder:

Formal deductive arguments can be put into symbolic notation with letters
representing the propositions. (“If p, then q.”)

𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞

Any argument in this form is a hypothetical proposition. This is because it’s not
asserting either p or q; it is merely stating that if p hypothetically were true, then q would
have to be true as well. In a hypothetical proposition, the first part (p) is called the
antecedent(hypothesis), and the second part (q) is called the consequent(conclusion).

Addition

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑝𝑝 ∨ 𝑞𝑞 Addition
∴ 𝒑𝒑 ∨ 𝒒𝒒

Example

I will make tea. 𝒑𝒑

Therefore, I will make tea, or I will read a ∴ 𝑝𝑝 ∨ 𝑞𝑞
book.

Simplification

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ∧ 𝒒𝒒 𝑝𝑝 ∧ 𝑞𝑞 ⇒ 𝑝𝑝 Simplification
∴ 𝒑𝒑

Example

I will make tea and read a book. 𝒑𝒑 ∧ 𝒒𝒒

Therefore, I will make tea. ∴ 𝑝𝑝
Conjunction

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ((𝑝𝑝) ∧ (𝑞𝑞)) ⇒ 𝑝𝑝 ∧ 𝑞𝑞 Conjunction
𝒒𝒒
∴ 𝒑𝒑 ∧ 𝒒𝒒

Example

I will study discrete Math. 𝒑𝒑

I will study English literature. 𝑞𝑞
Therefore, I will study discrete Math and I ∴ 𝑝𝑝 ∧ 𝑞𝑞
will study English literature.

Modus Ponens (Mode of Affirming)

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ 𝑝𝑝) ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 Modus Ponens
𝒑𝒑
∴ 𝒒𝒒

Example

If it is raining, then I will study discrete 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒

Math.
It is raining. 𝑝𝑝
Therefore, I will study discrete Math. ∴ 𝑞𝑞

Modus Tollens (Mode of Denying)

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ ¬𝑞𝑞) ⇒ ¬𝑝𝑝 Modus Tollens
¬𝒒𝒒
∴ ¬𝒑𝒑

Example

If the tropical cyclone signal number is 3, 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒

then there are no classes today.
There are classes today. ¬𝑞𝑞
Therefore, the tropical cyclone signal ∴ ¬𝑝𝑝
number is not 3.
Hypothetical Syllogism

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ (𝑞𝑞 ⇒ 𝑟𝑟)) ⇒ (𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑟𝑟) Hypothetical Syllogism
𝒒𝒒 ⇒ 𝒓𝒓
∴ 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒓𝒓

Example

If the tropical cyclone signal number is 3, 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒

then there are no classes today.
If there are no classes today, I will sleep all 𝑞𝑞 ⇒ 𝑟𝑟
day.
Therefore, if the tropical cyclone signal ∴ 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑟𝑟
number is 3, I will sleep all day.

Disjunctive Syllogism

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ∨ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ∨ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ (¬𝑝𝑝)) ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 Disjunctive Syllogism
¬𝒑𝒑
∴ 𝒒𝒒

Example

The tropical cyclone signal number is 3, or 𝒑𝒑 ∨ 𝒒𝒒

there are no classes today.
The tropical cyclone signal number is not 3. ¬𝑝𝑝
Therefore, there are no classes today. ∴ 𝑞𝑞

Valid vs Invalid Argument

Rules of interference are used in the validity of arguments. If the arguments can be
translated into symbols that match the rules of interference, it can be considered as a
valid argument. In other words, if an argument is constructed using the rules of
interference, it can be considered a valid argument. When all propositions used in a valid
argument are true, it leads to a correct conclusion.

Example:

Valid
If the storm land falls, Paul will 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 Modus Tollens
miss class.
Paul did not miss class. ¬𝑞𝑞 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ ¬𝑞𝑞) ⇒ ¬𝑝𝑝
Therefore, the storm did not ∴ ¬𝑝𝑝
land fall.
Fallacy

Fallacies are incorrect reasonings which appear to follow the rules of interference
but are based on contingencies rather than tautologies.

Formal Fallacies

Fallacy of Affirming the Conclusion

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ 𝑞𝑞) ⇒ 𝑝𝑝 Fallacy of Affirming the
𝒒𝒒 Conclusion
∴ 𝒑𝒑

Example

If you do every problem in the math book, 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒

then you will learn mathematics.
You learned mathematics. 𝑞𝑞
Therefore, you did every problem in the ∴ 𝑝𝑝
math book.

