Chapter Two: Logic,

Proof, and Methods

of Mathematics
We have referred to proof. What is a proof? A proof is a
sequence of logical arguments showing that a conclusion is
consistent with a set of assumptions. These assumptions are
called axioms or postulates.
Logic and Axiomatic Systems
To understand proof, you will need to understand logic. Logic
is one of the basic methods of formal mathematics. Logic is
often used in mathematics to create what is called an axiomatic
system.
We have already discussed undefined technical terms. These
are technical terms that we understand, but are unable to define
exactly without resorting to a circular argument (using the idea
in its definition). Undefined terms may be used as arguments in
proofs, but there is the risk that such ambiguous terms will lead
to unclear proofs.
Stop Reading and Do Something #1: Go through
what we have covered in Chapter One and make a list
of undefined terms. Include a brief description of your
understanding of each term. Continue to add to this list
as we go.
A statement that is either true or false is called a
proposition. Propositions that contain only one part are called
atomic propositions. These are the indivisible atoms of logic that
allow use to build what we are studying. Propositions containing
several parts are called compound propositions. Usually we are trying
to prove a proposition.
Propositions that we assume to be true based on
experience are called axioms or postulates. Axioms and postulates
may be used as arguments in proofs.
Stop Reading and Do Something #2: Go through
what we have covered in Chapter One and make a list
of axioms/postulates. Include a complete description
of each axiom or postulate. Think about an argument
for the truth of each. Continue to add to this list as we
go.
Propositions that we believe to be true, but have not
been proved are called conjectures. Conjectures may be used as
arguments in proofs, but the proof will be undone should a
conjecture be disproved.
A conjecture that has been proved is called a theorem. A
theorem that is proven as part of a larger proof (as an
intermediate step) is called a lemma. A theorem that is a minor
extension of another theorem is called a corollary. Theorems,
lemmas, and corollaries may be used as arguments in a proof.
2 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
A conjecture that has been proved is called a theorem. A
theorem that is proven as part of a larger proof (as an
intermediate step) is called a lemma. A theorem that is a minor
extension of another theorem is called a corollary. Theorems,
lemmas, and corollaries may be used as arguments in a proof.
Technical terms that are built out of precise statements are
called formal definitions, or just definitions. Definitions may be used
as arguments in a proof.
Stop Reading and Do Something #3: Go through
what we have covered in Chapter One and make a list
of definitions. Include a complete description of each
definition. Continue to add to this list as we go.
It will be understood that a proposition will be
symbolized as p, q, r , s, . . . . All of these symbols may be used
in proofs.
We know that a proposition is either true or false. What
if we convert the proposition so that it then becomes false or
true, respectively. Such a process is called a negation. We use the
symbol for a negation, so for the negation of p we write p.
We can produce a table of all truth values. We will call
such a truth table. Here is the truth table for a proposition and its
negation, where T represents True, and F False:
p p
T F
F T
We could also use numbers, where 0 represents F, and 1
represents T:
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 3
p p
0 1
1 0
We can also combine propositions in a way that is
similar to combining sets. We can say that we will consider p
and q, this is called the conjunction and is symbolized .
Stop Reading and Do Something #4: Write the truth
table for the conjunction. Begin by writing the truth
values for p, then for q, then the truth value for p q.
This is true only if both p and q are true, otherwise it is
false.
p q p q
T T T
F T F
T F F
F F F
We can also combine them by saying p or q, called the
disjunction and symbolized .
Stop Reading and Do Something #5: Write the truth
table for the disjunction. Begin by writing the truth
values for p, then for q, then the truth value for p q.
This is true only if either p and q are true, otherwise it
is false.
We also have the exclusive or, XOR, or the exclusive
disjunction, p or q, but not both, symbolized by .
4 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
Stop Reading and Do Something #6: Write the truth
table for the exclusive disjunction. Begin by writing the
truth values for p, then for q, then the truth value for p
q. This is true only if either p and q are truebut not
both, otherwise it is false.
We can also say that if p is true, then q is true. This is called the
conditional, and we symbolize it =.
Stop Reading and Do Something #7: Write the truth
table for the conditional.
We can also turn a conditional around, saying if q is true then p
is true, called the converse.
Stop Reading and Do Something #8: Write the truth
table for the converse.
We can take the negation of the converse, saying if q is true
then p is true. This is called the contrapositive.
Stop Reading and Do Something #9: Write the truth
table for the contrapositive. Compare this with the truth
table for the conditional.
We can take a conditional, and state that it works both ways; if
p then q and if q then p. This is called the biconditional, it means
that p is true if and only if q is true. It is symbolized =.
Stop Reading and Do Something #10: Write the truth
table for the biconditional.
