Tests edge cases, boundary conditions, and common misconceptions for proof.
UT-1: Proof by Contradiction — 2 is Irrational
Question:
(a) Prove by contradiction that 2 is irrational.
(b) A student’s proof contains the following claim: “Since p2 is even, p must be even.”
Justify this step rigorously by proving its contrapositive.
(c) Adapt the method to prove that 3 is irrational.
[Difficulty: hard. Tests the full rigour of proof by contradiction, including the contrapositive
argument that “if p2 is even then p is even.”]
Solution:
(a) Suppose, for contradiction, that 2 is rational. Then 2=qp where
p,q∈Z, q=0And gcd(p,q)=1 (i.e. The fraction is in its lowest terms).
Squaring: 2=q2p2So p2=2q2.
Since p2=2q2, p2 is even. Since the square of an odd number is odd, p must be even.
Write p=2k for some integer k. Then (2k)2=2q2So 4k2=2q2Giving q2=2k2.
Since q2=2k2, q2 is even, and by the same argument, q is even.
So both p and q are even, contradicting gcd(p,q)=1.
Therefore 2 is irrational.
(b) The claim is: “If p2 is even, then p is even.”
The contrapositive is: “If p is odd, then p2 is odd.”
Proof of contrapositive: If p is odd, write p=2k+1 for some integer k. Then:
p2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=2(2k2+2k)+1
Which is odd (of the form 2m+1 where m=2k2+2k).
Since the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, and we have proved the
contrapositive, the original statement is also proved.
(c) Suppose 3=qp in lowest terms.
p2=3q2So p2 is divisible by 3.
We need: “If p2 is divisible by 3, then p is divisible by 3.”
Contrapositive: “If p is not divisible by 3, then p2 is not divisible by 3.”
If p is not divisible by 3, then p≡1(mod3) or p≡2(mod3).
If p≡1(mod3): p2≡1(mod3).
If p≡2(mod3): p2≡4≡1(mod3).
In either case, p2≡0(mod3)So p2 is not divisible by 3.
Therefore p is divisible by 3. Write p=3k. Then 9k2=3q2So q2=3k2And by the same
argument, q is divisible by 3.
Both p and q divisible by 3 contradicts gcd(p,q)=1. Therefore 3 is irrational.
UT-2: Proof by Induction — Base Case Errors
Question:
A student is asked to prove that ∑r=1nr2=6n(n+1)(2n+1) for all n≥1.
(a) Write out the full proof by induction, including the base case and inductive step.
(b) A different student claims the formula holds for all n≥0 and starts their base case
at n=0. Show that the formula also holds for n=0 and explain why starting at n=0 does
not invalidate the proof.
(c) A third student tries to prove that 2n>n2 for all n≥1 by induction. Show that
the inductive step fails at n=2→n=3Even though the statement is true for n=3. Find the
smallest value of N such that 2n>n2 for all n≥N.
[Difficulty: hard. Tests the role of the base case in anchoring the induction, and the subtlety that
the inductive step may require n to be sufficiently large.]
Solution:
(a) Let P(n) be the statement ∑r=1nr2=6n(n+1)(2n+1).
Base case (n=1): LHS =12=1. RHS =L◆B◆1⋅2⋅3◆RB◆◆LB◆6◆RB◆=1. LHS
= RHS. P(1) is true.
Inductive step: Assume P(k) is true for some k≥1:
∑r=1kr2=6k(k+1)(2k+1)
For P(k+1):
∑r=1k+1r2=∑r=1kr2+(k+1)2=6k(k+1)(2k+1)+(k+1)2
=6k(k+1)(2k+1)+6(k+1)2=6(k+1)[k(2k+1)+6(k+1)]
=6(k+1)[2k2+k+6k+6]=6(k+1)(2k2+7k+6)
=6(k+1)(k+2)(2k+3)=6(k+1)((k+1)+1)(2(k+1)+1)
This is P(k+1). By induction, P(n) is true for all n≥1.
(b) At n=0: LHS =∑r=10r2=0 (empty sum). RHS
=L◆B◆0⋅1⋅1◆RB◆◆LB◆6◆RB◆=0. True.
Starting at n=0 is valid because the inductive step from P(k) to P(k+1) works for
k≥0. The proof establishes the result for all n≥0Which is a stronger statement than
n≥1. This does not invalidate the proof; it proves a more general result.
(c)Check values:21=2>1=12. True. 22=4=4=22. Not strictly greater
(equality, not inequality). 23=8>9=32. False!
So the statement ”2n>n2 for all n≥1” is actually false at n=3.
Inductive step from k to k+1: Assume 2k>k2. Need 2k+1>(k+1)2.
2k+1=2⋅2k>2k2 (by the inductive hypothesis).
We need 2k2≥(k+1)2=k2+2k+1I.e. k2−2k−1≥0I.e.
k≥1+2≈2.41.
So the inductive step works for k≥3Meaning 2n>n2 for all n≥5 (since we need to
verify the base case at n=5Or anchor at n=3 and step forward).
Wait, let me check: 24=16>16? No, 16=16. Not strictly greater.
25=32>25=52. True.
26=64>36. True. And the inductive step works from k=5 onwards.
So the smallest N is 5: 2n>n2 for all n≥5.
UT-3: Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions
Question:
For each of the following, state whether the condition is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither.
