Learning Goals: In-Class. Using Logical Equivalences. Outline. Worked Problem: Even Squares
|
|
- Deirdre Caldwell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CPSC 121: Models of Computation 2013W2 Proof Techniques (Part B) Steve Wolfman, based on notes by Patrice Belleville and others snick snack Learning Goals: In-Class By the end of this unit, you should be able to: Devise and attempt multiple different, appropriate proof strategies including all those listed in the pre-class learning goals plus use of logical equivalences, rules of inference, universal modus ponens/tollens, and predicate logic premises for a given theorem. For theorems requiring only simple insights beyond strategic choices or for which the insight is given/hinted, additionally prove the theorem. 1 2 Using Logical Equivalences Every logical equivalence that we ve learned applies to predicate logic statements. For example, to prove ~ x D, P(x), you can prove x D, ~P(x) and then convert it back with generalized De Morgan s. To prove x D, P(x) Q(x), you can prove x D, ~Q(x) ~P(x) and convert it back using the contrapositive rule. 3 In other words, Epp s proof by contrapositive is direct proof after applying a logical equivalence rule. 4 Even Squares Theorem: If the square of an integer n is even, then n is even. Problem: prove the theorem. This is a tricky problem, unless you try some different approaches. An approach that may work with conditional statements is to try the contrapositive (which is logically equivalent to the original conditional). Even Squares Theorem: If the square of an integer n is even, then n is even. Approach: (1) Prove the contrapostive: If an integer n is odd, then its square is also odd. (2) Transform the result back into our theorem. We now focus on proving the contrapositive
2 Even Squares (part 1) Theorem: If an integer n is odd, then its square is also odd. Proof: Without loss of generality, let n be an integer. Assume n is odd. We know (from Epp s definition of odd ) that n = 2k + 1 for some integer k. n 2 = (2k + 1) 2 = 4k 2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k 2 + 2k) Even Squares (part 2) We know 2k 2 + 2k is an integer (since k is an integer and multiplication and addition are closed over the integers ). n 2 is 2q+1 for some integer q; so, n 2 is odd. Thus, if an integer n is odd, its square is odd. The contrapositive of this statement is also true: if the square of an integer n is even, then n is even. QED 8 Using Predicate Logic Premises: Universals What can you say if you know (rather than needing to prove) x D, P(x)? If you know x D, P(x): You can say P(d) is true for any particular d in D of your choice, for an arbitrary d, or for every d This is basically the opposite of how we go about proving a universal. Using Predicate Logic Premises: Existentials What can you say if you know (rather than needing to prove) y D, Q(y)? If you know y D, Q(y): Do you know Q(d) is true for every d in D? Do you know Q(d) is true for a particular d of your choice? What do you know? Using Predicate Logic Premises What can you say if you know (rather than needing to prove) x D, P(x) or y D, Q(y)? If you know x D, P(x), you can say for any d in D that P(d) is true. You can say P(d) is true for any particular d in D or for an arbitrary one. If you know y D, Q(y), you can say that for some d in D, Q(d) is true, but you don t know which one. So, assume nothing more about e than that it s from D. 11 This is basically the opposite of how we go about proving a existential. 12 This is basically the opposite of how we go about proving the statements. 2
3 Problem: Anti-Symmetric Let an algorithm be generally faster than another algorithm exactly when it s faster for all problem sizes n greater than some minimum i. Assume that if one algorithm is faster than another algorithm for any particular n, then the other algorithm is not faster than the first algorithm for that n. Problem: Prove that if one algorithm is generally faster than another, then the other is not generally faster than the first. 13 How Shall We Start Our Strategy? a. Witness b. Inequality proof c. Antecedent assumption d. WLOG e. I have no idea 14 Problem: Anti-Symmetric Theorem: If one algorithm is generally faster than another, then the other is not generally faster than the first. WLOG, let a and b be algorithms. Assume a is generally faster than b. Based on the definition of generally faster, then: there is an i such that a is faster than b for all n > i. We now need to prove that b is not generally faster than a, that is that there is no i 2 such that b is faster than a for all n 2 > i 2. Should we prove the negation or try something else? 15 I renamed the variables so I wouldn t get confused! Problem: Anti-Symmetric WLOG, let a and b be algorithms. Assume a is generally faster than b. Based on the definition of generally faster, then: there is an i such that a is faster than b for all n > i. We now need to prove that b is not generally faster than a, that is that there is no i 2 such that b is faster than a for all n 2 > i 2. Instead, we ll prove the equivalent statement that for all i 2, there is an n 2 > i 2 such that b is not faster than a for problem size n How Shall We Continue? a. Witness b. Inequality proof c. Antecedent assumption d. WLOG e. I have no idea Problem: Anti-Symmetric Continuing: WLOG, let i 2 be a positive integer. Let n 2 =??. (NOTE FOR LATER, better be > i 2!) We now need to prove that b is not faster than a for problem size n 2. Does our assumption that a is generally faster than b help? Under what conditions? It s common in scratch work to build up NOTES FOR LATER and handle them at the end. 3
