Math 280 Strategies of Proof Class Notes 1.

2 Logical Equivalence Consider the following two compound statements 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer. and 6 is an even integer and 7 is an odd integer. If we dene statement variables: p : 7 is an odd integer. q : 6 is an even integer.

Spring 2010

then the rst statement has symbolic form p q while the second has symbolic form q p. Our common sense, however, tells us that these two statements are really stating exactly the same thing and hence will have the same truth value, which in this case is true. Furthermore, for any simple statements p and q, the compound statement p q will be true except when one of p or q is false. Similarly, the compound statement q p will also be true except when one of q or p is false. It follows that the two compound statement forms p q and q p will always have the same truth value. Statement forms for which this is the case, that is, statement forms that always have the same truth value are said to be logically equivalent. Denition. Two compound statement forms that have the same truth values for all possible choices of truth values of their statement variables are said to be logically equivalent. We denote the logical equivalence of two compound statement forms P and Q by P Q. To verify that two statement forms P and Q are logically equivalent, we need to show that they have the same truth values for all choices of truth values of their statement variables. In order to show this, we can construct the truth table for each and check that the truth value of P is the same as the truth value of Q in each row of the tables. Example. Show that ( p) p. This shows the negation of the negation of a statement is logically equivalent to the original statement. Solution. The truth table for ( p) is as follows. T F p p ( p) F T F T

We see from the table that p and ( p) have the same truth value in each row of the table. Therefore ( p) p. According to the logical equivalence in the preceding example, if we need to negate a statement which already contains a negation, such as 7 is not an odd integer. then the resulting statement It is not the case that 7 is not an odd integer. is equivalent to the much simpler statement 7 is an odd integer. Writing simplied versions of negated statements is one of the most important applications of logical equivalences. Well see below how to simplify negations of any compound statement. 13

14

Chapter 1

Propositional Logic

Example. Determine whether or not the following statement forms are logically equivalent. (a) (p q) and ( p) ( q) Solution. For this example, we need to construct the truth tables for the two compound statement forms (p q) and ( p) ( q). We can save ourselves some writing by combining the two tables into a single table, where the combinations of truth values for the statement variables p and q are listed just one time. p q p q (p q) p 6 q ( p) ( q) T F F F F F F T T F F T F F F T T T T T

T T T F F T F F

We see that the two compound statement forms do not always have the same truth values. Therefore (p q) and ( p) ( q) are not logically equivalent. (b) (p q) and ( p) ( q) Solution. We construct the truth tables for the two compound statement forms (p q) and ( p) ( q). T T T F F T F F p q p q (p q) p 6 q ( p) ( q) T F F F F F F T T F F T F T T T T T T T

In this case, we see that the two compound statement forms (p q) and ( p) ( q) have the same truth value in each row of their tables. Therefore (p q) ( p) ( q). (c) p (q r) and (p q) r Solution. We construct the truth tables for the two compound statement forms p (q r) and (p q) r. T T T T T F T F T T F F F T T F T F F F T F F F p q r q r p (q r) q p q (p q) r T T T F T T T F T T T F T T T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F F T T T F T T T T

Since the compound statement forms have the same truth value in each row of their truth tables, then p (q r) (p q) r.

1.2

Logical Equivalence

15

The rst part of the preceding example shows that the negation of an and statement is not logically equivalent to the statement obtained by simply negating each component of the and. Instead, we negate each component of the and and then replace the and with an or. This makes sense if we think about the truth values. The negation (p q) is true provided that p q is false, which occurs when either p is false or q is false. But this is exactly the same condition under which ( p) ( q) is true. Therefore (p q) and ( p) ( q) always have the same truth value and hence are logically equivalent. An analogous result holds when negating an or statement. These two logical equivalences are known as De Morgans laws of logic in honor of the nineteenth century mathematician Augustus De Morgan. The rst part of the theorem is proved in the second part of the above example The proof of the second part of the theorem is left as an exercise. Theorem 1.2.1 (De Morgans Laws) For any statement variables p and q, (b) (p q) ( p) ( q) (a) (p q) ( p) ( q)

