SUBTOPIC 3             :         METHOD OF PROOF.        From correct statements to an incorrect conclusion. Some other fo...
Two propositional expressions P and Q are logically equivalent, if and only if P ↔ Q is atautology. We write P ≡ Q or P ↔ ...
A contingency table is a table of counts. A two-dimensional contingency table is formedby classifying subjects by two vari...
The symbol ∴ is read “therefore.” The propositions      ,   ,…     are called the hypotheses(or premises) or the propositi...
p→q            premise 1                p               premise 2                q              ConclusionDef: A form of l...
Example1:Represent the argument.               The bug is either in module 17 or in module 81               The bug is a n...
Direct proofThis method is based on Modus Ponens,                                        [(p ⇒ q) ˅ p ]⇒ qVirtually all ma...
Example:Alt Proof of Disjunctive Syllogism: by a chain of inferences.         p ˅q             Premise 1         q ˅p     ...
Indirect proof       Definition:       An indirect proof uses rules of inference on the negation of the conclusion and on ...
EXERCISE:  1.       Assume      is rational. Then   , where   and b are relatively prime integers and            .  2.    ...
ANSWER:   1. Proving this directly (via constructive proof) would probably be very difficult--if not      impossible. Howe...
2. Proof. Assume that        is a rational number. Then,        = a/b for two positive integers a   and b. Assume that a a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Chapter 4

646

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
646
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Chapter 4"