4 Problem: Anti-Symmetric Finishing the proof: (NOTE FOR LATER, n 2 better be > i as well!) Based on our assumption and since n 2 > i, a is faster than b for problem size n 2. Based on our initial assumption about faster, we know that since a is faster than b for problem size n 2, b is not faster than a for problem size n 2. QED! Crucial Steps and Where They Came From?? (Note: we assumed nothing about i (the existential) but that it s a positive integer, but we 19 picked n (the universal) to be whatever we want!) 20 A New Proof Strategy Proof by Contradiction To prove p: Assume ~p. Derive a contradiction. You have then shown that there was something wrong (impossible) about assuming ~p; so, p must be true. 21 Can you use this in predicate logic proofs? 22 Of course you can, just like every other prop logic technique! Example in Dialogue: Prove that Achilles is not Omnipotent Achilles: I am omnipotent you know. Tortoise: Can you lift a mountain with your mind, no matter how big? Achilles: Of course! Tortoise: Can you make a mountain out of nothing, no matter how big? Achilles: Certainly! Tortoise: Can you make a mountain so big that even you cannot lift it? Achilles: See if I invite you over for dinner again. I stole the characters from Gödel, Escher, Bach. 23 I stole the story from some sci-fi novel. Side Note: Really a New Proof Strategy? Assume ~p and derive a contradiction is the same assume ~p and prove F. That s antecedent assumption! What have we proven? ~p F What s that logically equivalent to? 24 4
5 Partly 2 is Irrational Note: a rational number can be expressed as a/b for some a Z, b Z + with no common factor except 1. Theorem: The 2 is an irrational number. Problem: prove the theorem. This is a tricky problem to even start with. We know from the definition that we want to show 2 cannot be represented as a/b with the constraints given, but where does that get us? Let s try contradiction, instead. 25 Partly 2 is Irrational Theorem: The 2 is an irrational number. Opening steps: (1) Assume for contradiction that 2 is rational. (2) Using our knowledge of rationals, we know 2 = a/b, where a Z, b Z+, and a and b have no common factor except 1. [But, we know nothing more about a and b!] Next, play around with the formula 2 = a/b 26 and see where it takes you! Promising Strategies? We know that 2 = a/b. Which of these feels like the most promising strategy? a. Solve for a. b. Solve for b. c. Square both sides to ditch the radical. d. Assume 2 is rational. e. None of these is promising. 27 a = b 2 Proof Scratchwork b = a/ 2 2 = a 2 /b 2 a 2 = 2b 2 b 2 = a 2 /2 b is a positive integer a and b have no common factors Plus, blast from the past: 28 If the square of an integer is even, the integer is even. Finishing the Proof Assume for contradiction that 2 is rational. Then, 2 = a/b for a Z, b Z+, where a and b have no common factor except 1. So, a 2 = 2b 2, and a 2 is even. Since a 2 is even, a is even (prev. proof!!). a = 2k for some integer k. b 2 = a 2 /2 = (2k) 2 /2 = 2k 2. b 2 is even and so is b. Then, b and a share the factor 2. CONTRADICTION! QED ( 2 is irrational.) Notice: even with proofs, we can break them down into simpler pieces. 29 When we use our previous proof this way, we call it a lemma. 30 5
6 Strategies for Predicate Logic Proofs (1 of 2) Have lots of strategies on hand, and switch strategies when you get stuck: Try using WLOG, exhaustion, or witness approaches to strip the quantifiers Try antecedent assumption on conditionals Try contradiction on the whole statement or as part of other strategies Strategies for Predicate Logic Proofs (2 of 2) Work forward, playing around with what you can prove from the premises Work backward, considering what you d need to reach the conclusion Play with the form of both premises and conclusions using logical equivalences Finally, disproving something is just proving its negation Problem: Aliens Attack Aliens hold the Earth hostage and demand that we help them get started proving: x D, y E, z F, (P(x) Q(x,y)) R(x,z). Problem: Propose four different, promising solution strategies that are each as complete as possible (given the available information) and could be used to address this theorem. 33 This is why a Computer Scientist is always kept on hand at Area That and the use a computer virus to take out their shields thing. Problem: Let an algorithm be generally faster than another algorithm exactly when it s faster for all n greater than some minimum i. Assume that no algorithm is faster than itself for any particular n. Problem: Prove that no algorithm is generally faster than itself. 35 Problem: Prove that no algorithm is generally faster than itself. Let s roughly translate to predicate logic: ~ a that is generally faster than itself. We don t have a technique for a ~ on the outside, but we could: (1) disprove a that is generally faster than itself, (2) use proof by contradiction (and assume a that is generally faster than itself), or (3) use De 36 Morgan s to move the negation inward. 6
