Lesson 41: Methods of Proof

Learning Outcome(s): At the end of the lesson, the

learner is able to illustrate different methods of
proof.

Lesson Outline:
1. Introduction.
2. Proof and proving validity of arguments in
propositional form.
3. Proof and proving validity of arguments in real-
life situations.
4. Disproof.
5. Indirect proofs.
6. Proof and proving validity of arguments in
mathematics.
Basic Idea of Proofs
 The goal of the proof is to show that the conclusion logically
follows from the given propositions (or premises).

 As for the content of the proof, each proposition must be a

valid assertion: they must be based on a given statement (i.e. a
premise), or they must follow from the premise via logical
equivalences or rules of inferences.
Example 1. Prove the validity of the argument:

𝑝 → (𝑟 ሥ 𝑠)

~𝑟
∴ ~𝑝
Solution. Thinking process:

We assume that all propositions over the line are true.

From these two propositions, the goal is to establish a logical
sequence of propositions to arrive at the conclusion ~𝑝.

Common strategy is to start with the statement not

involving a conditional (i.e., start with~𝑟). Now think, if ~𝑟 is
true, how can we reach~𝑝?
 To do that, we can use Modus Tollens on 𝑝 → 𝑟 ‫ 𝑠 ٿ‬, but
first we need to establish that ~ 𝑟 ‫ 𝑠 ٿ‬is true. Since ~𝑟 is true,
then by the Rule of Addition, (~𝑟) ‫ )𝑠~(ڀ‬is true. It follows that,
~𝑟 ‫ )𝑠 ٿ 𝑟(~ ⇔ 𝑠~ ڀ‬by De Morgan’s Law.

Actual PROPOSITION REASON

proof: 1 ~𝒓 Premise

2 (~𝒓) ሧ(~𝒔) (1), Rule of Addition

3 ~(𝒓 ሥ 𝒔) (2),De Morgan’s Laws

4 𝒑 → (𝒓 ሥ 𝒔) Premise

5 ~𝒑 (3), (4), Modus Tollens

Example 2. Prove the validity of the argument.

(𝒑 ሥ 𝒓) → (~𝒒)

(~𝒒) → 𝒓
~𝒓
∴ (𝒑 ‫)𝒓 ٿ‬
Solution. Observe that the Law of Syllogism can be applied to the first two
premises: that is, (𝑝 ‫ )𝑞~( → )𝑟 ٿ‬and (~𝑞) → 𝑟 imply that (𝑝 ‫𝑟 → )𝑟 ٿ‬.

Also, since ~𝑟 is true, then ~(𝑝 ‫ )𝑟 ٿ‬is true by Modus Tollens.

Actual
proof: PROPOSITIONS REASON

1 (𝒑 ሥ 𝒓) → (~𝒒) Premise

2 (~𝒒) → 𝒓 Premise

3 (𝒑 ሥ 𝒓) → 𝒓 (1), (2), Law of Syllogism

4 ~𝒓 Premise

5 ~(𝒑 ሥ 𝒓) (3), (4), Modus Tollens

Alternative proof:
PROPOSITIONS REASON

1 ~𝒓 Premise

2 (~𝒒) → 𝒓 Premise

3 ~(~𝒒) (1), (2), Modus Tollens

4 (𝒑 ሥ 𝒓) → (~𝒒) Premise

5 ~(𝒑 ሥ 𝒒) (3), (4), Modus Tollens

Example 3. Prove the validity of the following argument.

𝒑ሧ𝒓

(~𝒓) ሧ(~𝒔)
𝒔
∴ 𝒑
Solution. We can start a simple proposition 𝑠. Then ~𝑠
must be false since 𝑠 is taken to be true.
By Disjunctive Syllogism (~𝑟) ‫ 𝑠~ ڀ‬, it follows that ~𝑟 is
true. Applying Disjunctive Syllogism again with 𝑝 ‫𝑟 ڀ‬, it
follows then that 𝑝 is true.

