Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Hildebrand
Stage 1: Produce outline of argument. Begin with scratch work to come up with a flow chart
of the proof, showing the steps involved and their logical connections, with brief justifications for
each step. For this part, you can make liberal use of logical symbols (e.g., ) and abbreviations
(e.g., def. of ).
Stage 2: Produce proper write-up: Once you have a step-by-step outline of the argument,
convert it to a proper proof, using complete sentences and English words rather than logical sym-
bols (such as , , ). Double-check your write-up to make sure that it makes both logical and
grammatical sense.
Solution. We give a proof for the first statement, (a); the other statements, (b)(d), can be proved in an analogous
way.
(a) Proof of n and m odd n + m even: As usual, in order to better show the structure of the proof, we write
each step on a separate line. (A pro-style proof would consist of a single continuous paragraph, but this makes it
harder to parse the argument.)
Solution.
Proof of (a): We proof the statement in (a) by contraposition. Since the negation of even is odd, the contra-
positive of the statement (a) is is:
Proof of (a):
Proof of (c): Here we have an if and only if statement, which breaks into the following two implications:
Now, (i) is the same as (a), while (ii) is the contraposition of (b), and hence equivalent to (b). Thus, (c) is a consequence
of (a) and (b).
3. Cool application I: Sums of odd perfect squares. Can a sum of two perfect squares be another
perfect square? Sure; for example, 32 + 42 = 52 , 52 + 122 = 132 , 62 + 82 = 102 , 72 + 242 = 252 .
However, no matter how much you try, you wont find any examples in which the two perfect squares
on the left are both odd. Your task is to prove this, i.e.:
Prove that a sum of two odd perfect squares is never a perfect square.
(An interesting consequence of this result is that in any right triangle in which all sides have integer
length at least one of the two shorter sides must be of even length.)
Proof: The argument given below makes use of the results of Problems 1 and 2. Without using these results, the
proof would become a bit longer. One would need to consider separately the cases when n, m, p below have a specified
parity (even or odd), and show that in each of these cases a contradiction arises.
Note: In the proofs below we will make repeated use of the properties of sums and products of odd/even numbers
established in Problem 1 (e.g., that a sum of an even and an odd number is odd, etc.). This could be avoided, but it
would make the proofs a bit longer, and more tedious.
Proof of (a): We use the method of contradiction.
Suppose a, b, c are odd integers and there exists an integer solution x to the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0.
We consider separately , the cases x even and x odd; in each case, we will show that ax2 + bx + c
must be odd and hence cannot equal 0 (which is even since it is of the form 2 k with k = 0).
Case 1: x is even.
Since the product of an even integer with any integer is even, ax2 and bx are both even.
Since the sum of two even numbers is even, ax2 + bx is even as well.
Since, by assumption, c is odd and the sum of an odd and an even number is odd, ax2 + bx + c
must be odd, as claimed.
Case 2: x is odd.
Since a, b, x are all odd and the product of odd integers is odd, ax2 , bx are both odd.
Since the sum of two odd numbers is even, ax2 + bx is even.
Since, by assumption, c is odd and the sum of an odd and an even number is odd, ax2 + bx + c
must be odd, as claimed.
Thus, in either case, we obtain that ax2 + bx + c is odd and hence cannot be equal to 0.
Therefore, our assumption that there is an integer solution to the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0 is false,
so this equation has no integer solutions.
Suppose a, b, c are odd integers and there exists a rational solution x to the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0.
Since x is a rational number, it can be written as x = p/q for some integers p and q, where we may
assume the fraction p/q is in reduced form, i.e., the numerator and denominator have no common
factors.
1
Hint: Consider the parity (even or odd) of ax2 + bx + c.
Math 347 Worksheet on Even/odd Proofs Solutions A.J. Hildebrand
Substituting x = p/q into the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0 and clearing denominators, we get
a(p/q)2 + b(p/q) + c = 0,
ap2 + bpq + cq 2 = 0.
Since we assumed p/q to be a reduced fraction, p and q cannot both be even, so one of the following
three cases must hold: (i) p even and q odd; (ii) p odd and q even; (iii) p odd and q odd. We will show
that in each case ap2 + bqp + cq 2 must be odd, and hence cannot equal 0, using the same argument
as in (a).
Case (i): p even and q odd: In this case, ap2 is even, bpq is even, and cq 2 is odd, so
ap2 + bqp + cq 2 is odd.
Case (ii): p odd and q even: In this case ap2 is odd, bpq is even, and cq 2 is even, so
ap2 + bqp + cq 2 is odd.
Case (iii): p odd and q odd: In this case ap2 , bpq, and cq 2 is all odd, so ap2 + bqp + cq 2 is
odd as well.
Thus, in either case, we obtain that ap2 + bqp + cq 2 is odd and hence cannot be equal to 0.
Therefore, our assumption that there is a rational solution to the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0 is false,
so this equation has no rational solutions.
5. Cool application, III: Irrationality proofs: Prove that 2 is irrational.
Proof:
We argue by contradiction and suppose that the conclusion is false, i.e., that 2 is not irrational.
Then 2 is rational, i.e., of the form 2 = p/q for some integers p and q (where q 6= 0). We may
assume that the fraction p/q is in reduced form, i.e., that p and q have no common factors.
Squaring each side of 2 = p/q and clearing denominators, we get
2
p p2
2= = 2,
q q
(1) 2q 2 = p2 .
Since we assumed p/q to be a reduced fraction, p and q cannot both be even, so one of the following
three cases must hold: (i) p odd and q even; (ii) p odd and q odd. (iii) p even and q odd; We will
show that in each of these three cases a contradiction results.
Cases (i)and (ii): p odd: If p is odd, then p = 2k + 1 for some k Z, so p2 = (2k + 1)2 =
4(k 2 + k) + 1. Substituting into (1), we get
2q 2 = 4(k 2 + k) + 1,
1
(2) q 2 2(k 2 + k) = .
2
Since q and k are integers, the left side of (2) is an integer and thus cannot equal 1/2. Hence we
have arrived at a contradiction.
Case (ii): p even and q odd. If p is even and q is odd, we have p = 2k and q = 2h + 1 for
some k, h Z, so p2 = (2k)2 = 4k 2 and q 2 = (2h + 1)2 = 4(h2 + h) + 1. Substituting into (1), we
get
8(h2 + h) + 2, = 4k 2 ,
1
(3) k 2 2h2 2h = .
2
Since h and k are integers, the left side of (3) is an integer and thus cannot equal 1/2. Hence we
have arrived at a contradiction.
Thus, in either case we have obtained a contradiction.
Hence our assumption that 2 is rational was false. so 2 must be irrational. .