7 Let s try: use De Morgan s to move the negation inward. Using De Morgan s, ~ a that is generally faster than itself becomes a ~(a is generally faster than itself) Now, consider an arbitrary algorithm a. We re down to proving ~(a is generally faster than itself). We re down to proving ~(a is generally faster than itself). From the problem statement: Let an algorithm be generally faster than another algorithm exactly when it s faster for all n greater than some minimum i. Let s translate to predicate logic: GF(a 1, a 2 ) = i N, n N, n > i Faster(a 1, a 2, n) GF(a,a) = i N, n N, n > i Faster(a, a, n) We re down to proving ~(a is generally faster than itself). GF(a,a) = i N, n N, n > i Faster(a, a, n) ~GF(a,a) = ~ i N, n N, n > i Faster(a, a, n) Let s move the negation inward: i N, n N, ~(n > i Faster(a, a, n)) i N, n N, ~(n > i Faster(a, a, n)) i N, n N, ~(~(n > i) Faster(a, a, n)) i N, n N, n > i ~Faster(a, a, n) 39 We re down to proving ~(a is generally faster than itself). i N, n N, n > i ~Faster(a, a, n) In other words: for any minimum i, there is a larger number n such that a is not faster than itself for problem size n. 40 We now need to prove: for any minimum i, there is a larger number n such that a is not faster than itself for problem size n. i N, n N, n > i ~Faster(a, a, n) Consider an arbitrary (positive integer) i. Let n =??. (Must be > i; so, at least i+1.) So, we need to prove: a is not faster than itself for problem size?? (for an arbitrary positive integer i) 41 From the problem statement: Assume that no algorithm is faster than itself for any particular n. That s equivalent to: for every algorithm and n, the algorithm is not faster than itself for problem size n. By universal instantiation on this premise, a is not faster than itself for problem size?? (where i is an arbitrary positive integer), whatever?? might be. So, we just pick?? = i + 1 to make it larger than i. And.. we re done! 42 7
8 Worked Problem, Short Version: The definition of generally faster requires us to pick a minimum i after which the first algorithm is always faster than the second for each problem size. Consider an arbitrary algorithm a. Let i be an arbitrary positive integer. We pick a larger value n = i + 1. We know from the premise that a is not faster than itself for any problem size; so, it is not faster than itself for n. Thus, a is not generally faster than itself. QED 43 Worked Problem, Short Version, Different Approach: Assume for contradiction that some algorithm a is generally faster than itself. Then, by the definition of generally faster, for all n larger than some minimum i, a is faster than itself. Thus, for any number n 1 larger than i (like, n 1 = i + 1). a is faster than itself for n 1. But, we also assumed that no algorithm (including a) is faster than itself for any particular problem size (including n 1 ). This is a contradiction! QED 44 Learning Goals: In-Class 45 By the start of class, you should be able to: Devise and attempt multiple different, appropriate proof strategies including all those listed in the pre-class learning goals plus use of logical equivalences, rules of inference, universal modus ponens/tollens, and predicate premises for a given theorem. For theorems requiring only simple insights beyond strategic choices or for which the insight is given/hinted, additionally prove the theorem. 46 Next Learning Goals: Pre-Class We are mostly departing from the readings for next class to talk about a new kind of circuit on our way to a full computer: sequential circuits. The pre-class goals are to be able to: Trace the operation of a deterministic finite-state automaton (represented as a diagram) on an input, including indicating whether the DFA accepts or rejects the input. Deduce the language accepted by a simple DFA after working through multiple example inputs. Next Lecture Prerequisites See the Sequential Circuits readings on the course website. Complete the open-book, untimed, online quiz on due before class. 8
9 More problems to solve... (on your own or if we have time) snick snack Problem: Generally, Transitively Faster? Continue with our previous assumptions about faster/generally faster. Assume that our faster predicate is transitive (Faster(a 1, a 2, n) and Faster(a 2, a 3, n) implies Faster(a 1, a 3, n)). Problem: Prove that if one algorithm is generally faster than a second, and if the second algorithm is generally faster than a third, then the first algorithm is also generally faster than the third More More Practice: A Representation for Every Number Prove that any non-negative integer can be represented using a finite number of bits as an unsigned binary number. (Don t) Prove that with a finite number of bits, we can represent any non-negative integer as an unsigned binary number. (What s different between these two? Why can t we prove the second? How would we disprove it?) 51 9
CPSC 121: Models of Computation
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 6 Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman Coming Up Pre-class quiz #7 is due Wednesday October 25th at 9:00 pm.
More informationCPSC 121: Models of Computation. Module 6: Rewriting predicate logic statements
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Pre-class quiz #7 is due Wednesday October 16th at 17:00. Assigned reading for the quiz: Epp, 4th edition: 4.1, 4.6, Theorem 4.4.1 Epp, 3rd edition: 3.1, 3.6, Theorem 3.4.1.