We can use De Morgans laws to simplify the English form of a negated statement. For instance, the negation of the statement 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer. can be written as It is not the case that 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer. However, this is obviously an awkward phrasing and makes it dicult to determine exactly what the statement is saying. Instead, using the rst De Morgans Law, we recognize that the negation is logically equivalent to 7 is not an odd integer or 6 is not an even integer. This is a much simpler statement, which makes it easier to determine the truth value. Using the same reasoning used to prove De Morgans Laws, we see that they can be generalized to simplify the negations of any statement forms P Q and P Q, where P and Q represent compound statement forms. The results are (P Q) ( P ) ( Q) and (P Q) ( P ) ( Q).

Example. Find a simplied form of the negations of each of the following statements. (a) Either 7 is an odd integer or 6 is not an even integer. Solution. First translate the statement to symbolic form using the statement variables p : 7 is an odd integer. q : 6 is an even integer. The statement then has symbolic form Applying the second De Morgans Law, we see that the negation of this statement form is [p ( q)] ( p) [ ( q)] ( p) q p ( q).

where weve used the equivalence ( q) q in the second step. Now write out the English form of the simplied statement, which is 7 is not an odd integer and 6 is an even integer.

16

Chapter 1

Propositional Logic

Example. (continued) (b) 3 < < 4 Solution. This double inequality is really an and statement: 3 < and < 4. First translate this to symbolic from using the statement variables p:3< q:<4 The statement then has symbolic form p q.

The Negation of a Conditional Statement From the denition, the conditional p q is false exactly when its hypothesis p is true but its conclusion q is false, that is, exactly when p ( q) is true. It then follows that the negation of p q is logically equivalent to p ( q): (p q) p ( q). This equivalence can also be veried by constructing the truth tables of these compound statement forms. We can use this equivalence to simplify negations of compound statements involving the conditional. This result can be generalized when negating the statement form P Q, where P and Q represent compound statement forms, to obtain (P Q) P ( Q). Example. Find a simplied form of the negation of each of the following statements. (a) If 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer, then 42 is an odd integer. Solution. First translate the statement to symbolic form using the statement variables p : 7 is an odd integer. q : 6 is an even integer. r : 42 is an odd integer. The statement has the shorthand form If p and q, then r. which gives the symbolic form (p q) r. The negation of this statement form is then [(p q) r] (p q) ( r). In English, this states 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer, but 42 is not an odd integer.

Applying the rst De Morgans Law, the negation of this statement form is (p q) ( p) ( q). This can be written as 3 6< or 6< 4. However 3 6< means 3 or, equivalently, 3, and 6< 4 means 4, so the negation of the statement can be written as 3 or 4.

1.2

Logical Equivalence

17

Example. (continued) (b) If 7 is an odd integer, then 6 is an even integer only if 42 is an odd integer. Solution. Using the same statement variables as in part (a), this statement has the shorthand form If p, then q only if r. which has symbolic form p (q r). The negation of this statement form is [p (q r)] p [ (q r)] p [q ( r)] We need to apply the equivalence for the negation of a conditional twice in simplifying the negation, once when negating the entire statement form and again when negating the conclusion. In English, the negation of the original statement is 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer, but 42 is not an odd integer.

(c) If 42 is an odd integer, then neither 7 is an odd integer nor is 6 an even integer. Solution. Once again using the same statement variables as in part (a), this statement has the shorthand form If r, then neither p nor q which has symbolic form r [( p) ( q)]. The negation of this statement form is r [( p) ( q)] r [( p) ( q)]

r [ ( p) ( q)] r (p q)

In order to simplify the negation of the conclusion ( p) ( q), we apply one of the De Morgans Laws. We also use the double negation equivalence to simplify ( p) and ( q). In English, the negation of the original statement is 42 is an odd integer and either 7 is an odd integer or 6 is an even integer. For the English form of this negation, we need to be careful to indicate the grouping of the two parts of the or statement, which we can do by separating it from the conjunction with either. For instance, if we were to just write 42 is an odd integer and 7 is an odd integer or 6 is an even integer. we obtain an ambiguous statement which could correspond to either of the statement forms r (p q) or (r p) q, which are not equivalent to one another.