This is an invalid argument which uses the fallacy of affirming the conclusion since it
is possible for you to learn mathematics in some way other than doing every problem in
the book.

Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis

Rule of Interference Tautology Name

𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒 ((𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ ¬𝑝𝑝) ⇒ ¬𝑞𝑞 Fallacy of Denying the
¬𝒑𝒑 Hypothesis
∴ ¬𝒒𝒒

Example

If you do every problem in the math book, 𝒑𝒑 ⇒ 𝒒𝒒

then you will learn mathematics.
You did not do every problem in the math ¬𝑝𝑝
book
Therefore, you did not learn mathematics. ∴ ¬𝑞𝑞

This is an invalid argument which uses the fallacy of denying the hypothesis since it is
possible that you learned mathematics even if you did not do every problem in the book.
Informal Fallacy

Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning

This fallacy is committed when a person merely assumes what he is attempting to

prove, or when the premise of an argument depends upon its conclusion. In other words,
Begging the question fallacy occurs when we use the claim we are trying to prove as a
premise in order to prove the very same claim. In other words, we assume that a premise
is true in order to justify an argument. Begging the question fallacy is also known as petitio
principii (Latin for “assuming the original point”) or “chicken and the egg argument” and
is generally considered a form of circular reasoning.

“Evolution must be true because it is a fact.”

Begging the question is a very strange fallacy because it is actually valid. Recall
that a valid argument is one in which the conclusion does follow from the premises.
Normally fallacies are not valid; the fact that their conclusion does not follow from the
premise(s) is what makes them fallacies. But, oddly, with begging the question the
conclusion does follow from the premise (because it is simply a restatement of the
premise). So, the argument, “Evolution must be true because it is a fact,” is valid. But if it is
valid, then why is it considered a fallacy? The answer would seem to be that begging the
question is a fallacy because it is arbitrary. Begging the question is an informal logical
fallacy. It is a logically valid but trivial argument in that it fails to prove anything beyond
what is already assumed.

In a good argument, the premises are plausible—that is, we are presented with
sufficient evidence to believe the premises are true. There is also a logical connection
between the assumptions presented in the premises and the final conclusion.

In begging the question fallacy, there is no independent evidence to support the

premises; rather, the conclusion is used to support the premises and vice versa. This means
that the parts of our argument depend on each other, forming a circle: our argument
simply repeats itself and doesn’t prove anything. This is a problem because a good
argument requires evidence that is not the argument itself.

Circular arguments of this kind are not useful because anyone who denies the
conclusion would also deny the premise (since the conclusion is essentially the same as
the premise). So, the argument, “Evolution must be true because it is a fact,” while
technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed what he is trying to
prove. Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used in logical reasoning because we could
equally well assume the exact opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,
“Evolution cannot be true because it is false.”

It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where circular
reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious. Remember that begging the
question is not invalid; it is considered fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were
not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset but is not arbitrary.
 Here is an example:

1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.

2. We can make an argument.

3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly circular. This
argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens to prove that there are laws of logic.
So, we have tacitly assumed what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable
in this case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence of laws of
logic.

However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason for
assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn’t prove anything. And perhaps
most significantly, anyone attempting to disprove the existence of laws of logic would
have to first assume that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would
refute himself.

Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious
begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary. Consider the evolutionist who argues:

“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were created in a single
day; but we now know that it takes millions of years for stars to form.”

By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has taken for granted
that they were not supernaturally created. He has tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his
attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question. Another example
is:

“We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!”

This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very point in
question.

Watch for arguments that subtly presume (in an arbitrary way) what the critic is
attempting to prove. In particular, evolutionists will often take for granted the assumptions
of naturalism, uniformitarianism, strict empiricism (the notion that all truth claims are
answered by observation and experimentation), and sometimes evolution itself. But, of
course, these are the very claims at issue. When an evolutionist takes these things for
granted, he is not giving a good logical reason for his position; he is simply arbitrarily
asserting his position.
Methods of Proof

When proving statements, different approaches may be followed. Some of these

are:

Methods of Proof Description

Vacuous Proof A proof that the implication 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 is true based on the fact
that p is false.
Trivial Proof A proof that the implication 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 is true based on the fact
that q is true.
Direct Proof A proof that the implication 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 is true by showing that q
must be true if p is true.
Proof by Contrapositive A proof that the implication 𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 is true by showing the p
must be false when q is false.
Proof by Contradiction A proof that the proposition p is true based on the truth of the
implication ¬𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞 where q is the contradiction.
Proof by Cases A proof of an implication where the hypothesis is a disjunction
of propositions showing that each proposition separately
implies the conclusion.
Existence Proof A proof of a proposition of the form ∃ 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥)
Existence proofs are classified as either constructive or non-
constructive.
• A constructive existence proof establishes the assertion
by existing a value c such that 𝑃𝑃(𝑐𝑐) is true.
• A non-constructive existence proof establishes the
assertion without indicating how to find a value x such
that 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥) is true. It commonly involves a proof by
contradiction.
Non-existence Proof A proof of statement ¬∃ 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥)(which is also ∀ 𝑥𝑥 ¬𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥))
One way is to assume that there is a member of the universe
of discourse for which 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥) is true and try to arrive at a
contradiction.
Proof by Mathematical Let 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛) be a proposition for each positive integer n. If the
Induction following two conditions are satisfied, then 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛) is true for all
positive n:
• The proposition 𝑃𝑃(1) is true.
• The implication 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛) ⇒ 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛 + 1) is shown to be true for
every positive integer n.
 The following are statements whose proofs are valuable, not just because of the
results, but because they highlight the correct way of setting up and carrying out
mathematical arguments.

Vacuous Proof Example

1. Show that 𝑃𝑃(0) is true where 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛) is “"𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑛𝑛 > 1, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑛𝑛2 > 𝑛𝑛. "

Proof: Note that 𝑃𝑃(0) is "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 0 > 1, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 02 > 0. " Since the hypothesis 0 > 1 is false, the whole
implication 𝑃𝑃(0) is automatically true.

2. Prove the statement. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 6 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 62 = 30.

Proof: The hypothesis is false; therefore the statement is vacuously true (even though the
conclusion is also false).

Trivial Proof Example

1. Let 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛) be "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑎𝑎 ≥ 𝑏𝑏, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛 ≥ 𝑏𝑏 𝑛𝑛 . " Show that
𝑃𝑃(0) is true.

Proof: 𝑃𝑃(0) is "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑎𝑎 ≥ 𝑏𝑏, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎0 ≥ 𝑏𝑏 0 . " Since 𝑎𝑎0 = 𝑏𝑏 0 = 1, the conclusion of 𝑃𝑃(0) is true. Hence
𝑃𝑃(0) itself is true.

2. Prove the statement. If there are 100 students enrolled in this course this
semester, then 62 = 36.

Proof: The assertion is trivially true, since the conclusion is true, independent of the
hypothesis (which may or may not be true depending on the enrollment).

Direct Proof Example

1. Give a direct proof of the statement "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑛𝑛2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜. "

Proof: Suppose n is odd. Then 𝑛𝑛 = 2𝑘𝑘 + 1 for some integer k. It follows that 𝑛𝑛2 = (2𝑘𝑘 + 1)2 =
4𝑘𝑘 2 + 4𝑘𝑘 + 1 = 2(2𝑘𝑘 2 + 2𝑘𝑘) + 1. Therefore, 𝑛𝑛2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (since it is 1 more than twice an integer).

2. Prove the statement: For all integers m and n, if m and n are odd integers,
then m+n is an even integer.

Proof: Assume m and n are arbitrary odd integers. Then m and n can be written in the
form

𝑚𝑚 = 2𝑎𝑎 + 1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛 = 2𝑏𝑏 + 1

𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖. 𝑇𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛 = (2𝑎𝑎 + 1) + (2𝑏𝑏 + 1)
𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛 = 2𝑎𝑎 + 2𝑏𝑏 + 2
𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛 = 2(𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏 + 1)
Since m+n is twice another integer, namely, a+b+1, m+n is an even integer.
Proof by Contrapositive Example

1. Prove the theorem "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 3𝑛𝑛 + 2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜. "

Proof: Assume that n is even. Then n=2k for some integer k. It follows that
3𝑛𝑛 + 2 = 2(2𝑘𝑘) + 2 = 6𝑘𝑘 + 2 = 2(2𝑘𝑘 + 1)
Hence, 3n+2 is even (since it is a multiple of 2). Since the negation of the conclusion of the
implication implies that the hypothesis is false, the original implication is true.