More informationSection 3.1: Direct Proof and Counterexample 1
Section 3.1: Direct Proof and Counterexample 1 In this chapter, we introduce the notion of proof in mathematics. A mathematical proof is valid logical argument in mathematics which shows that a given conclusion
More informationChapter 2. Mathematical Reasoning. 2.1 Mathematical Models
Contents Mathematical Reasoning 3.1 Mathematical Models........................... 3. Mathematical Proof............................ 4..1 Structure of Proofs........................ 4.. Direct Method..........................
More informationInference and Proofs (1.6 & 1.7)
EECS 203 Spring 2016 Lecture 4 Page 1 of 9 Introductory problem: Inference and Proofs (1.6 & 1.7) As is commonly the case in mathematics, it is often best to start with some definitions. An argument for
More informationSome Review Problems for Exam 1: Solutions
Math 3355 Fall 2018 Some Review Problems for Exam 1: Solutions Here is my quick review of proof techniques. I will focus exclusively on propositions of the form p q, or more properly, x P (x) Q(x) or x
More informationLogic, Sets, and Proofs
Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Operators. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that can be assigned a value either true or false.
More informationCPSC 121: Models of Computation
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 4 Propositional Logic Proofs Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman Coming Up Pre-class quiz #5 is due Wednesday October 4th at 21:00 Assigned reading
More informationAdam Blank Spring 2017 CSE 311. Foundations of Computing I
Adam Blank Spring 2017 CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Pre-Lecture Problem Suppose that p, and p (q r) are true. Is q true? Can you prove it with equivalences? CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Lecture
More informationMath 38: Graph Theory Spring 2004 Dartmouth College. On Writing Proofs. 1 Introduction. 2 Finding A Solution
Math 38: Graph Theory Spring 2004 Dartmouth College 1 Introduction On Writing Proofs What constitutes a well-written proof? A simple but rather vague answer is that a well-written proof is both clear and
More informationPredicate Logic. Andreas Klappenecker
Predicate Logic Andreas Klappenecker Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate. The set D is called the domain of P. Example Let D=Z be the set of integers.
More informationProofs: A General How To II. Rules of Inference. Rules of Inference Modus Ponens. Rules of Inference Addition. Rules of Inference Conjunction
Introduction I Proofs Computer Science & Engineering 235 Discrete Mathematics Christopher M. Bourke cbourke@cse.unl.edu A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when
More informationProof Techniques (Review of Math 271)
Chapter 2 Proof Techniques (Review of Math 271) 2.1 Overview This chapter reviews proof techniques that were probably introduced in Math 271 and that may also have been used in a different way in Phil
More informationProofs. Introduction II. Notes. Notes. Notes. Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry. Fall 2007
Proofs Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry Fall 2007 Computer Science & Engineering 235 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics Sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Rosen cse235@cse.unl.edu
More informationPROBLEM SET 3: PROOF TECHNIQUES
PROBLEM SET 3: PROOF TECHNIQUES CS 198-087: INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL THINKING UC BERKELEY EECS FALL 2018 This homework is due on Monday, September 24th, at 6:30PM, on Gradescope. As usual, this homework
More informationModern Algebra Prof. Manindra Agrawal Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Modern Algebra Prof. Manindra Agrawal Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Lecture 02 Groups: Subgroups and homomorphism (Refer Slide Time: 00:13) We looked
More informationFirst order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof
First order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof 1 Outline Introduction Terminology: Propositional functions; arguments; arity; universe of discourse Quantifiers Definition; using, mixing, negating
More informationDiscrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques
Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques Colin Stirling Informatics Some slides based on ones by Myrto Arapinis Colin Stirling (Informatics) Discrete Mathematics
More informationFor all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some
Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers Assume universe of discourse is all the people who are participating in this course. Also let us assume that we know each person in the course. Consider the following
More informationMat 243 Exam 1 Review
OBJECTIVES (Review problems: on next page) 1.1 Distinguish between propositions and non-propositions. Know the truth tables (i.e., the definitions) of the logical operators,,,, and Write truth tables for
More informationcse 311: foundations of computing Fall 2015 Lecture 6: Predicate Logic, Logical Inference
cse 311: foundations of computing Fall 2015 Lecture 6: Predicate Logic, Logical Inference quantifiers x P(x) P(x) is true for every x in the domain read as for all x, P of x x P x There is an x in the
More informationCOMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking. Proofs. Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University
COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking Proofs Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University 1 Reading Material Chapter 1, Section 3, 6, 7, 8 Propositional Equivalences The compound propositions p and q are called
More informationSupplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009
1 Propositional Logic Supplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009 1.1 More efficient truth table methods The method of using truth tables to prove facts about propositional formulas can be a very tedious
More informationCMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation. Lecture 11: Proof Techniques David Mix Barrington 5 March 2013
CMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation Lecture 11: Proof Techniques David Mix Barrington 5 March 2013 Proof Techniques Review: The General Setting for Proofs Types of Proof: Direct, Contraposition, Contradiction
More informationHOW TO CREATE A PROOF. Writing proofs is typically not a straightforward, algorithmic process such as calculating
HOW TO CREATE A PROOF ALLAN YASHINSKI Abstract We discuss how to structure a proof based on the statement being proved Writing proofs is typically not a straightforward, algorithmic process such as calculating
More informationCITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs
CITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs Unit coordinator: Rachel Cardell-Oliver August 13, 2017 Highlights 1 Arguments vs Proofs. 2 Proof strategies 3 Famous proofs Reading Chapter 1: What is a proof? Mathematics
More information1 Direct Proofs Technique Outlines Example Implication Proofs Technique Outlines Examples...