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 5
Stop Reading and Do Something #10: Write the truth
table for the biconditional.
From these symbols we can create logical formulas. The simplest
formula is just the statement of a proposition, for example p, or
if we are making a statement that a proposition p depends on
another idea, say x we would write px.
Here is the truth table for a somewhat complicated formula:
p q r p q r
p q
r
T T T T F T
F T T F F F
T T F T T T
F T F F T T
T F T F F F
F F T F F F
T F F F T T
F F F F T T
If two formulas have the same truth table result, then
they are said to be logically equivalent. We write p~q if p and q are
logically equivalent. If a formula is always true, then it is called a
tautology. If a formula is always false, then it is called a
contradiction.
The negation of a negation of a proposition, is just the
proposition. This is called a double negation, or a double negative.
(1) p = p.
Stop Reading and Do Something #11: Write the truth
table for the double negative. Show that it is logically
equivalent to p.
6 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
Stop Reading and Do Something #11: Write the truth
table for the double negative. Show that it is logically
equivalent to p.
Either something is true, or it is not. This is the law of the excluded
middle.
(2) p p.
If the order of the connective does not matter, we say it is
commutative,
(3) p - q =q - p.
Stop Reading and Do Something #12: Show that this
is true by comparing the two truth tables.
Here * means either or . We can apply this to formulas
involving parentheses, such that the order of parentheses is not
important,
(4) p - q - r = p - q - r .
This is called associativity.
Here we present the Law of the Contrapositive:
(5) p = q = q = p.
This law states that the contrapositive is true if and only if the
conditional is true. In other words showing the contrapositive
to be true is another way of showing the conditional to be true.
We can also list a formula for what are called DeMorgans
Laws:
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 7
(6) p - q = p q.
Here we can choose * to be either or , and is then either
or , so long as it is not the same as *.
We can also distribute operations:
(7) p - qr = p - q p - r .
Predicate Logic
Not all mathematical statements are propositions. Indeed,
x
2
= 0, is neither true nor false as it is presented. It becomes a
proposition only if we define x in some way. To make this clear
I will introduce some language: A symbol that represents an
unspecified object that can be chosen from some set of objects
is called a variable. A statement containing one or more variables
that becomes a proposition when the variables are chosen is
called a predicate.
The statement, "For every ...," is symbolized by !, and
is called the universal quantifier. For example we can say that for
all natural numbers, symbolized by , x 0. We could also
write the symbolic statement saying the same thing:
! x x e x 0.
The statement, "There exists...," is symbolized by , and
is called the existential quantifier. For example, we can say that
there exists some natural number such that x 0. We could
also write x x e x 0.
Stop Reading and Do Something #13: Rewrite the
definitions and axioms of Chapter One and this
Chapter up to now using the language of logic.
8 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
Stop Reading and Do Something #13: Rewrite the
definitions and axioms of Chapter One and this
Chapter up to now using the language of logic.
Proofs
In what follows, we will identify the starting proposition as the
hypothesis and symbolize it by p. The conjecture to be proved,
the conclusion, will be symbolized by q.
Proof by Truth Table
This is the most rudimentary style of proof. The primary
limitation is the amount of work it requires, and the ever-
expanding size of the resulting truth table. You begin by
producing the truth table for the hypothesis, and then the
conclusion; if they are the same, then they are logically
equivalent, thus the hypothesis if and only if the conclusion.
Direct proof
This is at once the most effective proof and the most difficult.
Here are the steps:
1. State the hypothesis.
2. Make your first logical argument in a sequence that will
bring you to the conclusion.
3. (this symbol indicates a variable number of steps).
4. Make your final argument.
5. State your conclusion.
Often this process is ended by writing Q.E.D. standing for quod
erat demonstrandum, meaning roughly, "Which was to be
demonstrated."
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 9
Proof by contrapositive
The contrapositive and the conditional are logically equivalent
as shown in Eq. (5)thus if we can prove the contrapositive,
we have proven the conditional. We begin this method of proof
by stating the conclusion.
1. State the conclusion.
2. Write the negation of the conclusion.
3. Make your first logical argument in a sequence that will
bring you to the hypothesis.
4. .
5. Make your final argument.
6. State the negation of the hypothesis.
7. Make the argument that by the contrapositive the
conditional must be true. Q.E.D.
Reductio ad absurdum (RAA)
Here we assume the negation of the conclusion and show that
this leads to a contradiction, thus the negation cannot be true;
thus the conclusion must be true:
1. State the hypothesis.
2. Assume that the hypothesis implies the negation of the
conclusion
3. Make your first logical argument in a sequence that will
show a contradiction.
4. .