2. Prove the statement. For all integers m and n, if the product of m and n is even,
then m is even or n is even.

Proof: Suppose that m and n are arbitrary odd integers. Then 𝑚𝑚 = 2𝑎𝑎 + 1 and 𝑛𝑛 = 2𝑏𝑏 + 1,
where a and b are integers. Then
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = (2𝑎𝑎 + 1)(2𝑏𝑏 + 1)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 4𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 2𝑎𝑎 + 2𝑏𝑏 + 1
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 2(2𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏) + 1
Since mn is twice an integer (namely, 2𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏 + 1) plus 1, mn is odd.

Proof by Contradiction Example

1. Prove that √2 is irrational by giving a proof of contradiction.

Proof: Suppose that √2 is rational. Show that this leads to contradiction.

𝑎𝑎
Under the assumption that √2 is rational, there exist integers a and b with √2 = 𝑏𝑏 , it
follows that
𝑎𝑎2
2 = 2 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 2𝑏𝑏 2 = 𝑎𝑎2
𝑏𝑏
This means that 𝑎𝑎2 is even, implying that a is even. Furthermore, since a is even, 𝑎𝑎 =
2𝑐𝑐 for some integer c. Thus, 2𝑏𝑏 2 = 4𝑐𝑐 2 , so that 𝑏𝑏 2 = 2𝑐𝑐 2 .

This means that 𝑏𝑏 2 is even. Hence, b must be even also.

These imply that 2 divides a and b. this contradicts the assumption that a and b
have no common factors.

To prove a theorem that is an equivalence, that is, one that is a statement of the
form 𝑝𝑝 ⇔ 𝑞𝑞 where p and q are propositions, the tautology (𝑝𝑝 ⇔ 𝑞𝑞) ⟺ [(𝑝𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞𝑞) ∧ (𝑞𝑞 ⇒ 𝑝𝑝)]
can be used.

2. Prove the statement is true: Let x and y be real numbers. If 5𝑥𝑥 + 25𝑦𝑦 = 1723, then
x or y is not an integer.

Proof: Assume x and y are real numbers such that 5𝑥𝑥 + 25𝑦𝑦 = 1723, and assume that both
x and y are integers. By distributive law,
5(𝑥𝑥 + 5𝑦𝑦) = 1723

Since x and y are integers, this implies that 1723 is divisible by 5. The integer 1723, however,
is clearly not divisible by 5. This contradiction establishes the result.
Proof by Cases Example
𝑥𝑥 2 −1
1. If x is a real number such that 𝑥𝑥+2
> 0, then either 𝑥𝑥 > 1 or −2 < 𝑥𝑥 < −1.

Proof: Assume x is a real number for which the inequality

𝑥𝑥 2 − 1
>0
𝑥𝑥 + 2
holds. Factor the numerator of the fraction to get the inequality
(𝑥𝑥 + 1)(𝑥𝑥 − 1)
> 0.
𝑥𝑥 + 2
For this combination of 𝑥𝑥 + 1, 𝑥𝑥 − 1, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 + 2 to be positive, either all are positive or two are
negative and the other is positive. This gives four case to consider:

Case 1. 𝑥𝑥 + 1 > 0, 𝑥𝑥 − 1 > 0, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 + 2 > 0. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑥𝑥 > −1, 𝑥𝑥 > 1, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 >
−2, 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 > 1.

Case 2. 𝑥𝑥 + 1 > 0, 𝑥𝑥 − 1 < 0, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 + 2 < 0. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑥𝑥 > −1, 𝑥𝑥 < 1, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 <
−2 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.

Case 3. 𝑥𝑥 + 1 < 0, 𝑥𝑥 − 1 > 0, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 + 2 < 0. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑥𝑥 < −1, 𝑥𝑥 > 1, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 <
−2 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠.

Case 4. 𝑥𝑥 + 1 < 0, 𝑥𝑥 − 1 < 0, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 + 2 > 0. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑥𝑥 < −1, 𝑥𝑥 < 1, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 >
−2, 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 2 < 𝑥𝑥 < 1.

Thus, either 𝑥𝑥 > 1 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1) 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 − 2 < 𝑥𝑥 < 1 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 4).

Constructive Proof Example (Existence Proofs)

1. Prove the statement. There exists a triple (a, b, c) of positive integers such that
𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑏𝑏 2 = 𝑐𝑐 2 .

