* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Math 248, Methods of Proof, Winter 2015
Survey
Document related concepts
Brouwer–Hilbert controversy wikipedia , lookup
Big O notation wikipedia , lookup
Turing's proof wikipedia , lookup
Brouwer fixed-point theorem wikipedia , lookup
Gödel's incompleteness theorems wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
Georg Cantor's first set theory article wikipedia , lookup
Non-standard calculus wikipedia , lookup
Fermat's Last Theorem wikipedia , lookup
Principia Mathematica wikipedia , lookup
Four color theorem wikipedia , lookup
Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem wikipedia , lookup
Naive set theory wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical proof wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Math 248, Methods of Proof, Winter 2015 Homework 4, due Friday, 1/23 1. Prove that there are m, n ∈ Z such that 2m + 7n = 1. 2. Prove that there is an odd number M such that for all real r ≥ M , 1 < 0.01 2r 3. Prove (by contradiction) that there does not exists a smallest positive real number (that is there does not exists an r ∈ R such that r > 0 and, if s ∈ R and s > 0 then r ≤ s). Sometimes we will want to prove that a statement of the form (∀x)(P (x)) is false. If we do this by giving a constructive proof of the negation ¬(∀x)(P (x)) ⇐⇒ (∃x)(¬P (x)), then the x which we determine satisfies ¬P (x) is referred to as a counter-example. So, for instance, consider the following statement: for all x ∈ N, x2 + x + 41 is prime. This statement is false, because for x = 41, (41)2 + 41 + 41 = (41)(41 + 1 + 1) is not prime (curiously, for all numbers x = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 39, x2 + x + 41 does turn out to be prime!). We refer to x = 41 as a counter-example to the statement for all x ∈ N, x2 + x + 41 is prime because it is a specific number showing that the negation (there is x ∈ N such that x2 + x + 41 is not prime) is true. 4. Find a counter example to the statement: if x ∈ R such that x > 0, then x2 − x > 0. 5. Prove or give a counter-example: for all integers a, b, c, if a | bc, then a | b or a | c. Sometimes we will want to prove theorems of the following form (P ∨ Q) =⇒ R. We can do this directly, and thus begin by assuming P ∨ Q and attempt to establish R. Assuming P ∨ Q, of course, means that P is true or Q is true (or both). So we proceed by breaking into more than one case. First we assume that P is true and work to show that R is true. Then we assume instead that Q is true and work to show that R is true. The form looks like the following: Theorem 1. (P ∨ Q) =⇒ R. Proof. Assume P is true Work to show that R is true Assume instead that Q is true Work to show that R is true Conclude if P ∨ Q is true then R is true, and hence (P ∨ Q) =⇒ R Here’s an example of this in action. ( r Definition 1. Given r ∈ R, we define |r| = −r if r ≥ 0 if r < 0 Theorem 2. Suppose that r, x ∈ R are specified real numbers and r > 0. If x > r or x < −r, then |x| > r. Proof. Suppose first that x > r. Since r > 0 and x > r it follows that x > 0 and thus |x| = x by definition. Thus |x| = x > r as required. Suppose on the other hand that x < −r. Then x < −r < 0 whence |x| = −x by definition. Furthermore x < −r implies −x > r and thus |x| = −x > r as required. Thus if x > r or x < −r it follows that |x| > r. Of course, frequently the ∨ which requires the use of cases in the proof will be buried in the problem. Here’s an example: Theorem 3. Let x ∈ R. Then −|x| ≤ x ≤ |x|. Proof. Let x ∈ R be arbitrary. Then either x ≥ 0 or x < 0. Suppose first that x ≥ 0. Then |x| = x be definition and since x ≥ 0, −|x| = −x ≤ 0. Thus −|x| = −x ≤ 0 ≤ x = |x| or simplifying −|x| ≤ x ≤ |x| as required. Suppose on the other hand that x < 0 so that −x > 0. Now by definition |x| = −x, or −|x| = x, and so |x| = −x > 0. We conclude that −|x| = x < 0 < −x = |x|, or simplifying, −|x| ≤ x ≤ |x| as required. Since x ∈ R was arbitrary, this completes the proof. Another way to state the theorem above, having specified x, is: if x ≥ 0 or x < 0, then −|x| ≤ x ≤ |x|. That makes the (P ∨ Q) =⇒ R form a bit more apparent. 6. Prove that for all x ∈ R, |x| ≥ 0. Prove this as though you know how to do usual arithmetic on R (and in particular that −a > −b if and only if a < b), but are just learning about |x| for the first time. Of course, when encountered in the wild, a proof might require more than just two cases. 7. Prove that |xy| = |x||y| for all x, y ∈ R. Now onto sets. 8. Let A and B be sets. Prove that if x 6∈ B and A ⊆ B, then x 6∈ A. 9. Give examples of sets A, B, and C such that the following are true (or write NOT POSSIBLE if, well, it isn’t possible): (a) A ⊆ B, B 6⊆ C, and A ⊆ C. (b) A 6⊆ B, B 6⊆ C, and A ⊆ C. (c) A ⊆ B, B 6⊆ C, and A 6⊆ C. Recall that ∈ and ⊆ have different meanings. So we can say {1, 2, 3} ⊆ {1, 2, 3, 4} but not that {1, 2, 3} ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}. Similarly, we can say that 3 ∈ {1, 2, 3} but not that 3 ⊆ {1, 2, 3}. Of course things get interesting when some of the elements in a set are themselves sets. So, for instance {1, 2, 3} ∈ {1, 2, 3}, 4, {3, 4} and {1, 2, 3}, 4 ⊆ {1, 2, 3}, 4, {3, 4} , but one cannot say {1, 2, 3} ⊆ {1, 2, 3}, 4, {3, 4} . One could say {1, 2, 3} ⊆ {1, 2, 3}, 1, 2, 3, {3, 4} and {1, 2, 3} ∈ {1, 2, 3}, 1, 2, 3, {3, 4} , because {1, 2, 3} is both an element and a subset of {1, 2, 3}, 1, 2, 3, {3, 4} . 10. Let A and B be sets. Prove that A ⊆ B ⇐⇒ A − B = ∅. 11. Let A, B, and C be sets. Prove that (A − B) − C = (A − C) − (B − C). Having discussed the idea of subsets of a set A, one wonders whether the collection of all subsets of A is itself a set. The answer turns out to be yes (axiomatically) and leads to the following notation. Definition 2. Given a set A, we say that the powerset of A is the set P(A) = {B | B ⊆ A}. So, for example, if A = {1, 2, 3}, then P(A) = ∅, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3} . Note that the elements of the powerset of A are themselves sets. 12. Let A = {1, ∅, {2, 3}}. Write out P(A). 13. Let A and B be sets. Prove that P(A) ∪ P(B) ⊆ P(A ∪ B). 14. Give a counterexample which shows that P(A ∪ B) 6= P(A) ∪ P(B). The grader will carefully consider 7 and 11.