18

Chapter 1

Propositional Logic

The Converse, Contrapositive, and Inverse of a Conditional Statement The conditional is one of the most important statement forms in mathematics because so many mathematical results are stated in the form of a conditional. For instance, one of the important theorems in calculus states that If the function f is dierentiable at a point x = a, then f is continuous at x = a. Associated with a conditional statement p q are three additional conditional statements: The converse is q p. The contrapositive is ( q) ( p). The inverse is ( p) ( q). The converse is obtained by interchanging the hypothesis and conclusion, the contrapositive by negating and interchanging hypothesis and conclusion, and the inverse by just negating the hypothesis and conclusion. Be careful not to confuse either the contrapositive or inverse with the negation of the conditional, which is (p q). In both the contrapositive and inverse, the hypothesis and conclusion of the conditional are negated separately. The converse and contrapositive in particular play important roles in mathematical proof so we need be able to determine the converse, contrapositive, and inverse of given conditional statements. Its also very important to understand the equivalences associated with a conditional, which we examine in the next example. Example. Find pairs of logically equivalent statement forms among the conditional p q, the converse q p, the contrapositive ( q) ( p), and the inverse ( p) ( q). Solution. The most straightforward way to determine which, if any, of these statement forms are logically equivalent is to just construct truth tables for each. Conditional Converse T T T F F T F F p q p q F F T T F F T T pq T F T T qp T T F T Inverse T T F T Contrapositive T F T T ( p) ( q) ( q) ( p)

From their truth tables, we see that the original conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive and the converse is logically equivalent to the inverse. However, there are no other equivalences among these statements. In particular, the conditional statement p q is not logically equivalent to its converse q p. Assuming these two statement forms are equivalent when there are not is one of the most common mistakes students make when trying to prove mathematical results. p q ( q) ( p) and q p ( p) ( q).

1.2

Logical Equivalence

19

Example. Find the converse, contrapositive, and inverse of the following conditional statements. (a) If 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer, then 42 is an odd integer. Solution. First translate the statement to symbolic form using the statement variables p : 7 is an odd integer. q : 6 is an even integer. r : 42 is an odd integer. The statement has symbolic form (p q) r. The converse has symbolic form r (p q) which reads in English as If 42 is an odd integer, then 7 is an odd integer and 6 is an even integer. The contrapositive has symbolic form which reads in English as If 42 is not an odd integer, then 7 is not an odd integer or 6 is not an even integer. Finally, the inverse has symbolic form which reads in English as If 7 is not an odd integer or 6 is not an even integer, then 42 is not an odd integer. (b) If 7 is an odd integer, then 6 is an even integer only if 42 is an odd integer. Solution. First translate the statement to symbolic form using the statement variables from part (a): p (q r). The converse has symbolic form (q r) p which reads in English as If 6 is an even integer only if 42 is an odd integer, then 7 is an odd integer. The contrapositive has symbolic form which reads in English as If 6 is an even integer but 42 is not an odd integer, then 7 is not an odd integer. Finally, the inverse has symbolic form which reads in English as If 7 is not an odd integer, then 6 is an even integer but 42 is not an odd integer. ( p) [ (q r)] ( p) [q ( r)] [ (q r)] ( p) [q ( r)] ( p) [ (p q)] ( r) [( p) ( q)] ( r) ( r) [ (p q)] ( r) [( p) ( q)]