CSE 311: Foundations of Computing I Proof Techniques What Is This? Each of the following is as close as we can get to giving you a template (and a completely worked out example) for every proof technique
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Let be a Predicate logic formula and a term. Using the fact that. (which can be proven by structural induction) show that 1/26
Warm-Up Problem Let be a Predicate logic formula and a term Using the fact that I I I (which can be proven by structural induction) show that 1/26 Predicate Logic: Natural Deduction Carmen Bruni Lecture
More informationNatural deduction for truth-functional logic
Natural deduction for truth-functional logic Phil 160 - Boston University Why natural deduction? After all, we just found this nice method of truth-tables, which can be used to determine the validity or
More informationPropositional Logic: Semantics
Propositional Logic: Semantics Alice Gao Lecture 4, September 19, 2017 Semantics 1/56 Announcements Semantics 2/56 The roadmap of propositional logic Semantics 3/56 FCC spectrum auction an application
More informationProof by contrapositive, contradiction
Proof by contrapositive, contradiction Margaret M. Fleck 9 September 2009 This lecture covers proof by contradiction and proof by contrapositive (section 1.6 of Rosen). 1 Announcements The first quiz will
More informationMCS-236: Graph Theory Handout #A4 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Sep 15, Methods of Proof
MCS-36: Graph Theory Handout #A4 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Sep 15, 010 Methods of Proof Consider a set of mathematical objects having a certain number of operations and relations
More informationSection 2.3: Statements Containing Multiple Quantifiers
Section 2.3: Statements Containing Multiple Quantifiers In this section, we consider statements such as there is a person in this company who is in charge of all the paperwork where more than one quantifier
More informationManual of Logical Style
Manual of Logical Style Dr. Holmes January 9, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Conjunction 3 2.1 Proving a conjunction...................... 3 2.2 Using a conjunction........................ 3 3 Implication
More informationProof by Contradiction
Proof by Contradiction MAT231 Transition to Higher Mathematics Fall 2014 MAT231 (Transition to Higher Math) Proof by Contradiction Fall 2014 1 / 12 Outline 1 Proving Statements with Contradiction 2 Proving
More informationLecture 2: Proof Techniques Lecturer: Lale Özkahya
BBM 205 Discrete Mathematics Hacettepe University http://web.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr/ bbm205 Lecture 2: Proof Techniques Lecturer: Lale Özkahya Resources: Kenneth Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and App. cs.colostate.edu/
More informationCHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
1 CHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Here, you ll learn: what it means for a logic system to be finished some strategies for constructing proofs Congratulations! Our system of
More informationBasics of Proofs. 1 The Basics. 2 Proof Strategies. 2.1 Understand What s Going On
Basics of Proofs The Putnam is a proof based exam and will expect you to write proofs in your solutions Similarly, Math 96 will also require you to write proofs in your homework solutions If you ve seen
More informationWhat is a proof? Proofing as a social process, a communication art.
Proof Methods What is a proof? Proofing as a social process, a communication art. Theoretically, a proof of a mathematical statement is no different than a logically valid argument starting with some premises
More informationMath 300: Foundations of Higher Mathematics Northwestern University, Lecture Notes
Math 300: Foundations of Higher Mathematics Northwestern University, Lecture Notes Written by Santiago Cañez These are notes which provide a basic summary of each lecture for Math 300, Foundations of Higher
More informationConjunction: p q is true if both p, q are true, and false if at least one of p, q is false. The truth table for conjunction is as follows.