Actual PROPOSITIONS REASON

proof: 1 𝒔 Premise
2 ~(~𝒔) Double Negation

3 (~𝒓) ሧ(~𝒔) Premise

4 ~𝒓 (2), (3), Disjunctive Syllogism

5 𝒑ሧ𝒓 Premise

6 𝒑 (4), (5), Disjunctive Syllogism

Alternatively, it is also valid to transform the premises 𝑝 ‫ 𝑟 ڀ‬and (~𝑟) ‫ 𝑠~ ڀ‬to ~𝑝 →
𝑟 and 𝑟 → 𝑠, respectively using the Switcheroo Law. Then we can use Modus Tollens
and the Law of Syllogism.
PROPOSITION REASON

1 𝐩ሧ𝐫 Premise

2 ~𝐩 → 𝐫 Switcheroo

3 (~𝐫) ሧ(~𝐬) Premise

4 𝐫 → ~𝐬 Switcheroo
5 ~𝐩 → ~𝐬 Law of Syllogism
6 𝐬 Premise
7 ~(~𝐬) (6), Double Negation
8 ~(~𝐩) (5), (7), Modus Tollens
9 𝐩 Double Negation
Example 4. Analyze the validity of the following argument:
If you start your own business, then you will earn right
away. If you go to college, then you will get a college
degree after a few years. However, you either start your
own business, or you go to college. Therefore, either you
earn right away, or get a college degree after a few
years.

Solution. We transform the given argument in symbols.

Define the propositions
b : “You start your own business.”
e : “You earn right away.”
c : “You go to college.”
d : “You get a college degree after a few years.”
Proof:
PROPOSITION REASON

1 𝒃ሧ𝒄 Premise

2 ~(~𝒃) ሧ 𝒄 Double Negation

3 (~𝒃) → 𝒄 Switcheroo
4 𝒄→𝒅 Premise
5 (~𝒃) → 𝒅 (3), (4), Law of the Syllogism
6 𝒃→𝒆 Premise
(4), The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the originally
7 (~𝒆) → (~𝒃)
conditional
8 ~(~𝒆) → 𝒅 (5), (7) Law of the Syllogism

9 ~(~𝒆) ሧ 𝒅 Switcheroo

10 𝒆ሧ𝒅 Double Negation

Note: We have shown in the previous example that an
argument of the form

𝒑→𝒒
𝒓→𝒔
𝒑‫𝒓ڀ‬
∴ 𝒒‫𝒔ڀ‬

is valid. This form is called the constructed dilemma.

Example 5. Show the following argument is invalid: “I would like a career in either
teaching or diplomacy. If I teach, then I would want to study abroad. Therefore, if I would
like a career diplomacy, then I will study abroad.”

Solution. We first write the argument in symbolic form using the following propositions:

t: I would like a career in teaching.

d: I would like a career in diplomacy.
s: I would want to study abroad.
Thus, the argument can be written in standard form as

𝑡ሧ𝑑

𝑡→𝑠
∴ 𝑑→𝑠
 To show that an argument is not valid, we need to find truth values for
each proposition such that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

For 𝑑 → 𝑠 to be false, then 𝑑 must be true and 𝑠 must be false. If 𝑡 is false,

then 𝑡 ‫ 𝑑 ڀ‬is true and 𝑡 → 𝑠 are both true. Since there is such a combination
of truth values for 𝑡, 𝑠, and 𝑑 that conclusion false but the premises true, the
argument is invalid.

This is an example illustrating that producing a counterexample is

sufficient to show that an arguments is invalid.

Another method is through the use of an indirect proof or a proof by

contradiction. In these proofs, we show that the assumption that the
premises are true but the conclusion is false leads to a contradiction.
Example 6. Prove the following
arguments using thee methods; (a) via the
rules of inference, (b) via truth tables,
and (c) via an indirect proof.