Proof: Choose a=3, b=4 and c=5.

2. Prove: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥) = 𝑥𝑥 3 + 𝑥𝑥 − 5, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑓𝑓 ′ (𝑐𝑐) = 7.

Proof: Calculate the derivative of 𝑓𝑓: 𝑓𝑓 ′ (𝑥𝑥) = 3𝑥𝑥 2 + 1. Then we want to find a positive
number c such that 𝑓𝑓 ′ (𝑐𝑐) = 3𝑐𝑐 2 + 1 = 7. Solving for c.

3𝑐𝑐 2 = 6
𝑐𝑐 2 = 2
𝑐𝑐 = ±√2
2
Then 𝑐𝑐 = √2 is a positive real number and 𝑓𝑓 ′ �√2� = 3�√2� + 1 = 7.
Nonconstructive Proof Example

1. Pigeonhole Principle: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑛𝑛 + 1 objects(pigeons) are distributed into n boxes

(pigeonholes), then some box must contain at least 2 of the objects.

Proof: Assume 𝑛𝑛 + 1 objects(pigeons) are distributed into n boxes. Suppose the boxes are
labeled 𝐵𝐵1 , 𝐵𝐵2 , … , 𝐵𝐵𝑛𝑛 and assume that no box contains more than 1 object. Let 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 denote
the number of objects placed in 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖 . Then 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 ≤ 1 for 𝑖𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛𝑛, and so

𝑘𝑘1 + 𝑘𝑘2 + ⋯ + 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 ≤ 1 + 1 + ⋯ + 1 ≤ 𝑛𝑛.

But this contradicts the fact that 𝑘𝑘1 + 𝑘𝑘2 + ⋯ + 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑛𝑛 + 1, the total number of objects we
started with.

Nonexistence Proof Example

1. Prove that there does not exist an integer k such that 4𝑘𝑘 + 3 is a perfect square.

Proof: Proof by contradiction. Assume there is an integer k such that 4𝑘𝑘 + 3 is a perfect
square. That is, 4𝑘𝑘 + 3 = 𝑚𝑚2 , where m is an integer. Since the square of an even integer is
even and 4𝑘𝑘 + 3 is odd, m must be odd. Then 𝑚𝑚 = 2𝑎𝑎 + 1 for some integer a. Thus,

4𝑘𝑘 + 3 = 𝑚𝑚2
4𝑘𝑘 + 3 = (2𝑎𝑎 + 1)2
4𝑘𝑘 + 3 = 4𝑎𝑎2 + 4𝑎𝑎 + 1
4𝑘𝑘 + 3 = 4(𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑎𝑎) + 1
3 − 1 = 4(𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑎𝑎) − 4𝑘𝑘
2 = 4(𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑘𝑘)
1 = 2(𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑘𝑘)

But this contradicts the fact that 1 is an odd integer.

Proof by Mathematical Induction Example

1. Prove that the sum of the first n odd positive integers is 𝑛𝑛2 .

Proof: Let P(n) be the proposition “The sum of the first n odd positive integers is 𝑛𝑛2 .”

• P(1): “The sum of the first one odd positive integers is 12 .” This is true since 1 = 12 .
• Suppose P(n) is true for a positive integer n. That is,
1 + 3 + 5 + ⋯ + (2𝑛𝑛 − 1) = 𝑛𝑛2
Assuming P(n) is true, it must be shown that P(n+1) is true.
(2𝑛𝑛 − 1) + (2𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 𝑛𝑛2 + (2𝑛𝑛 + 1)
𝑛𝑛2 + 2𝑛𝑛 + 1 = (𝑛𝑛 + 1)2
Since the two conditions of mathematical induction are satisfied, it can be
concluded that P(n) is true for all positive integers n. That is, the sum of the first n
odd positive integers is 𝑛𝑛2
Problem Set for Chapter 3 Part 1

Instructions: Write your answers on A4-size bond papers. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE your
answers on the back part of the bond paper. Write your LAST NAME first, then GIVEN
NAME and MIDDLE INITIAL. For your set, PLEASE WRITE IT IN THE FORMAT BSCE-1X, X being
the letter of your set. If you are unsure whether or not your answers will be able to fit in two
columns, stick to one column. If you can fit your answers and it is quite presentable and
the answers can be seen clearly, you can use two columns. Please CHOOSE one column
or two columns, DO NOT CHOOSE BOTH. Erasures will garner demerit points. There will be
deductions for those who are not following instructions.

