Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

1. Informal Introduction to Methods of Proof

Stphane Bressan e

August 7, 2010

Introduction Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

1.1. Introduction
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesnt. Gdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal o Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter

Introduction The MU System

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

The MU System
Sentences Sentences are sequences of the letters M, U and I . M UIUI MIU MU

Introduction The MU System

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Axioms The only axiom is MI . Inference Rules If an axiom or theorem ends with I then U can be added at the end to form a theorem. If an axiom or theorem starts with M then the remainder can be duplicated to form a theorem. III can be replaced by U anywhere in an axiom or theorem to form a theorem. UU can be removed anywhere from an axiom or theorem to form a theorem.

Introduction The MU System

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

From the axiom MI , we can derive MIU by the rst rule. We say that MIU is a theorem. If MIII is a theorem then we can derive MU by the third rule.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

The Formal MU System

The Formal MU System

Sentences Sentences are sequences of the letters M, U and I . Axioms MI Inference Rules xI xIU Mx xIIIy xUUy Mxx xUy xy

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Theorems in the MU System

Theorems in the MU System

Is MUII a theorem?
1 2 3 4 5 6

MI MI MII MIIII MIIIIIIII MIIIIIIIIU y = U. MIIIIIUU MIIIII MII by the second rule where x = I . MIIII by the second rule where x = II . MIIIIIIII by the second rule where x = IIII . MIIIIIIIIU by the rst rule where x = MIIIIIII . MIIIIIUU by the third rule where x = MIIIII and MIIIII by the fourth rule.

7 8

MUII by the third rule where x = M and y = II .

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Theorems in the MU System

Lemma 1.1.1 The number of I in a theorem is never a multiple of 3. Theorem 1.1.2 MU is not a theorem of the MU system.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

1.2. Writing in the Language of Mathematics

Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, by Bertrand Russell

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denitions, Propositions and Proofs

Denitions, Propositions and Proofs

The structure of a mathematical text usually consists of: Denitions. Propositions. Proofs.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denitions, Propositions and Proofs

denitions, propositions and proofs involve one or a several statements expressed in a rigorous language. The language can be natural language or a formal language such as rst order logic. While the former may be ambiguous, the latter is not. Unfortunately, the former may appear more intuitive and the latter unnecessarily convoluted.

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denitions
Denitions associate a name, the name of the concept being dened, to a necessary and sucient condition expressed as a statement. It often contains the English language structure if and only if written in shorthand as i.

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denition 1.2.1 The set of natural numbers, N, is {0, 1, 2, 3 etc.} This is not a proper denition!

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denition 1.2.2 A natural number n is even i there exists a natural number m such that n = 2 m. Denition 1.2.3 A natural number n is odd i there exists a natural number m such that n = (2 m) + 1.

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

We sometimes use phrases like n is said to be even or n is called even to make clear that the denition introduces the term for the rst time. The fact that the condition is necessary is often implicit (by closure). We only indicate that it is sucient and use if or such that

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denition from [Kranz, 2009] A natural number is said to be even if, when it is divided by 2, there is an integer quotient and no remainder. Denition from [Rosen, 2003] The integer n is even if there exists an integer k such that n = 2k. Denition from [Epp, 2004] An integer n is even if, and only if, n equals twice some integer. n is even an integer k such that n = 2k.

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Denition from [Gosset, 2003] An integer n, is even if there exists an integer, k, such that n = 2k. Denition from [Ensley and Crawley, 2006] An integer n is even if it can be written in the form n = 2.K for some integer K.

Introduction Denitions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

A denition is often given by a list of propositions called axioms or laws. Denition 1.2.4 Equality on a set S, noted =, a the binary relation on a set S such that: (Reexivity) x S (x = x). (Symmetry) x S y S (x = y y = x). (Transitivity) x S y S z S ((x = z z = y ) x = y ). (Closure) x S y (x = y y S).

