Example Proofs: Direct
Proofs Workshop
Note: the proofs in this handout are not necessarily in the same form as they were presented at the workshop. In particular, any errors you spot here are entirely accidental, not deliberate. 1 Prove that for all positive real numbers a, b,
1
2 ( a + b)
Direct proof
≥
ab
Note: We presented this the wrong way round – i.e. started by assuming the result
Note:
( a − b) 2 ≥ 0 ⇒ a 2 − 2ab + b 2 ≥ 0
This starts with a statement that is true and deduces the required result.
for all real a, b
⇒ a 2 + 2ab + b 2 ≥ 4ab adding 4ab to both sides ⇒ (a + b) 2 ≥ 4ab ⇒ (a + b) ≥ 2 ab ⇒ 1 2 (a + b) ≥ ab
since a and b are positive as required
It would be incorrect to write it the other way round, i.e. to assume the proposition is true and deduce a true statement - though that's how I found the true statement initially (on the back of an envelope).
2 a) Prove that if m − n is even, then mn is the difference of two squares, where m and n are integers. b) Is the converse true? a) Direct proof: If m − n is even, then m − n = 2k for some integer k. So, m = n + 2k. Then mn = (n + 2k)n = n2 + 2kn = (n2 + 2kn + k2) − k2 = (n + k)2 − k2 . Since n + k and k are both integers, this shows that if m − n is even, then mn is the difference of two squares. b) Is the converse true? The converse is: If mn is the difference of two squares, then m − n is even. Setting m = 4 and n = 3, we have mn = 12 = 16 − 4 = 42 − 22, so mn is the difference of two squares. But m − n = 4 − 3 =1 is odd, so the converse is FALSE. Note: This shows that the proposition: m − n is even, if and only if mn is the difference of two squares is FALSE.
3 Prove that x +
1 ≥ 2 for all x > 0. x
Direct proof:
For all x > 0, we have
(x − 1)2 ≥ 0 ⇒ x 2 − 2x + 1 ≥ 0 2
⇒ x + 1 ≥ 2x 1 ⇒ x + ≥ 2 (since x > 0 ) x
Shirleen Stibbe
Presented 'the wrong way round'. To see how we tried to convince them that the approach is wrong, have a look under Common Errors on this page of my web site.
http://shirleenstibbe.co.uk/proofs
Note: This starts with a statement that is true and deduces the required result. It would be incorrect to write it the other way round, ie to assume the proposition is true and deduce a true statement - though that's how I found the true statement initially (on the back of an envelope).
http://www.shirleenstibbe.co.uk