P T T F F

Q PQ T F T F T F T T

Q P F F T T F T F T

(Q) (P) T F T T

The rst proof method that I will show is the trivial proof. The aim of this method is to prove certain statements that are in the form P Q. Trivial proofs are very straight forward. The only necessary step is to show that Q is always true. Heres an example of a proof: Proposition: Let n Z. If 3n + 5 is even, then 2n2 + 4n + 5 is odd. Proof: Note that 2n2 + 4n + 5 = 2(n2 + 2n + 2) + 1. Since n Z, n2 + 2n + 2 is an integer. Therefore, by denition, 2n2 + 4n + 5 is odd. Q.E.D. The logic behind this proof technique is very straight forward. If you consider the truth table for P Q, you will see that P Q will always be true if Q is always true, regardless of the value of P.

Next, I will show the vacuous proof. By this proof technique, we seek to prove statements in the form P Q. All we have to do is show that P is always false. Heres an example of a proof. Proposition: Let x R. If x2 6x + 10 < 0, then x4 6x3 + 10 < 0. Proof: Note that (x 3)2 0. Expanding and adding one to both sides, we get x2 6x + 10 1. However, x2 6x + 10 1 0. Since the negation of x2 6x + 10 < 0 is x2 6x + 10 0, we are done. Q.E.D. The reason why this works is that if you consider the truth table, P Q is always true when P is false, regardless of the value of Q. At rst glance, this method may seem as useless as the trivial proof; however, this method will pop up again very soon in our discussion with a newfound purpose.

I will now consider the rst useful proof, the direct proof. As before, this proof method 1

allows us to prove statements of the form P Q. We will assume that P is true and derive Q. Heres an example. Proposition: Let a, b, c, d Z. If some k Z. Proof: Assume that
a b c d a b

c d

and a, b are relatively prime, then d = bk for

and a, b are relatively prime. Since

a b

c = d , we can rearrange

and get ad = bc. Since c is an integer, b|ad. However, since a and b are relatively prime, by Euclids Lemma, b|d. Thus, by denition of divisors, d = bk for some k Z. Q.E.D. The logic behind the direct proof is slightly more complicated than the previous proofs. Clearly, there are only two possible cases for the truth value of P: it can be true, or it can be false. If it is false, then the statement is vacuously true. However, if P is true, the statement could be true or false. So, we assume P is true and use P to derive Q. In a sense, this is the rst real proof method weve covered. Unlike the previous methods (which, if you are explicitly using them, you should probably question the purpose of your proof,) the direct proof is very useful. It has been used to prove important theorems such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Im now going to cover the proof by contrapositive. This proof method allows us to prove statements of the form P Q. We will assume that Q is false in order to show that P is false. Heres an example: Proposition: If N is not a perfect square, then N is irrational. Proof: Assume that N is rational. Thus, by denition of rationality, N = a , for b a Nb a some a, b, Z with b = 0. Note that N = b = a . Let b be simplied. By the direct proof above, a = bk for some k Z. Thus a = k. So, that means that N is an integer. Hence b N is a perfect square. Q.E.D. Theres not much to say about this proof technique. By a glance at the truth table above, we can easily see that (P Q) ((Q) (P)). The method is the same as the direct proof. It is interesting that the contrapositive of the implication is equivalent to the implication, though. This enables some interesting techniques. For example, if P is a very scary statement, then you can just fallback to assuming Q, and all will be well. You can see that I also used a previous proof (the direct proof) in this proof. This is a fairly standard 2

technique, and, sometimes, it helps organize proofs neatly.

Ill now look at the proof by contradiction. We will assume P is true and that Q is false to derive a contradiction. Heres an example: Proposition: All natural numbers are interesting. Proof: Assume, to the contrary, that there are uninteresting natural numbers. Let the uninteresting numbers form a set. Then there must be some smallest element in the set. However, being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting. We have reached our desired contradiction, and, therefore, all natural numbers are interesting. Q.E.D. If the power of this technique didnt blow your mind already, let me explain, and it should. We have the power of assuming both P and Q: we have twice as much to work with as we would in any of the other proofs weve covered. The logic is less straight forward, though. I am omitting the truth table (Ill leave creating it as an exercise), but Ill explain with words. By denition, a contradiction (C) is always false. Thus (P Q) ((P (Q) C). There is another way to think of the logic. By assuming that the implication is false and show that it leads to a contradiction, you are showing that the only possible option is that the implication must be true. You may now be thinking that this proof technique is too great to be true. If you were, you are not alone. Many great mathematicians absolutely refuse to use this technique. They consider it not to be logically sound. However, it should be noted that the technique is still used in practice, albeit just by fewer than all of the mathematicians.

I will now exhibit the proof by cases (type 1) technique. This method works for statements in the form (P Q) R. We will assume P is true to show R is true, and then well assume Q is true to show that R is true. Heres an example: Proposition: Let x, y R. If x and y are of the same parity, then x + y is even. Proof: Assume x and y are of the same parity. We proceed by cases. Case 1: Assume x and y are both even. Then, by denition, x = 2k1 and y = 2k2 for some k1 , k2 Z. Then x + y = 2k1 + 2k2 = 2(k1 + k2 ). Since k1 + k2 Z, x + y is even.

Case 2: Assume x and y are both odd. Then, by denition, x = 2k3 + 1 and y = 2k4 + 1 for some k3 , k4 Z. Then x + y = (2k3 + 1) + (2k4 + 1) = 2k3 + 2k4 + 2 = 2(k3 + k4 + 1). Since k3 + k4 + 1 Z, x + y is even. Q.E.D.

Last, Ill explain proof by cases (type 2). This proof is for statements in the form x S, P(x). We will break the statement into various cases that we decide on, and then prove each case one at a time. Proposition: The area of a circle is equal to the area of a right-angled triangle in which one of the sides about the right angle is equal to the radius and the other to the circumpherence of the circle. Proof: Consider a circle with radius r and circumpherence c, and a triangle with base length c and height r. Let A denote the area of the circle and T denote the area of the triangle. Assume, to the contrary, that A = T . Then, by the law of trichotomy, A > T or A < T . We proceed by cases. First, we consider A > T . Assume that A > T . Then A T is some positive quantity. We will inscribe a square within the circle and continually bisect its sides until we arrive at a polygon whose area (P1 ) diers from A by less than A T . That is, A P1 < A T . Adding P1 +T A to both sides, we get T < P1 . However, remember that this is an inscribed polygon. So its perimeter q1 is less than c, and its apothem h1 is less than r. Thus, we can
1 conclude that P1 = 2 h1 q1 < 1 rc = T . 2

Next, we consider A < T . Assume that A < T . Then T A is some positive quantity. Similar to the previous case, we will circumscribe a polygon about the circle whose area (P2 ) exceeds A by less than T A. That is, P2 A < T A. Adding A to both sides, we get P2 < T . However, remember that this is a circumscribed polygon. So its apothem h2 is
1 equal to r, and its perimeter q2 is greater than c. Thus P2 = 2 h2 q2 > 1 rc = T . Q.E.D. 2

Proof by cases a standard technique. The dierence between type 1 and type 2 is trivial, so Ill consider only proof by cases as a whole. Again, excluding the table, Ill explain the logic. ((P Q) R) ((P R) (Q R)). This technique is useful, since it breaks up a dicult proof into more managable cases. It is frequently used in conjunction with the 4

other techniques mentioned, since this technique only splits the statement into parts. For example, you can see that I used direct proofs and proofs by contradiction in the above by cases proofs.