1. Identify the rule of interference used in the following arguments.

a. Tarsiers live in Bohol and are marsupials. Therefore, tarsiers are marsupials.
b. It is either hotter than 38 degrees today pr the pollution is dangerous. It is less
than 38 degrees outside today. Therefore, the pollution is dangerous.
2. Determine whether the following arguments are valid or not. If an argument is valid,
which rule of interference is used? If not, which fallacy occurs?
a. If n is a real number such that 𝑛𝑛 > 1, then 𝑛𝑛2 > 1. Suppose that 𝑛𝑛2 > 1. Then
𝑛𝑛 > 1
b. The number log 2 3 is irrational if it is not the ratio of two integers. Therefore,
𝑎𝑎
since log 2 3 cannot be written in the form where a and b are integers, it is
𝑏𝑏
irrational.
c. If n is a real number and n>3, then 𝑛𝑛2 > 9. Suppose that 𝑛𝑛2 ≤ 9. Then 𝑛𝑛 ≤ 3.
d. Either a positive integer is a perfect square or it has an even number of
positive integer divisors. If n is a positive integer that has an odd number of
positive integer divisors, then n is a perfect square.
e. If n is a real number and n>2, then 𝑛𝑛2 > 4. If 𝑛𝑛 ≤ 2. Then 𝑛𝑛2 ≤ 4.
3. Prove the theorem "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 2 − 1 = 0, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥 = −1 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑥𝑥 = 1. "
4. Prove the statement "𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 2 + 5𝑥𝑥 < 0, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥 < 0. "
5. Prove that 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛3 + 5 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒.
6. Prove the statement
3
"𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 200 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 √200 ≈ 5.84.
7. Prove the statement 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 6 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 62 = 30. " (Vacuous Proof)
8. Give the direct proof of the theorem
“𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑛𝑛2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖. ”
9. Give the direct proof of the statement
"𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜. "
10. Prove the statement
“𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒. ”
(Proof By Contrapositive)
11. Show that if n is an integer and 𝑛𝑛2 + 1 is odd, then n is even. (Proof By
Contrapositive)
12. Suppose that 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥ℤ. Show that if 𝑥𝑥 2 − 6𝑥𝑥 + 5 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜. (Proof By
Contrapositive)
13. Let x and y be real numbers. If 5𝑥𝑥 + 25𝑦𝑦 = 1723, then x or y is not an integer. (Proof
By Contradiction)
14. Prove by contradiction the statement
"𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎, 𝑏𝑏, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐, 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 < 𝑏𝑏 < 𝑐𝑐, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎3 + 𝑏𝑏 3 ≠ 𝑐𝑐 3 . "
𝑥𝑥 2 −1
15. If x is a real number such that 𝑥𝑥+2
> 0, then either 𝑥𝑥 > 1 or −2 < 𝑥𝑥 < −1. (Proof by
Cases)
16. Prove that for every integer n, 𝑛𝑛2 ≥ 𝑛𝑛. (Proof by Cases)
17. Prove: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥) = 𝑥𝑥 3 + 𝑥𝑥 − 5, 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑓𝑓 ′ (𝑐𝑐) = 244.
(Constructive Existence Proof)
18. Prove that there does not exist an integer k such that 4𝑘𝑘 + 3 is a perfect square.
(Nonexistence Proof)
𝑛𝑛(𝑛𝑛+1)(2𝑛𝑛+1)
19. Show that 12 + 22 + ⋯ + 𝑛𝑛2 = 6
whenever n is a positive integer. (Proof by
Mathematical Induction)
20. Prove the inequality 𝑛𝑛 < 2𝑛𝑛 for all positive integers n.
21. Show that 1 + 2 + 4 + ⋯ + 2𝑛𝑛 = 2𝑛𝑛+1 − 1 for all non-negative integers n. Note: Start
with P(0). (Proof by Mathematical Induction)
3(5𝑛𝑛+1 −1)
22. Prove that 3 + 15 + 75 + ⋯ + 3(5𝑛𝑛 ) = 4
whenever n is a non-negative integer.
(Proof by Mathematical Induction)
23. Show that 2𝑛𝑛 > 𝑛𝑛2 whenever n is a positive integer greater than 4. (Proof by
Mathematical Induction)