2.3 Methods of Proof.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
With examples from Number Theory
Advertisements

Discrete Mathematics University of Jazeera College of Information Technology & Design Khulood Ghazal Mathematical Reasoning Methods of Proof.
Discrete Math Methods of proof 1.
Introduction to Proofs
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Logic 3 Tautological Implications and Tautological Equivalences
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/31/12 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/11
Logic: Connectives AND OR NOT P Q (P ^ Q) T F P Q (P v Q) T F P ~P T F
So far we have learned about:
Copyright © Zeph Grunschlag,
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2.1 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Introduction to Proofs ch. 1.6, pg. 87,93 Muhammad Arief download dari
Introduction to Proofs Goals 1.Introduce notion of proof & basic proof methods. 2.Distinguish between correct & incorrect arguments 3.Understand & construct.
EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.
Fall 2002CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s proceed to… Mathematical Reasoning.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
CSCI 115 Chapter 2 Logic. CSCI 115 §2.1 Propositions and Logical Operations.
Introduction to Proofs
1 Georgia Tech, IIC, GVU, 2006 MAGIC Lab Rossignac Lecture 03: PROOFS Section 1.5 Jarek Rossignac CS1050: Understanding.
MATH 224 – Discrete Mathematics
1 Methods of Proof CS/APMA 202 Epp, chapter 3 Aaron Bloomfield.
CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Fall 2013 Lecture 8: More Proofs.
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
March 3, 2015Applied Discrete Mathematics Week 5: Mathematical Reasoning 1Arguments Just like a rule of inference, an argument consists of one or more.
Proofs1 Elementary Discrete Mathematics Jim Skon.
Methods of Proofs PREDICATE LOGIC The “Quantifiers” and are known as predicate quantifiers. " means for all and means there exists. Example 1: If we.
10/17/2015 Prepared by Dr.Saad Alabbad1 CS100 : Discrete Structures Proof Techniques(1) Dr.Saad Alabbad Department of Computer Science
Chapter 1 Logic Section 1-1 Statements Open your book to page 1 and read the section titled “To the Student” Now turn to page 3 where we will read the.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
Section 2.21 Indirect Proof: Uses Laws of Logic to Prove Conditional Statements True or False.
Logical Reasoning:Proof Prove the theorem using the basic axioms of algebra.
P. 270 #47-49.
1 Discrete Structures – CNS2300 Text Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H. Rosen (5 th Edition) Chapter 3 The Foundations: Logic and Proof,
Methods of Proof Dr. Yasir Ali. Proof A (logical) proof of a statement is a finite sequence of statements (called the steps of the proof) leading from.
Inverse, Contrapositive & indirect proofs Sections 6.2/6.3.
Method of proofs.  Consider the statements: “Humans have two eyes”  It implies the “universal quantification”  If a is a Human then a has two eyes.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 CSci 2011.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Methods of Proof – Page 1CSCI 1900 – Discrete Structures CSCI 1900 Discrete Structures Methods of Proof Reading: Kolman, Section 2.3.
Introduction to Proofs
Section 1.7. Definitions A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using: definitions other theorems axioms (statements which are given as.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I Lecture 11 Section 3.1 Fri, Jan 28, 2005.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 8 Proofs Autumn 2012 CSE
Bellwork Write if-then form, converse, inverse, and contrapositive of given statement. 3x - 8 = 22 because x = 10.
5-5 Indirect Proof. Indirect Reasoning: all possibilities are considered and then all but one are proved false. The remaining possibility must be true.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proof Methods , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section:Most theorems in mathematics.
The Logic of Conditionals Chapter 8 Language, Proof and Logic.
Lecture 10 Methods of Proof CSCI – 1900 Mathematics for Computer Science Fall 2014 Bill Pine.
EXAMPLE 3 Write an indirect proof Write an indirect proof that an odd number is not divisible by 4. GIVEN : x is an odd number. PROVE : x is not divisible.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Proof Techniques CS160/CS122 Rosen: 1.5, 1.6, 1.7.
Lecture 2: Proofs and Recursion. Lecture 2-1: Proof Techniques Proof methods : –Inductive reasoning Lecture 2-2 –Deductive reasoning Using counterexample.
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
11.7 – Proof by Mathematical Induction
Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition
CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 02/01/17
Proof Techniques.
Methods of Proof A mathematical theorem is usually of the form pq
An indirect proof uses a temporary assumption that
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
Natural Deduction.
Section 2.1 Proof Techniques Introduce proof techniques:   o        Exhaustive Proof: to prove all possible cases, Only if it is about a.
Geometry.
Direct Proof and Counterexample I
Dr. Halimah Alshehri MATH 151 Dr. Halimah Alshehri Dr. Halimah Alshehri.
Introduction to Proofs
Presentation transcript:

2.3 Methods of Proof

Methods of Proof -Direct method -Indirect Methods: Showing a contrapositive Proof by contradiction Proof by counter example A proof must demonstrate that a statement is true for all cases (a tautology) We follow rules of inference for proofs. Rules of inference include a premise and a conclusion.

A mathematical proof: -must begin with a hypothesis or premises -proceed thru various steps, justified by some rules of inference -and arrive at a conclusion

A direct method of proof uses a previously proven fact. If p ⇒ q (if p then q) is a tautology, we say that q logically follows p. If (p1 ∧ p2 ∧… .∧ p n ) ⇒q is a tautology We can write: P1 P2 P3 . This section is the hypothesis or premises . P n ______________ This line means if…then  q Therefore q ( means therefore) q is the conclusion This shows that if Px is true, then q is true.

Page 60 (( p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ r)) ⇒ (p ⇒ r) is a tautology IF ((IF p then q) and (IF q then r)) then (IF p then r) We can rewrite: p ⇒ q If p then q q ⇒ r If q then r ________ if ….then  p ⇒ r Therefore If p then r

Following is an argument for this tautology: If you invest in the stock market, then you will get rich If you get rich, then you will be happy _______________________________________________  If you invest in the stock market, then you will be happy The argument is valid however, the conclusion may be false.

Indirect method showing contrapositive Following is a tautology representing contrapositive (p ⇒ q) ⇔ ((˜ q ⇒ (˜ p)) (IF p then q) IF and only IF (if not q then not p) n is an integer Prove that if n2 is odd then, n is odd p: n2 is odd q: n is odd We need to prove p ⇒ q is true…. instead, we prove the contrapositive: IF n is even, n2 is even. n = 2K where K is an integer. We use 2 because 2 is a factor for all even numbers. n . n = (2k) . (2k) n2= 2 (2.k.k) n2 = 2 (some integer)

Indirect method proof by contradiction This method is based on the tautology ((p ⇒ q) ∧ (˜ q)) ⇒ (˜ p) If (If p then q and not q) then not p We can write: p ⇒ q If p then q ˜ q not q _______ IF….then  ˜ p Therefore not p

To prove by contradiction, we went to prove that something is not true and show that the consequences are not possible. The consequences contradict what we assume. If I get a parking ticket and I didn’t pay it, I would get a nasty letter from the city. We know that I didn’t’ get a nasty letter from the city. We can deduce that I paid my ticket since I didn’t get a nasty letter from the city. To prove by contradiction, we would ASSUME that I did not pay the ticket and deduce that I should get a nasty letter. However, we know that I didn’t get a nasty letter. This statement is a contradiction and therefore our assumption is wrong.

Indirect method proof by counter example Prove or disprove If x and y are real numbers, (x2 = y2) ⇔ (x=y) ⇔ means IF and only IF We could find many examples to support this statement We only need one example to disprove this statement Counter Example: (-3)2 = 32 -3 ≠ 3