Chapter 1 Logic 1.1 Introduction and Definitions Definitions. A sentence (statement, proposition) is an utterance (that is, a string of characters) which is either true (T) or false (F). A predicate is
More informationProofs. Joe Patten August 10, 2018
Proofs Joe Patten August 10, 2018 1 Statements and Open Sentences 1.1 Statements A statement is a declarative sentence or assertion that is either true or false. They are often labelled with a capital
More informationCPSC 121 Midterm 1 Tuesday, October 11th, 2011
CPSC 121 Midterm 1 Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 [1] 1. Do you want tutorial attendance to be mandatory for you? If you answer yes, then 1% of tuts attended your course grade will be calculated with min(100%,
More informationStrategies for Proofs
G. Carl Evans University of Illinois Summer 2013 Today Practice with proofs Become familiar with various strategies for proofs Review: proving universal statements Claim: For any integer a, if a is odd,
More informationCS 360, Winter Morphology of Proof: An introduction to rigorous proof techniques
CS 30, Winter 2011 Morphology of Proof: An introduction to rigorous proof techniques 1 Methodology of Proof An example Deep down, all theorems are of the form If A then B, though they may be expressed
More informationExample ( x.(p(x) Q(x))) ( x.p(x) x.q(x)) premise. 2. ( x.(p(x) Q(x))) -elim, 1 3. ( x.p(x) x.q(x)) -elim, x. P(x) x.
Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics More Logic Intro to Proof Techniques Homework due next lecture Instructor: Işıl Dillig Instructor: Işıl Dillig, CS311H: Discrete Mathematics More Logic Intro
More informationUnit 8: Sequ. ential Circuits
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 8: Sequ ential Circuits Based on slides by Patrice Be lleville and Steve Wolfman Pre-Class Learning Goals By the start of class, you s hould be able to Trace the operation
More informationCSE 20 DISCRETE MATH. Fall
CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH Fall 2017 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa17/cse20-ab/ Today's learning goals Distinguish between a theorem, an axiom, lemma, a corollary, and a conjecture. Recognize direct proofs
More informationGuide to Proofs on Discrete Structures
CS103 Handout 17 Spring 2018 Guide to Proofs on Discrete Structures In Problem Set One, you got practice with the art of proofwriting in general (as applied to numbers, sets, puzzles, etc.) Problem Set
More informationTools for reasoning: Logic. Ch. 1: Introduction to Propositional Logic Truth values, truth tables Boolean logic: Implications:
Tools for reasoning: Logic Ch. 1: Introduction to Propositional Logic Truth values, truth tables Boolean logic: Implications: 1 Why study propositional logic? A formal mathematical language for precise
More informationmeans is a subset of. So we say A B for sets A and B if x A we have x B holds. BY CONTRAST, a S means that a is a member of S.
1 Notation For those unfamiliar, we have := means equal by definition, N := {0, 1,... } or {1, 2,... } depending on context. (i.e. N is the set or collection of counting numbers.) In addition, means for
More information3 The language of proof
3 The language of proof After working through this section, you should be able to: (a) understand what is asserted by various types of mathematical statements, in particular implications and equivalences;
More information2. Two binary operations (addition, denoted + and multiplication, denoted
Chapter 2 The Structure of R The purpose of this chapter is to explain to the reader why the set of real numbers is so special. By the end of this chapter, the reader should understand the difference between
More informationTheorem. For every positive integer n, the sum of the positive integers from 1 to n is n(n+1)
Week 1: Logic Lecture 1, 8/1 (Sections 1.1 and 1.3) Examples of theorems and proofs Theorem (Pythagoras). Let ABC be a right triangle, with legs of lengths a and b, and hypotenuse of length c. Then a +
More informationAnnouncements. Problem Set 1 out. Checkpoint due Monday, September 30. Remaining problems due Friday, October 4.
Indirect Proofs Announcements Problem Set 1 out. Checkpoint due Monday, September 30. Grade determined by attempt rather than accuracy. It's okay to make mistakes we want you to give it your best effort,
More informationWeek 2. Week 1 Recap. Week 2
Week 2 Week 1 Recap In our first session, we outlined our big-picture goals for this course. We are going to spend these first couple weeks looking at mathematical proof, then we will take a couple weeks
More informationBoolean Algebra and Proof. Notes. Proving Propositions. Propositional Equivalences. Notes. Notes. Notes. Notes. March 5, 2012
March 5, 2012 Webwork Homework. The handout on Logic is Chapter 4 from Mary Attenborough s book Mathematics for Electrical Engineering and Computing. Proving Propositions We combine basic propositions
More informationCSE 20 DISCRETE MATH. Winter
CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH Winter 2017 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi17/cse20-ab/ Today's learning goals Distinguish between a theorem, an axiom, lemma, a corollary, and a conjecture. Recognize direct proofs
More informationMATH 22 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION. Lecture F: 9/18/2003
MATH 22 Lecture F: 9/18/2003 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man. One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a
More informationChapter 1 Elementary Logic
2017-2018 Chapter 1 Elementary Logic The study of logic is the study of the principles and methods used in distinguishing valid arguments from those that are not valid. The aim of this chapter is to help