Introduction Propositions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Propositions
The main type of proposition is the theorem. Ancillary propositions are rather called lemma if they are enounced and proved in preparation of the proof of a theorem. They are called corollary if they follow more or less directly from a theorem. Statements that have not yet been proved but are believed to be true by their inventors are called conjectures.

Introduction Propositions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

The dierence between lemmas, theorems and corollaries (and even conjectures) is subjective. Proposition are named by tradition and convention. Fermats Last Theorem remained a conjecture for almost 450 years. Other names are occasionally used for propositions depending on the context and the inspiration of their inventors and readers. Propositions can be called principle, postulate, hypothesis, law, algorithma or else.
Preferably when they are operational and constructive and can be translated into computer programs)
a

Introduction Propositions

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Famous propositions are given a name: the Fifth Postulate, the Continuum Hypothesis, Napoleons Theorem, The Poincar e Conjecture, the Hand-shaking Theorema .
a

the list is made of propositions discussed in the book [Crilly, 2007].

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

1.3. Methods of Proof

If it is a miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a fact, proof is necessary. by Mark Twain

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Some Methods of Proof

Some Methods of Proof

Some Methods of Proof: Direct Proof, Equivalence Proof, Proof by Exhaustion, Proof by Counter Example, Proof by Construction, Pure Existence Proof.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Some Methods of Proof

More Methods of Proof: Contrapositive Proof, Proof by Contradiction, Proof by Induction, Pigeon Hole Principle, Combinatorial Proof, Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.

Introduction Direct Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Direct Proof
Proposition 1.3.1 The square of an even natural number is even.

Introduction Direct Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Sketch This is a direct proof. We show that if n is a natural number and n is even then n n is even by factorizing 2. Proof. 1 Let n be a an even natural number.
2

Since n is even then there exist a natural number m such that n = 2 m. Therefore n n = (2 m) (2 m). Therefore n n = 2 (2 m m) by associativity and commutativity of multiplication. Therefore n n is even. Q.E.D.

3 4

Introduction Equivalence Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Equivalence Proof
Proposition 1.3.2 The square of a natural number is even if and only if the natural number is even. Proof Sketch First, we prove that if a natural number is even then its square is even. Second, in order to prove that if the square of natural number is even then the number is even, we prove the contrapositive (see Subsection 4.5): if a natural number is not even then its square is not even.

Introduction Equivalence Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof. 1 Let n be a natural number. 2 If: Let us that prove that if n is even then its square is even.
1

We know that if n is even then its square is even by Proposition 1.3.1.

Only if: let us prove that if n is not even then its square is not even.
The proof is omitted.

Q.E.D.

Introduction Exhaustion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Exhaustion
Proposition 1.3.3 Natural numbers of the form n7 n are divisible by 7.

Introduction Exhaustion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Sketch We factorize n7 n. If we try and divide n by 7 then we may be left with a remainder. In other words n = 7 q + r . We show that for each of the possible values of r , namely 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 one of the factors is divisible by 7. Proof. 1 Let n be a natural number. 2 Let us prove that n7 n = n (n 1) (n2 + n + 1) (n + 1) (n2 n + 1).
1 2 3

n7 n = n (n6 1). Therefore n7 n = n (n3 1) (n3 + 1). Therefore n7 n = n (n 1) (n2 + n + 1) (n + 1) (n2 n + 1).

...

Introduction Exhaustion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont. 3 Let us now consider the seven cases for n = 7q + r where r equals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively.
1

Let us assume that r = 0.

1 2

Therefore n = 7 q. Therefore n7 n has the factor n, which is divisible by 7. Therefore n = 7 q + 1. Therefore n7 n has the factor n 1 = 7 q, which is divisible by 7. Therefore n = 7 q + 2. Therefore n7 n has the factor n2 +n +1 = (7q +2)2 +(7q +2)+1 = 49q 2 +35q +7, which is divisible by 7.

Let us assume that r = 1.

1 2

Let us assume that r = 2.

1 2

...

Introduction Exhaustion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont. 3 3 and 4.

4

Let us assume that r = 3.

