Direct Proof and Counterexample II Lecture 12 Section 3.2 Thu, Feb 9, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Is it rational or irrational?
Advertisements

Lecture 3 – February 17, 2003.
With examples from Number Theory
Mathematical Induction
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.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Zeph Grunschlag,
What is the best way to start? 1.Plug in n = 1. 2.Factor 6n 2 + 5n Let n be an integer. 4.Let n be an odd integer. 5.Let 6n 2 + 5n + 4 be an odd.
Introduction to Proofs ch. 1.6, pg. 87,93 Muhammad Arief download dari
Methods of Proof Lecture 4: Sep 16 (chapter 3 of the book)
Find opposites of numbers EXAMPLE 4 a. If a = – 2.5, then – a = – ( – 2.5 ) = 2.5. b. If a =, then – a = –
Week 3 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Basic number theory definitions  Even and odd  Prime and composite  Proving existential statements.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
(CSC 102) Discrete Structures Lecture 10.
Mathematical Induction. F(1) = 1; F(n+1) = F(n) + (2n+1) for n≥ F(n) n F(n) =n 2 for all n ≥ 1 Prove it!
1 Methods of Proof CS/APMA 202 Epp, chapter 3 Aaron Bloomfield.
Methods of Proof. This Lecture Now we have learnt the basics in logic. We are going to apply the logical rules in proving mathematical theorems. Direct.
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Section 1.8. Section Summary Proof by Cases Existence Proofs Constructive Nonconstructive Disproof by Counterexample Nonexistence Proofs Uniqueness Proofs.
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.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
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.
The Binomial Theorem Lecture 29 Section 6.7 Mon, Apr 3, 2006.
Fall 2008/2009 I. Arwa Linjawi & I. Asma’a Ashenkity 11 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Introduction to Proofs.
1 Discrete Structures – CNS2300 Text Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H. Rosen (5 th Edition) Chapter 3 The Foundations: Logic and Proof,
1-6 Properties of Real Numbers Warm Up Warm Up Lesson Presentation Lesson Presentation California Standards California StandardsPreview.
Direct Proof and Counterexample III
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.
Lecture 1.5: Proof Techniques CS 250, Discrete Structures, Fall 2012 Nitesh Saxena Adopted from previous lectures by Cinda Heeren 1.
Section 1.8. Proof by Cases Example: Let b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise b = max{a, b} = b. Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
Methods of Proof Lecture 4: Sep 20 (chapter 3 of the book, except 3.5 and 3.8)
1 Discrete Mathematical Mathematical Induction ( الاستقراء الرياضي )
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.
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
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
Direct Proof and Counterexample III
Direct Proof and Counterexample IV
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Indirect Proof by Contradiction Direct Proof by Cases
Direct Proof and Counterexample II
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.
Lecture 43 Section 10.1 Wed, Apr 6, 2005
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition
Geometry.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Properties of Real Numbers
Lecture 29 Section 6.7 Thu, Mar 3, 2005
Direct Proof and Counterexample IV
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Lecture 5 Number Theory & Proof Methods
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics
PROGRAMME: F.Y.B.Sc.I.T. (SEM-I) COURSE: DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
Presentation transcript:

Direct Proof and Counterexample II Lecture 12 Section 3.2 Thu, Feb 9, 2006

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. Proof: Let r and s be rational numbers. Let r = a/b and s = c/d, where a, b, c, d are integers, where b, d > 0. Then r + s = (ad + bc)/bd.

Direct Proof We know that ad + bc is an integer. We know that bd is an integer. We also know that bd  0. Therefore, r + s is a rational number.

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: The sum of two odd integers is an even integer; the product of two odd integers is an odd integer. Proof:

Direct Proof Theorem: The sum of two odd integers is an even integer; the product of two odd integers is an odd integer. Proof: Let a and b be odd integers. Then a = 2s + 1 and b = 2t + 1 for some integers s and t.

Direct Proof Then a + b = (2s + 1) + (2t + 1) = 2(s + t + 1). Therefore, a + b is an even integer. Finish the proof.

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?) * WOLOG = Without loss of generality † WMA = We may assume

Proof, continued We must show that r < t < s. Since 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. Proof: Difficult.

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.

Positive and Negative Statements 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, …}  (  )). Then  is irrational if and only if A  B = N and A  B = . Try it out: Irrational.exeIrrational.exe