More informationProofs. Chapter 2 P P Q Q
Chapter Proofs In this chapter we develop three methods for proving a statement. To start let s suppose the statement is of the form P Q or if P, then Q. Direct: This method typically starts with P. Then,
More informationQuantifiers. P. Danziger
- 2 Quantifiers P. Danziger 1 Elementary Quantifiers (2.1) We wish to be able to use variables, such as x or n in logical statements. We do this by using the two quantifiers: 1. - There Exists 2. - For
More informationCSE 20 DISCRETE MATH WINTER
CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH WINTER 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi16/cse20-ab/ Today's learning goals Evaluate which proof technique(s) is appropriate for a given proposition Direct proof Proofs by contraposition
More informationCSE 20 DISCRETE MATH SPRING
CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH SPRING 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp16/cse20-ac/ Today's learning goals Evaluate which proof technique(s) is appropriate for a given proposition Direct proof Proofs by contraposition
More information1 The Foundation: Logic and Proofs
1 The Foundation: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic Propositions( 명제 ) a declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both nor neither letters denoting propositions p, q, r, s, T:
More informationA Guide to Proof-Writing
A Guide to Proof-Writing 437 A Guide to Proof-Writing by Ron Morash, University of Michigan Dearborn Toward the end of Section 1.5, the text states that there is no algorithm for proving theorems.... Such
More information5 + 9(10) + 3(100) + 0(1000) + 2(10000) =
Chapter 5 Analyzing Algorithms So far we have been proving statements about databases, mathematics and arithmetic, or sequences of numbers. Though these types of statements are common in computer science,
More informationHandout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH Spring David C. Royster UNC Charlotte
Handout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH 3181 001 Spring 1999 David C. Royster UNC Charlotte January 18, 1999 Chapter 1 Logic and the Axiomatic Method 1.1 Introduction Mathematicians use a
More informationWriting proofs for MATH 61CM, 61DM Week 1: basic logic, proof by contradiction, proof by induction
Writing proofs for MATH 61CM, 61DM Week 1: basic logic, proof by contradiction, proof by induction written by Sarah Peluse, revised by Evangelie Zachos and Lisa Sauermann September 27, 2016 1 Introduction
More informationCSE Discrete Structures
CSE 2315 - Discrete Structures Homework 2- Fall 2010 Due Date: Oct. 7 2010, 3:30 pm Proofs using Predicate Logic For all your predicate logic proofs you can use only the rules given in the following tables.
More informationa. See the textbook for examples of proving logical equivalence using truth tables. b. There is a real number x for which f (x) < 0. (x 1) 2 > 0.
For some problems, several sample proofs are given here. Problem 1. a. See the textbook for examples of proving logical equivalence using truth tables. b. There is a real number x for which f (x) < 0.
More informationProofs. Example of an axiom in this system: Given two distinct points, there is exactly one line that contains them.
Proofs A mathematical system consists of axioms, definitions and undefined terms. An axiom is assumed true. Definitions are used to create new concepts in terms of existing ones. Undefined terms are only
More informationIntroducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents
Contents 1 1 Introduction 1 What is proof? 1 Statements, Definitions and Euler Diagrams 1 Statements 1 Definitions Our first proof Euler diagrams 4 3 Logical Connectives 5 Negation 6 Conjunction 7 Disjunction
More informationSteinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development Department of Teaching and Learning. Mathematical Proof and Proving (MPP)
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development Department of Teaching and Learning Terminology, Notations, Definitions, & Principles: Mathematical Proof and Proving (MPP) 1. A statement
More informationProof. Theorems. Theorems. Example. Example. Example. Part 4. The Big Bang Theory
Proof Theorems Part 4 The Big Bang Theory Theorems A theorem is a statement we intend to prove using existing known facts (called axioms or lemmas) Used extensively in all mathematical proofs which should
More informationLogic Overview, I. and T T T T F F F T F F F F
Logic Overview, I DEFINITIONS A statement (proposition) is a declarative sentence that can be assigned a truth value T or F, but not both. Statements are denoted by letters p, q, r, s,... The 5 basic logical
More informationChapter 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements
Chapter 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements 3.1. Predicates and Quantified Statements I Predicate in grammar Predicate refers to the part of a sentence that gives information about the subject. Example:
More information1 The Foundation: Logic and Proofs
1 The Foundation: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic Propositions( ) a declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both nor neither letters denoting propostions p, q, r, s, T: true
More informationCMPSCI 601: Tarski s Truth Definition Lecture 15. where
@ CMPSCI 601: Tarski s Truth Definition Lecture 15! "$#&%(') *+,-!".#/%0'!12 43 5 6 7 8:9 4; 9 9 < = 9 = or 5 6?>A@B!9 2 D for all C @B 9 CFE where ) CGE @B-HI LJKK MKK )HG if H ; C if H @ 1 > > > Fitch
More informationLogic. Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another.
Math 0413 Appendix A.0 Logic Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another. This type of logic is called propositional.