5. Make your final argument.
6. Show that this implies that the negation of the
conclusion is both true and false, such a situation is
always false.
10 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
7. Since this is a contradiction, the negation of the
conclusion cannot be true.
8. The conclusion must then be true. Q.E.D.
Mathematical induction
This requires knowing that the natural numbers are 1, 2, 3, and
so on.
1. State the hypothesis.
2. Show that the conclusion is true for the case of a variable
equal to one. This is called the basis step.
3. Write your conclusion for the variable having an arbitrary
value for some unspecified natural number n.
4. Show that if the conclusion is true for n that the
conclusion is also true for n +1. This is called the inductive
step. It is possible to reverse 3 and 4, to assume the
conclusion true for n +1 and then show that it is true for
n.
5. By the Principle of Mathematical Induction the
conclusion must be true for all natural numbers (or for
all cases that can be listed by the natural numbers).
Q.E.D.
Proof by cases - divide and conquer
The final style of proof is given in the next two sections:
1. State the hypothesis.
2. Show that the conclusion requires a finite number of
cases.
3. Prove each case independently.
4. Thus the conclusion is true for each possible case. Q.E.D.
Proof by cases - Bootstrap
We continue with the second method for case analysis:
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 11
1. State the hypothesis.
2. Show that the conclusion requires a finite number of
cases.
3. Prove the first case.
4. Prove each case based on the proof of the previous case.
5. Thus the conclusion is true for each case. Q.E.D.
Counterexamples
Up to now we have considered how to construct a
mathematical proof. We can also disprove a conjecture by
showing a single case where the conclusion is not true. Such an
instance is called a counterexample of the conjecture.
Mathematical Discovery
Now we turn to the sticky issue of how we go about
discovering mathematics. The bald truth is that there is no
systematic method of mathematical discovery. What we have is
a set of guidelines that can be used to emphasize your inherent
talent.
You must think hard about what each object you are
considering really means in the context of what you are trying to
do. Then think about the relations between the objects, what do
they mean? Try to be as precise as possible. Bear in mind that
an object in one context may not be the same as in another
context. Expect these notions to change as your understanding
of the objects and/or relations becomes more sophisticated.
Beginning with objects and then their relations, ask
what their respective properties are. When you successfully
propose some property, then you must prove it to be true.
Sometimes you will want to create new structures or relations
from what you already have. Does this suggest formal
definitions?
12 Chapter 2 Logic.nb
Beginning with objects and then their relations, ask
what their respective properties are. When you successfully
propose some property, then you must prove it to be true.
Sometimes you will want to create new structures or relations
from what you already have. Does this suggest formal
definitions?
This leads to two broad types of problems. The first is a
problem to find something. This can be defining an object. It
can be performing a calculation. It can be constructing a new
object out of existing objects and their relations. Such problems
have three principal components: The object sought after, the
existing objects and relations, and the conditions that connect
them. What is the object you are trying to find?
The second is the problem to prove something. Here
you construct a conjecture and you prove it using a method
from the previous section.
In either type of problem it is wise to develop a plan of
attack. Think of a kind of strategy to solve the problem, or to
prove a conjecture.
Can you think of a way of substituting one or more
ideas for another? One set of symbols for another? Do the set
of existing objects or relations suggest a pattern?
Choose simple examples to get experience. Then
choose extreme cases (zero and infinity, for example). Then try
to identify significant cases where behavior might change. Do
the set of cases you are examining suggest a generalization? Can
you think of a new notation that might make things simpler?
Can you think of a way of using contradictory ideas that
arise from objects and/or relations in different contexts? Does
this allow you to change your view? Does it suggest a paradox
a situation where something has two contradictory answers at
the same time?
Chapter 2 Logic.nb 13
Can you think of a way of using contradictory ideas that
arise from objects and/or relations in different contexts? Does
this allow you to change your view? Does it suggest a paradox
a situation where something has two contradictory answers at
the same time?
As you carry out each step of your plan, make sure to
check your work. Estimate before you make a calculation, that
way you get some idea of what to expect.
When you are done, make sure to save your work. That
way you can use it later.
If you get stuck, try changing how you represent the
problem. Can you reword it? Can you develop a formula? Can
you make a diagram? Can you make a plot? What insights do
you gain from this? Can you think of a simpler problem that is
related to the problem that you are working on? Can you think
of another problem related by analogy or metaphor?
These are all broad strokes ideas that might not apply to
your specific problem. When you are working a problem try
them until you have exhausted the list, or until you have solve
the problem. Go over other problems you have done that are
similar, if there are any. How did you do it before? Has
someone else done it before? If so, how did they do it?
14 Chapter 2 Logic.nb