20

Chapter 1

Propositional Logic

We saw earlier that a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, but not to its converse. For instance, the calculus theorem If the function f is dierentiable at a point x = a, then f is continuous at x = a. is logically equivalent to the contrapositive statement: If the function f is not continuous at x = a, then f is not dierentiable at x = a. It is not, however, equivalent to the converse statement: If the function f is continuous at x = a, then f is dierentiable at x = a. In fact, the converse statement is not true in general. Its easy to nd examples of functions which are continuous at a certain point x = a but not dierentiable at that point. For another example, again from calculus, one of the theorems on innite series states X If the innite series an converges, then lim an = 0.
n=1 n

This is logically equivalent to the contrapositive: X If lim an 6= 0, then an does not converge.
n n=1

The theorem in this form is often called the nth term test and can be used to show that a series diverges. The theorem is not equivalent to its converse: X If lim an = 0, then an converges.
n n=1

Again the converse is not true in general. The standard example of an innite series whose nth P term has limit 0 but which does not converge is the harmonic series n=1 (1/n). The Biconditional The biconditional p q means p if and only if q, which can be rewritten as p if q and p only if q.

Since p if q has symbolic form q p and p only if q has symbolic form p q, it follows that the biconditional statement satises the equivalence This equivalence can also be veried using a truth table. Many mathematical theorems have the form of a biconditional statement. To prove such a theorem, we need to show that the statement is true. This equivalence shows that proving a biconditional statement p q is true is equivalent to showing that two conditional statements are true, the statement p q and its converse q p. Example. Find a simplied form for the negation of a biconditional p q. Solution. We can rst rewrite the biconditional as the conjunction of two conditionals and then apply De Morgans Law together with the equivalence for the negation of a conditional. (p q) [(p q) (q p)] [ (p q)] [ (q p) [p ( q)] [q ( p)] p q (p q) (q p).

1.2

Logical Equivalence

21

Some Cautions There are a few things to take note of concerning how terminology is used in logic or mathematics and ordinary speech. First, in logic, a hypothesis and a conclusion are not required to have a connection. In ordinary speech, people never say things like If gas prices are high, then Star Wars was the greatest movie of all time or If Pluto is a planet, then Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States. We generally formulate a statement of the form If p, then q only when there is some connection of content between p and q. In logic, however, the two parts of a conditional statement need not have any connection. Therefore both of the above statements are acceptable and their truth values can be determined using the denitions and rules of logic. Second, in ordinary speech and sometimes in mathematical texts, a biconditional is written as a conditional. The formal statement p if and only if q is seldom used in ordinary conversation, except for emphasis. Frequently, when people intend the biconditional, they will leave o either the and only if or the if and part of the biconditional and say only p if q or p only if q. For instance, a mother may tell her child If you eat your dinner, then you will get dessert. or You will get dessert only if you eat your dinner. In both cases, the meaning is You will get dessert if and only if you eat your dinner. This type of language occurs frequently in mathematics texts in the statement of denitions. For instance, a text might state A positive integer n is prime if its only positive divisors are 1 and n itself when the meaning is in fact the biconditional A positive integer n is prime if and only if its only positive divisors are 1 and n itself. Equivalences Suppose that the compound statement forms P and Q are logically equivalent, that is, P Q. This means that for any choice of truth values for their statement variables for which P is true, Q is also true, and, for any choice of truth values for their statement variables for which P is false, Q is also false. This means that the statement form P Q is a tautology. On the other hand, if the form P Q is a tautology, similar reasoning shows that P Q. We then have the result P Q if and only if P Q is a tautology. For this reason, any tautology of the form P Q is called an equivalence. Equivalences (or logically equivalent statements) are important tools for proving theorems in mathematics. A mathematical statement may be proved to be true by proving any logically equivalent statement is true. For instance, in order to prove a mathematical statement which has the form p q, we may prove the logically equivalent statement with form q p. This observation forms the basis for the method of proof by contrapositive. Or, in order to prove a mathematical statement which has the form (p q) r, we may instead prove the logically equivalent statement (p r) (q r). This observation forms the basis for the method of proof by division into cases.