1 2

Therefore n = 7 q + 3. Therefore n7 n has the factor n2 n +1 = (7q +3)2 (7q +3)+1 = 49q 2 +35q +7, which is divisible by 7. Therefore n = 7 q + 4. Therefore n7 n has the factor n2 +n+1 = (7q +4)2 +(7q +4)+1 = 49q 2 +63q +21, which is divisible by 7.

Let us assume that r = 4.

1 2

...

Introduction Exhaustion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont. 3 5 and 6.

6

Let us assume that r = 5.

1 2

Therefore n = 7 q + 5. Therefore n7 n has the factor n2 n +1 = (7q +5)2 (7q +5)+1 = 49q 2 +63q +21 , which is divisible by 7. Therefore n = 7 q + 6. Therefore n7 n has the factor n + 1 = 7 q + 7, which is divisible by 7.

Let us assume that r = 6.

1 2

Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Construction

Proof by Construction
Proposition 1.4.1 There exists an irrational number whose power to an irrational power is rational.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Construction

Proof Sketch We exhibit two irrational numbers p and q such that p q is rational.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Construction

Proof.
1 2 3

Let p and q be real numbers and p = 2 and q = log2 (25). We know that 2 is irrational by Proposition 1.4.3. Let us prove that log2 (25) is irrational.
The proof is omitted.

Let us prove that p q is rational.

1 2 3 4 5

log (25) log2 (p q ) = log2 ( 2 2 ) (1) by Therefore log2 (p q ) = log2 ( 2) log2 (25). Therefore log2 (p q ) = log2 (2) 1 log2 (25). 2 Therefore log2 (p q ) = log2 ( 25). Therefore p q = 25 = 5, which is rational.

Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Counter Example

Proof by Counter Example

The following proposition was thought to be true but it is false. Proposition 1.4.2 Natural numbers of the form 2(2 ) + 1, where n is a positive integer, are prime.
n

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Counter Example

Proof Sketch We disprove the proposition by exhibiting a number n such that n 2(2 ) + 1 is not prime. Proof. 1 Let n be a natural number and n = 5.
2 3

Therefore 2(2 ) + 1 = 4294967297. Therefore 4294967297 = 641 6700417a Q.E.D.

641 and 6700417 are prime numbers

Introduction Pure Existence Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pure Existence Proof

Proof Sketch We exhibit two irrational numbers p and q such that if p q is rational then we can construct a rational number of the form r s where r and s are irrational and if p q is irrational then we can construct a rational number of the form u v where u and v are irrational. Whatever the rationality of p q there exists an irrational number whose power to an irrational power is rational. Alternative Proof of Proposition 1.4.1.
1 2

Let p and q be irrational numbers. We know that 2 is irrational by Proposition 1.4.3. ...

Introduction Pure Existence Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont.
3

Let us assume that

1 2 3 4 5

and q = 2 both irrational. 2 2 Therefore p q = ( 2 ) . 22 Therefore p q = 2 . 2 Therefore p q = 2 . We know that p q = 2 is rational. Let p = 2
2

is irrational.

Let us assume that

1 2

2 and q = 2 both irrational. 2 We know that p q = 2 is rational by hypothesis. Let p =

2 2 is rational.

Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Contradiction

Proof by Contradiction
Proposition 1.4.3 2 is irrational. Proposition 1.4.3 There is no rational number whose square is 2.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Contradiction

Proof Sketch We prove by contradiction that if x is rational then x 2 = 2. We assume such an x exists and derive a contradiction. Proof. 1 Let x be a rational number. 2 Let us preliminarily prove that there exists two natural a numbers a and b such that x = b and one of a or b is not even.
1

a a and b such that x = b exist by denition of rational numbers. If both a and b are even we simplify the fraction by dividing them both by 2 until one of them is odd. We replace a and b by the new nominator and denominator, respectively.

...

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Contradiction

Proof Cont.
3

Let us assume that x 2 = 2.

1

2 3

We know that there exists a and b such that x = them is not even by (2). a2 Therefore x 2 = b2 = 2 . Therefore a2 = 2 b 2 . ...

a b

and one of

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Contradiction

Proof Cont. 3 Cont.