  1. 1. SUBTOPIC 3 : METHOD OF PROOF. From correct statements to an incorrect conclusion. Some other forms of argument(“fallacies”) can lead from true statements to an incorrect conclusion.Def: An axiom is a statement that is assuming to be true, or in the case of a mathematical system,is used to specify the system.Def: A mathematical argument is a list of statements. Its last statement is called the conclusion.Def: A logical rule of inference is a method that depends on logic alone for deriving a newstatement from a set of other statements.Def: A mathematical rule of inference is a method for deriving a new statement that may dependon inferential rules of a mathematical system as well as on logic.3.1 Tautology and contradiction. Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish thata given statement is true for all natural numbers (positive integers). It is done by proving that thefirst statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any onestatement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one. Tautology: A proposition that is always true for all possible value of its propositional variables.Example of a TautologyThe compound proposition p ˅ ¬p is a tautology because it is always true.P ¬p p ˅ ¬pT F TF T T 21
  2. 2. Two propositional expressions P and Q are logically equivalent, if and only if P ↔ Q is atautology. We write P ≡ Q or P ↔ Q. A compound proposition that is always false is called a contradiction. A proposition thatis neither a tautology nor contradiction is called a contingency.Note that the symbols ≡ and ↔ are not logical connectives. Contradiction: A proposition that is always false for all possible values of its propositional variables.Example of a ContradictionThe compound proposition p ^ ¬p is a contradiction because it is always false.P ¬p p ˅ ¬pT F FF T F A proof by contradiction is based on the idea that if an assumption leads to an absurdityor to something that could not possibly be true, then the assumption must be false. Usage of tautologies and contradictions - in proving the validity of arguments; forrewriting expressions using only the basic connectives. Contingency: A proposition that can either be true or false depending on the truth values of its propositional variables. A compound proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is called acontingency 22
  3. 3. A contingency table is a table of counts. A two-dimensional contingency table is formedby classifying subjects by two variables. One variable determines the row categories; the othervariable defines the column categories. The combinations of row and column categories arecalled cells. Examples include classifying subjects by sex (male/female) and smoking status(current/former/never) or by "type of prenatal care" and "whether the birth required a neonatalICU" (yes/no). For the mathematician, a two-dimensional contingency table with r rows and ccolumns is the set {xi j: i =1... r; j=1... c}.Propositional form Propositions that are substitution instances of that formTautologous Logically trueContingent Contingently true, Contingently falseContradictory Logically false3.2 Argument and rules of inference Arguments based on tautology represent universally correct methods of reasoning. Thevalidity of the arguments depends only on the form of the statements involved and not on thetruth values of the variables. Definition: An argument is a sequence of propositions written : ∴ q Or , ,… / ∴ q. 23
  4. 4. The symbol ∴ is read “therefore.” The propositions , ,… are called the hypotheses(or premises) or the proposition q is called the conclusion. The argument is valid provide that ifthe proposition are all true, then q must also be true; otherwise, the argument is invalid (or afallacy).Example:Determine whether the argument p→q p ∴qIs valid [First solution] We construct a truth table for all the propositions involved. P q p→q p q T T T T T T F F T F F T T F T F F T F FExample:A Logical Argument If I dance all night, then I get tired. I danced all night. Therefore I got tired.Logical representation of underlying variables: p: I dance all night. q: I get tired.Logical analysis of argument: 24
  5. 5. p→q premise 1 p premise 2 q ConclusionDef: A form of logical argument is valid if whenever every premise is true, the conclusion is alsotrue. A form of argument that is not valid is called a fallacy.We shall see why the argument above is valid. This form of argument is called modus ponens. The argument is used extensively and is known as the modus ponens rule of inference orlaw of detachment. Several useful rules of inference for propositions, which may be verifiedusing truth table.Rule of inference Namep→q Modus ponens p∴qp→q Modus tollens ⌐q∴ ⌐p Addition p∴p˅q Simplification p˅q∴p p Conjunction q∴p˅qp→q Hypothetical syllogism q→r∴p→r p˅q Disjunctive syllogism ⌐p∴q 25
  6. 6. Example1:Represent the argument. The bug is either in module 17 or in module 81 The bug is a numerical error Module 81 has no numerical error ___________________________________________ ∴ the bug is in module 17.Given the beginning of this section symbolically and show that it is valid. If we let p : the bug is in module 17. q : the bug is in module 81. r : the bug is numerical error.The argument maybe written p ˅q r r → ⌐q ∴p From r → ⌐q and r, we may use modus ponens to conclude ⌐q. From r ˅ q and ⌐q, wemay use the disjunctive syllogism to conclude p. Thus the conclusion p follows from thehypotheses and the argument is valid. 26
  7. 7. Direct proofThis method is based on Modus Ponens, [(p ⇒ q) ˅ p ]⇒ qVirtually all mathematical theorems are composed of implication of the type, ( The are called the hypothesis or premise, and q is called conclusion. To prove atheorem means to show the implication is a tautology. If all the are true, the q must be alsotrue. To directly establish the implication p q by showing if p is true, then q is true. Notethat we do not need to show the cases when p is false! All we need to do is to show: If p is true, q has to be true. To prove a proposition in the form p q, we begin by assuming that p is true and thenshow that q must be true.Example:An even number is of the form 2n where n is an integer, whereas an odd number is 2n + 1. Provethat if x is an odd integer then x2 is also odd.Solution:Let p: x is odd, and q: x2 is odd. We want to prove p q.Start: p: x is odd x = 2n + 1 for some integer n x2 = (2n + 1)2 x2 = 4n2 + 4n + 1 x2 = 2(2n2 + 2n) + 1 x2 = 2m + 1, where m = (2n2 + 2n) is an integer x2 is odd q 27
  8. 8. Example:Alt Proof of Disjunctive Syllogism: by a chain of inferences. p ˅q Premise 1 q ˅p commutatively of _ ¬¬q ˅ p Double negation law ¬q p A B, ¬A B ¬p Premise 2 ¬¬q Modus tollens q Conclusion by negationExample: A theoremThe sum of two even numbers x and y is even.Proof: There exist numbers m and n such that x = 2m and y = 2n (by def of “even”). Then x + y = 2m + 2n (by substitution). = 2(m + n) (by left distributive) This is even, by the definition of evenness. 28
  9. 9. Indirect proof Definition: An indirect proof uses rules of inference on the negation of the conclusion and on some of the premises to derive the negation of a premise. This result is called a contradiction. Contradiction: to prove a conditional proposition p ⇒ q by contradiction, we first assumethat the hypothesis p is true and the conclusion is false (p˅ ~ q). We then use the steps from theproof of ~q ⇒ ~p to show that ~p is true. This leads to a contradiction (p˅ ~ p which complete ),the proof.Example: A theorem If is odd, then so is x.Proof: Assume that x is even (negation of conclusion). Say x = 2n (definition of even). Then = (substitution) = 2n · 2n (definition of exponentiation) = 2 · 2n2 (commutatively of multiplication.)Which is an even number (definition of even)This contradicts the premise that is odd. 29
  10. 10. EXERCISE: 1. Assume is rational. Then , where and b are relatively prime integers and . 2. is an irrational number. 30
  11. 11. ANSWER: 1. Proving this directly (via constructive proof) would probably be very difficult--if not impossible. However, by contradiction we have a fairly simple proof. Proposition 2.3.1.Proof: Assume is rational. Then where and are relatively prime integers and . SoBut since is even, must be even as well, since the square of an odd number is also odd.Then we have , or so .The same argument can now be applied to to find . However, this contradicts theoriginal assumption that a and b are relatively prime, and the above is impossible. Therefore, wemust conclude that is irrational.Of course, we now note that there was nothing in this proof that was special about 2, except thefact that it was prime. Thats what allowed us to say that was even since we knew that waseven. Note that this would not work for 4 (mainly because ) because doesnot imply that 31
  12. 12. 2. Proof. Assume that is a rational number. Then, = a/b for two positive integers a and b. Assume that a and b have no common factors so that the fraction a/b is an irreducible fraction. By squaring both sides of = a/b, we deduce 2 = / . Therefore =2 which implies that a2 is even. From Proposition 2, we conclude that a is even, i.e., a = 2k for some integer k. Substitute a = 2k in equation (1) to get We conclude that b2 is even which implies that b is even. We have derived that both a and b are even but this a contradiction since we assumed that the fraction a/b was irreducible. Therefore, is an irrational number. 32

×