22

Chapter 1

Propositional Logic

The following theorem lists some of the more important logical equivalences. The proof of each part of the theorem simply consists of constructing truth tables for each statement form in the equivalence. Theorem 1.2.2 For any statement variables p, q, and r, (a) ( p) p (Double negation property) (b) (p q) ( p) ( q) (De Morgans law) (c) (p q) ( p) ( q) (De Morgans law) (d) (p q) p ( q) (Negation of conditional) (e) (p q) (p q) ( p q) (Negation of biconditional) (f) p q q p (Commutativity of disjunction) (g) p q q p (Commutativity of conjunction) (h) (p q) r p (q r) (Associativity of disjunction) (i) (p q) r p (q r) (Associativity of conjunction) (j) p (q r) (p q) (p r) (Distributivity of disjunction over conjunction) (k) p (q r) (p q) (p r) (Distributivity of conjunction over disjunction) (l) p q (p q) (q p) (Biconditional law) (m) p q ( q) ( p) (Equivalence of contrapositive) (n) p q ( p) q (Representation of conditional as or) (o) p (q r) (p q) r (Strategy for deriving conclusion q r) (p) (p q) r (p r) (q r) (Strategy for using hypothesis p q) (q) p (q r) (p q) (p r) (Strategy for deriving conclusion q r) (r) (p q) r (p r) q (Indirect approach to using hypothesis p q) (s) (p q) r (p r) (q r) (Strategy for using hypothesis p q) Example. Verify the equivalence p q ( p) q. Solution. The truth tables for the two statement forms are as follows. T T T F F T F F p q p q p ( p) q T F T T F F T T T F T T

Since the two compound statement forms always have the same truth value, they are logically equivalent: p q ( p) q. Example. Find a simplied form of the negation of the statement form (p q) ( r). Solution. Using parts (d) and (a) in the theorem, we see that the negation of this statement form is [(p q) ( r)] (p q) [ ( r)] (p q) r According to part (i) of the theorem, Since it doesnt matter where we place the parentheses in a double and statement like this one, we usually omit the parentheses altogether and just write p q r. (p q) r p (q r).

1.2

Logical Equivalence

23

As mentioned above, in order to prove a given mathematical statement is true, we may prove any logically equivalent statement is true. The rst step in proving a theorem is to translate its statement to symbolic form. In order to prove the theorem, we need to construct a logical argument to show that the theorem statement is true. It may be possible to prove the statement directly. In many cases, however, it may be easier to prove a logically equivalent statement is true. Because of the logical equivalence, it will then follow that the original statement must also be true. Example. For each of the following statements, rst translate the statement to symbolic form. Then use the equivalences in Theorem 1.2.2 to nd a logically equivalent statement which may help in proving the original statement. Assume that m and n represent particular, xed integers. (a) If m is even or n is even, then mn is even. Solution. In order to translate the statement to symbolic form, rst dene statement variables p : m is even. q : n is even. r : mn is even. The statement then has symbolic form According to Theorem 1.2.2(p), (p q) r.

This means that proving the original statement is true is equivalent to proving the statement: If m is even, then mn is even, and if n is even, then mn is even. As well see later, applying the equivalence in part (p) of the theorem is is in fact the standard approach to prove a conditional statement that contains an or in its hypothesis. (b) If mn is even, then m is even or n is even. Solution. Using the same statement variables as in part (a), this statement has symbolic form According to Theorem 1.2.2(o), r (p q). r (p q) [r ( p)] q.

(p q) r (p r) (q r).

So in order to prove the original statement is true, we can instead prove the equivalent statement: If mn is even but m is not even, then n is even. Alternatively, we can use part (m), the contrapositive equivalence to obtain Therefore proving the original statement is true is equivalent to proving the statement: If m is not even and n is not even, then mn is not even. Assuming that an integer is not even if and only if it is odd, we can rewrite this statement as: If m is odd and n is odd, then mn is odd. r (p q) [ (p q)] ( r) [( p) ( q)] ( r).