4

Let us assume that a is odd.

1

This is a contradiction since the square of an odd number is an odd number. Therefore b is odd by (3.1) Therefore there exist a number c such that a = 2 c and b is odd. Therefore a2 = 2 2 c 2 = 2 b 2 . Therefore 2 c 2 = b 2 . This is a contradiction since the the square of an odd number is an odd number.

Let us assume that a is even.

1 2

3 4 5

Therefore x 2 = 2. Q.E.D.

Introduction Contrapositive Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Contrapositive Proof
Proposition 1.4.4 If the sum of two natural numbers is even then the two numbers have the same parity.

Introduction Contrapositive Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Sketch We prove the contrapositive, namely that if two numbers have dierent parity then their sum is odd. Proof. 1 Let n and m be natural numbers. Let n be even and m be odd without loss of generality (because of commutativity of addition).
2

Therefore there exist two natural numbers k and p such that n = 2 k and m = 2 p + 1 by denition of even and odd natural numbers. ...

Introduction Contrapositive Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont. 3 Therefore we obtain the following equation. (1)

4

n + m = (2 k) + (2 p + 1)

Therefore we obtain the following equation from equation 1 by commutativity of addition and associativity of multiplication. (2) n + m = (2 (k + p)) + 1

Therefore n + m is odd. Q.E.D.

Introduction Proof by Induction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof by Induction
Proposition 1.5.1 The number of I in a theorem of the MU system is never a multiple of 3.

Introduction Proof by Induction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Sketch We prove by induction on the length of the derivation that every theorem cannot have three I. Proof. 1 Base case: the axiom has one I .
2

Induction hypothesis: Let us assume that all theorems derived by n inference rules do not have a number of I which is a multiple of 3. ...

Introduction Proof by Induction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof Cont. 3 Induction step:

1 2 3 4 4

Rule Rule Rule Rule

1 2 3 4

does not change the number of I . doubles the amount of I . replaces III by U. does not change the number of I

Therefore the number of I in a theorem of the MU system is never a multiple of 3. Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets box principle and Ramseys Theory

Proposition 1.5.2 (Pigeon Hole or Dirichlets box principle) If n + 1 objects are put into n boxes then at least one box contains two or more objects.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Proof Sketch This is a proof by contradiction. If no box contains two objects or more then we are missing objects. Proof. 1 Let us assume that each box contain 1 or 0 object
1 2 2

Therefore we have less than n objects in total. This is a contradiction.

Therefore at least one box contains two or more objects. Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Proposition 1.5.3 (Generalized Pigeon Hole Principle) If n objects are put into k boxes then at least one box contains n k objects. Proposition 1.5.4 (Innite Pigeon Hole Principle) If an innite number of objects are put into k boxes then at least one box contains an innite number of objects.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Ramseys Theory There is local order in sucient global chaos. Proposition 1.5.5 (Ramseys Theorem for six vertices) A complete graph with six vertices whose edges are colored with two colors contains at least one monochrome triangle.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Six Vertices A B C

D F

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Proof Sketch Using twice the Generalized Pigeon Hole Principle, we prove that there are three edges of the same color leaving any node and that there is a triangle between the node and two of the vertices connected by these edges or betwen the three vertices connected by these edges.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Proof. 1 Let G be a complete simple graph whose edges are colored with two colors.
2 3

Let v be any vertex of G . We know that v has ve incident edges because we know that the graph is simple and complete by (1). Therefore three of these vertices at least have the same color by the Generalized Pigeon Hole Principle (Proposition 1.5.3). Therefore there are three dierent vertices connected to v by these edges haveing the same color because we know that the graph is simple by hypothesis. Let w , x and y be these three dierent vertices. ...

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Pigeon Hole, Dirichlets Box principle, and Ramseys Theory

Proof Cont. 7 We know that there are three edges between the vertices w , x and y because the graph is complete by hypothesis. 8 Therefore either the three vertices have the same color or one of the vertices is of the same color as the vertices from v to w , x and y a
1

Let us assume that the three vertices have the same color.
1

Therefore they form a monochrome triangle (w , x, y ).