𝒑ሧ𝒒
~𝒒
∴ 𝒑
Solution.

a. Via rules of inference

PROPOSITION REASON

1 𝒑ሧ𝒒 Premise

2 ~𝒒 Premise

3 𝒑 (1), (2), Disjunctive Syllogism

b. Via truth tables

𝒑 𝒒 𝒑ሧ𝒒 ~𝒒 𝒑 ሧ 𝒒 ሥ ~𝒒 𝒑 ሧ 𝒒 ሥ ~𝒒 →𝒑

T T T F F T
T F T T T T
F T T F F T
F F F T F T

Since 𝒑 ‫𝒒~ ٿ 𝒒 ڀ‬ → 𝒑 is a tautology, the argument is valid..

c. Via indirect proof

We assume the conclusion is false, based on the

premises are true, and show that these lead to a
contradiction.

Suppose 𝑝 (the conclusion) is false, while the premises,

~𝑞 is true, and so 𝑞 is false. Therefore, 𝑝 ‫ 𝑞 ڀ‬is false, which
is a contradiction of the premises that 𝑝 ‫ 𝑞 ڀ‬is true.

Therefore, the conclusion must be true.

 Definition in mathematics are always “if and only if” statements.

Consider the following examples.

Definition “If and only if” Form

An even number 𝒎 is a number than can

A number 𝒎 is even if and if it can be
be written as 𝒎 = 𝟐𝒌, where 𝒌 is an
written as 𝒎 = 𝟐𝒌, where 𝒌 is an integer.
integer.

A binomial is a polynomial with exactly 2 A polynomial is a binomial if and only if it

terms has exactly 2 terms.

A parallelogram is a quadrilateral with A quadrilateral is a parallelogram if and

two pairs of parallel sides only if it has two pairs of parallel sides.
Example 7. Prove the validity of the argument.

An even number 𝑚 is a number that can be

written as 𝑚 = 2𝑘, where 𝑘 is an integer. The
numbers 𝑥 and 𝑦 are even. Therefore, 𝑥 + 𝑦 is
even.
Solution. Since 𝑥 is even, then the first premise ensures
that 𝑥 can be written as 𝑥 = 2𝑘1 , where 𝑘1 is an integer.
Similarly, since 𝑦 is even, then we can write 𝑦 = 2𝑘2 , where
𝑘2 is an integer.

We compute for 𝑥 + 𝑦:

𝑥 + 𝑦 = 2𝑘1 + 2𝑘2 = 2(𝑘1 + 𝑘2 )

Since 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 is an integer, then 𝑥 + 𝑦 is even. This is the

conclusion when Modus Ponens is applied to the first
premise.
Example 8. Prove that the following argument is valid.

If a quadrilateral has three right angles, then it is a rectangle. In

quadrilateral 𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷, 𝑚∠𝐴 = 90° , 𝑚∠𝐵 = 90° , and 𝑚∠𝐶 = 85° . Then 𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷 is
not a rectangle.

Proof: The sum of the interior angles in a rectangle is 360° . Therefore,

𝑚∠𝐴 + 𝑚∠𝐵 + 𝑚∠𝐶 + 𝑚∠𝐷 = 360°

Substituting the values given, we have 90° + 90° + 85° + 𝑚∠𝐷 = 360° ,
which simplifies to 𝑚∠𝐷 = 95° . Therefore, 𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷 has only two right
angles. This is also means that 𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷 is not a rectangle (using Modus
Tollens on the definition stated in the first premise).
Indirect Proof: Assume that 𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷 is a rectangle. Then it has three right
angles. But since ∠𝐶 is not a right angle, then the three right angles
must be ∠𝐴, ∠𝐵, and ∠𝐷.

Solving for 𝑚∠𝐶 in the equation 𝑚∠𝐴 + 𝑚∠𝐵 + 𝑚∠𝐶 + 𝑚∠𝐷 = 360°
(given 𝑚∠𝐴 = 90° , 𝑚∠𝐵 = 90° , and 𝑚∠𝐷 = 90° ), we find that 𝑚∠𝐶 =
90° . This contradicts the fact that 𝑚∠𝐶 = 85° , which is given. Therefore,
𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷 is not a rectangle.
 EDDIELYN ABANES
ALTHEA ABIERA
TRIXIE CANDELARIA
ROSEJEAN HEBUNAN
MARJORIE LAGAHIT
 END OF THE
PRESENTATION