Direct Proof and Counterexample II

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lecture 3 – February 17, 2003.
Advertisements

With examples from Number Theory
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
1 In this lecture  Number Theory ● Rational numbers ● Divisibility  Proofs ● Direct proofs (cont.) ● Common mistakes in proofs ● Disproof by counterexample.
Direct Proof and Counterexample II Lecture 12 Section 3.2 Thu, Feb 9, 2006.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Zeph Grunschlag,
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
Chapter 4: Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof 4.2 Direct Proof and Counter Example II: Rational Numbers 1 Such, then, is the whole art of convincing.
(CSC 102) Discrete Structures Lecture 10.
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Chapter 5 Existence and Proof by contradiction
Methods of Proof Lecture 3: Sep 9. This Lecture Now we have learnt the basics in logic. We are going to apply the logical rules in proving mathematical.
Logical Reasoning:Proof Prove the theorem using the basic axioms of algebra.
Mathematics.
Fall 2008/2009 I. Arwa Linjawi & I. Asma’a Ashenkity 11 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Introduction to Proofs.
Direct Proof and Counterexample III
Direct Proof and Counterexample I Lecture 12 Section 3.1 Tue, Feb 6, 2007.
CS 285- Discrete Mathematics
Introduction to Proofs
1 CMSC 250 Chapter 3, Number Theory. 2 CMSC 250 Introductory number theory l A good proof should have: –a statement of what is to be proven –"Proof:"
Direct Proof and Counterexample I Lecture 11 Section 3.1 Fri, Jan 28, 2005.
Section 2.2 More practice with Direct Proofs. Directions for Writing Proofs 1.Copy the statement of the theorem to be proved onto your paper. 2.Clearly.
1 Formal Proofs. 2 Deductive Proofs From the given statement(s) to a conclusion statement (what we want to prove) Logical progression by direct implications.
CS 173, Lecture B August 27, 2015 Tandy Warnow. Proofs You want to prove that some statement A is true. You can try to prove it directly, or you can prove.
Lecture 34 Section 6.7 Wed, Mar 28, 2007
Direct Proof and Counterexample III Part 2 Lecture 16 Section 3.3 Tue, Feb 13, 2007.
§ 1.2 Symbols and Sets of Numbers. Martin-Gay, Beginning and Intermediate Algebra, 4ed 22 Set of Numbers Natural numbers – {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...} Whole.
Lecture 2: Proofs and Recursion. Lecture 2-1: Proof Techniques Proof methods : –Inductive reasoning Lecture 2-2 –Deductive reasoning Using counterexample.
CS151: Mathematical Foundations of Computing Mathematical Induction.
11.7 – Proof by Mathematical Induction
Section 6.5 Theorems about Roots of Polynomial Equations Objective: Students will be able to solve equations using Theorems involving roots. Rational Root.
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Direct Proof and Counterexample II
Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition
Direct Proof by Contraposition Direct Proof by Contradiction
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition
Direct Proof and Counterexample V: Floor and Ceiling
Real Number System.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Direct Proof and Counterexample III
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Direct Proof and Counterexample IV
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Set includes rational numbers and irrational numbers.
Indirect Proof by Contradiction Direct Proof by Cases
Unit 1. Day 2..
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
Direct Proof and Counterexample III
Section 2.1 Proof Techniques Introduce proof techniques:   o        Exhaustive Proof: to prove all possible cases, Only if it is about a.
One-to-One and Onto, Inverse Functions
Lecture 43 Section 10.1 Wed, Apr 6, 2005
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Lecture 37 Section 7.2 Tue, Apr 3, 2007
Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition
Geometry.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Properties of Real Numbers
One-to-One and Onto, Inverse Functions
One-to-One and Onto, Inverse Functions
Direct Proof and Counterexample IV
Lecture 5 Number Theory & Proof Methods
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics
Introduction to Proofs
Examples of Mathematical Proof
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.  Publishing as Prentice Hall
Get Out Your Packet that We Started Last Class
PROGRAMME: F.Y.B.Sc.I.T. (SEM-I) COURSE: DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
Presentation transcript:

Direct Proof and Counterexample II Lecture 13 Section 3.2 Wed, Feb 2, 2005

Rational Numbers A rational number is a number that equals the quotient of two integers. Let Q denote the set of rational numbers. An irrational number is a number that is not rational. We will assume that there exist irrational numbers.

Direct Proof Theorem: The sum of two rational numbers is rational. Let r and s be rational numbers. Let r = a/b and s = c/d, where a, b, c, d are integers. Then r + s = (ad + bc)/bd, which is rational.

Proof by Counterexample Disprove: The sum of two irrationals is irrational. Counterexample:

Proof by Counterexample Disprove: The sum of two irrationals is irrational. Counterexample: Let α be irrational. Then -α is irrational. (proof?) α + (-α) = 0, which is rational.

Direct Proof Theorem: Between every two distinct rationals, there is a rational. Proof: Let r, s  Q. WOLOG* WMA† r < s. Let t = (r + s)/2. Then t  Q. (proof?) We must show that r < t < s. *WOLOG = Without loss of generality †WMA = We may assume

Proof, continued Given that r < s, it follows that 2r < r + s < 2s. Then divide by 2 to get r < (r + s)/2 < s. Therefore, r < t < s.

Other Theorems Theorem: Between every two distinct irrationals there is a rational. Proof: Difficult. Theorem: Between every two distinct irrationals there is an irrational.

An Interesting Question Why are the last two theorems so hard to prove? Because they involve “negative” hypotheses and “negative” conclusions.

Positive and Negative Statements A positive statement asserts the existence of a number. A negative statement asserts the nonexistence of a number. It is much easier to use a positive hypothesis than a negative hypothesis. It is much easier to prove a positive conclusion than a negative conclusion.

Positive and Negative Statements “r is rational” is a positive statement. It asserts the existence of integers a and b such that r = a/b. “α is irrational” is a negative statement. It asserts the nonexistence of integers a and b such that α = a/b. Is there a “positive” characterization of irrational numbers?

Irrational Numbers Theorem: Let  be a real number  and define the two sets A = iPart({1, 2, 3, …}*( + 1)) and B = iPart({1, 2, 3, …}*(-1 + 1)). Then  is irrational if and only if A  B = N and A  B = .