More informationIntroduction to Basic Proof Techniques Mathew A. Johnson
Introduction to Basic Proof Techniques Mathew A. Johnson Throughout this class, you will be asked to rigorously prove various mathematical statements. Since there is no prerequisite of a formal proof class,
More informationThe Foundations: Logic and Proofs. Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs Summary Valid Arguments and Rules of Inference Proof Methods Proof Strategies Rules of Inference Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments
More information2/2/2018. CS 103 Discrete Structures. Chapter 1. Propositional Logic. Chapter 1.1. Propositional Logic
CS 103 Discrete Structures Chapter 1 Propositional Logic Chapter 1.1 Propositional Logic 1 1.1 Propositional Logic Definition: A proposition :is a declarative sentence (that is, a sentence that declares
More informationCommutative Rings and Fields
Commutative Rings and Fields 1-22-2017 Different algebraic systems are used in linear algebra. The most important are commutative rings with identity and fields. Definition. A ring is a set R with two
More informationCPSC 121: Models of Computation. Module 9: Proof Techniques (part 2) Mathematical Induction
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Module 9: Proof Techniques (part 2) Mathematical Induction Module 9: Announcements Midterm #2: th Monday November 14, 2016 at 17:00 Modules 5 (from multiple quantifiers
More informationAxiomatic systems. Revisiting the rules of inference. Example: A theorem and its proof in an abstract axiomatic system:
Axiomatic systems Revisiting the rules of inference Material for this section references College Geometry: A Discovery Approach, 2/e, David C. Kay, Addison Wesley, 2001. In particular, see section 2.1,
More informationMathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic
Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin Mathematical Logic 1 First-Order Languages. Symbols. All first-order languages we consider will have the following symbols: (i) variables v 1, v 2, v 3,... ; (ii)
More informationPropositional Logic Not Enough
Section 1.4 Propositional Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Does it follow that Socrates is mortal? Can t be represented in propositional logic. Need a language that talks
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2016 Seshia and Walrand Note 2
CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 016 Seshia and Walrand Note 1 Proofs In science, evidence is accumulated through experiments to assert the validity of a statement. Mathematics, in
More informationProof Terminology. Technique #1: Direct Proof. Learning objectives. Proof Techniques (Rosen, Sections ) Direct Proof:
Proof Terminology Proof Techniques (Rosen, Sections 1.7 1.8) TOPICS Direct Proofs Proof by Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction Proof by Cases Theorem: statement that can be shown to be true Proof: a
More informationReading and Writing. Mathematical Proofs. Slides by Arthur van Goetham
Reading and Writing Mathematical Proofs Slides by Arthur van Goetham What is a proof? Why explanations are not proofs What is a proof? A method for establishing truth What establishes truth depends on
More information3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary Aaron Tan 28 31 August 2017 1 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements 3.1 Predicates and Quantified Statements I Predicate; domain; truth set Universal quantifier,
More informationLECTURE NOTES DISCRETE MATHEMATICS. Eusebius Doedel
LECTURE NOTES on DISCRETE MATHEMATICS Eusebius Doedel 1 LOGIC Introduction. First we introduce some basic concepts needed in our discussion of logic. These will be covered in more detail later. A set is
More informationMath.3336: Discrete Mathematics. Proof Methods and Strategy
Math.3336: Discrete Mathematics Proof Methods and Strategy Instructor: Dr. Blerina Xhabli Department of Mathematics, University of Houston https://www.math.uh.edu/ blerina Email: blerina@math.uh.edu Fall
More informationMathematics 220 Midterm Practice problems from old exams Page 1 of 8
Mathematics 220 Midterm Practice problems from old exams Page 1 of 8 1. (a) Write the converse, contrapositive and negation of the following statement: For every integer n, if n is divisible by 3 then
More informationMATH 271 Summer 2016 Practice problem solutions Week 1
Part I MATH 271 Summer 2016 Practice problem solutions Week 1 For each of the following statements, determine whether the statement is true or false. Prove the true statements. For the false statement,
More informationChapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements
Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements Topics include 2.1, 2.2 Predicates and Quantified Statements, 2.3 Statements with Multiple Quantifiers, and 2.4 Arguments with Quantified Statements. cs1231y
More informationCS 340: Discrete Structures for Engineers
CS 340: Discrete Structures for Engineers Instructor: Prof. Harry Porter Office: FAB 115-06 harry@cs.pdx.edu Hours: Mon 3-4, Wed 3-4, or by appointment Website: web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/discrete Class Mailing
More informationBefore you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here.
Chapter 2 Mathematics and Logic Before you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here. 2.1 A Taste of Number Theory In this section, we will
More informationTalk Science Professional Development
Talk Science Professional Development Transcript for Grade 5 Scientist Case: The Water to Ice Investigations 1. The Water to Ice Investigations Through the Eyes of a Scientist We met Dr. Hugh Gallagher
More information