Let us assume that one of the vertices is of the same color as the vertices from v , say (x, y ) without loss of generality.
1

Therefore they form a monochrome triangle (v , x, y ).

Therefore there exists at least one monochrome triangle. Q.E.D.

Notice that the two cases are not exclusive but cover all possibilities.

Introduction Combinatorial Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Combinatorial Proof
Proposition 1.5.6 (Fermats Little Theorem) If p is a prime number and n natural number, then np n is divisible by p.

Introduction Combinatorial Proof

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Proof from Combinatorial Proof of Fermats Little Theorem by S.W. Golomb. Suppose that we have beads in n dierent colors, and we wish to make necklaces using exactly p beads. First we put p beads on a string. Since each of the beads can be chosen in n ways, there are np possible strings. For each of the n colors, there is one string entirely of that color. We throw these away, leaving np n strings. We will join the two ends of each of these strings to form necklaces. But we observe that if two strings dier only by a cyclic permutation of the beads, the resulting necklaces will be indistinguishable. Since there are p cyclic permutations of p beads on a string, the number of distinguishable necklaces is (np n)/p which must therefore be an integer. Q.E.D.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle
Proposition 1.5.7 Let S, A and B be a nite sets such that S = A B. The following equation holds.

(1)

| S |=| A | + | B | | A B |

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle

Problem Let n be a strictly positive natural number. Let p and q be two prime positive natural numbers. How many multiples of p or q are there between 1 and n p q? Proposition 1.5.8 Let n be a strictly positive natural number. Let p and q be two prime positive natural numbers. There are n p + n q n multiples of p or q between 1 and n p q.

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle

Proof Sketch We use the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle to compute the number of multiple of p or q from the number of multiple of p, the number of multiple of q and the number of multiples of both p and q. Proof. 1 Let n be a strictly positive natural number.
2 3 4

Let p and q be two prime positive natural numbers. Let P be the set of multiples of p between 1 and n p q. We know that there are n q multiples of p between 1 and n p q by construction and because q is prime by hypothesis. ...

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle

Proof Cont. 5 Let Q be the set of multiples of q between 1 and n p q.

6

We know that there are n p multiples of q between 1 and n p q by construction and because p is prime by hypothesis. We know that P Q is the set of multiples of p and q between 1 and n p q by construction. We know that there are n multiples of p and q between 1 and n p q by construction and because p and q are prime by hypothesis. ...

Introduction

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Inclusion-Exclusion Principle

Proof Cont. 9 We know that P Q is the set of multiples of p or q between 1 and n p q by construction.
10

Therefore | P Q |=| P | + | Q | | P Q |= n p + n q n by the Includion-Exclusion Principle (Proposition 1.5.7). Therefore there are n p + n q n multiples of p or q between 1 and n p q. Q.E.D

11

Introduction Conclusion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

1.6. Conclusion
Quod Erat Facienduma .
a

What needed to be done (that is all for today)

Introduction Conclusion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Further Readings I
T. Crilly, 50 mathematical ideas you really need to know, Quercus Publishing Plc. (2007). B.A Dumas and J.E. McCarthy, Transition to Higher Mathematics, Structure and Proofs, Fifth Edition, Mcgraw-Hill (2007). D.E. Ensley and J.W. Crawley, Discrete Mathematics, Mathematical Reasoning and Proofs with Puzzles, Patterns, and Games, John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2006). S.S. Epp, Discrete Mathematics with Applications, Third Edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole (2004).

Introduction Conclusion

Writing Mathematics

Proofs

More Proofs

Even More Proofs

Conclusion

Further Readings II
E. Gosset, Discrete Mathematics with Proof, Pearson Education (2003). S.G. Kranz, Discrete Mathematics Demystied, Mcgraw-Hill (2009). K.H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, Fifth Edition, Mcgraw-Hill (2003).