(a) "x>2" as a condition for "x2>4".
(b) ”n is prime” as a condition for ”n is odd”.
(c) "a2+b2=0" (where a,b∈R) as a condition for ”a=0 and b=0”.
(d) A student claims: “If a function is differentiable at a point, then it is continuous at that
point.” State whether this is a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, or both, for
continuity.
(e) Prove that "x2=4" is necessary but not sufficient for "x=2", and construct a
counterexample to show insufficiency.
[Difficulty: hard. Tests the fundamental distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions,
which students confuse persistently.]
Solution:
(a) "x>2" implies "x2>4": if x>2 then x2>4. So "x>2" is
sufficient for "x2>4".
However, "x>2" is not necessary: x=−3 gives x2=9>4But x<2.
Answer: sufficient but not necessary.
(b) If n is prime and n=2Then n is odd. But n=2 is prime and even.
So “prime” does not imply “odd” (counterexample: 2). Also, “odd” does not imply “prime”
(counterexample: 9).
Answer: neither necessary nor sufficient.
(c) "a2+b2=0": since a2≥0 and b2≥0The sum is zero only when both are
zero. So a2+b2=0⟺a=0 and b=0.
Answer: both necessary and sufficient (the condition is equivalent).
(d) The statement “If differentiable then continuous” means differentiability is sufficient
for continuity. Equivalently, continuity is necessary for differentiability.
Note: the converse is false (e.g. f(x)=∣x∣ is continuous at x=0 but not
differentiable there), so differentiability is not necessary for continuity.
Answer: Differentiability is sufficient (but not necessary) for continuity.
(e) "x2=4" is necessary for "x=2": if x=2 then x2=4. (Every x=2 satisfies
x2=4.)
"x2=4" is not sufficient for "x=2": the counterexample is x=−2Since (−2)2=4 but
−2=2.
Integration Tests
Tests synthesis of proof with other topics. Requires combining concepts from multiple units.
IT-1: Proving Convergence of a Recurrence Relation by Induction (with Sequences)
Question:
A sequence (an) is defined by a1=2 and an+1=2an+3 for n≥1.
(a) Prove by induction that an<3 for all n≥1.
(b) Prove by induction that an≤an+1 for all n≥1.
(c) State the limit of the sequence and justify your answer using the monotone convergence
theorem.
(d) Find ∑r=1nar in terms of nGiving your answer in its simplest form.
[Difficulty: hard. Combines proof by induction with recurrence relations, boundedness, monotonicity,
and series summation.]
Solution:
(a) Let P(n) be "an<3".
Base case (n=1):a1=2<3. True.
Inductive step: Assume ak<3 for some k≥1.
ak+1=2ak+3<23+3=3 (since ak<3).
So ak+1<3. By induction, an<3 for all n≥1.
(b) Let Q(n) be "an≤an+1".
Base case (n=1):a1=2, a2=25=2.5. 2≤2.5. True.
Inductive step: Assume ak≤ak+1 for some k≥1. We need ak+1≤ak+2.
ak+2−ak+1=2ak+1+3−ak+1=23−ak+1.
By part (a), ak+1<3So 3−ak+1>0Giving ak+2−ak+1>0.
So ak+1<ak+2. By induction, an<an+1 for all n≥1 (strictly increasing).
(c) The sequence is strictly increasing (part b) and bounded above by 3 (part a). By the
monotone convergence theorem, the sequence converges.
Let L=limn→∞an. Then L=2L+3⟹2L=L+3⟹L=3.
(d) The recurrence can be solved: an+1−3=2an−3.
This gives an−3=2n−1a1−3=2n−1−1So an=3−2n−11.
∑r=1nar=∑r=1n(3−2r−11)=3n−∑r=0n−12r1
=3n−1−1/21−(1/2)n=3n−2(1−2n1)=3n−2+2n−11
IT-2: Proving a Function is Injective (with Functions)
Question:
(a) Prove that f(x)=x3 is injective on R using two different methods: (i) by
algebra, and (ii) by calculus.
(b) Prove that g(x)=x2 is NOT injective on R by providing a specific
counterexample.
(c) Find the largest subset of R on which g(x)=x2 is injective, and prove your
answer.
[Difficulty: hard. Combines injectivity proofs with algebraic and calculus-based arguments, and
domain restriction analysis.]
Solution:
(a)(i) Algebraic proof: Suppose f(a)=f(b) for some a,b∈R.
a3=b3⟹a3−b3=0⟹(a−b)(a2+ab+b2)=0.
Either a=b or a2+ab+b2=0.
Now a2+ab+b2=(a+2b)2+43b2≥0.
Equality requires a+2b=0 and b=0Giving a=b=0.
So a2+ab+b2=0 only when a=b=0. In all cases, a=b.
Therefore f is injective.
(ii) Calculus proof:f′(x)=3x2≥0 for all x∈RWith equality only at
x=0.
f′(x)≥0 means f is non-decreasing. To show strict monotonicity: for any a<b with
a=0, f′(x)=3x2>0 on (a,b) (since x=0 is a single point), so by the Mean Value
Theorem, f(b)−f(a)=f′(c)(b−a)>0 for some c∈(a,b).
If a<0<b: f(a)=a3<0<b3=f(b).
Therefore a<b⟹f(a)<f(b) for all a,b∈RSo f is strictly
increasing and hence injective.
(b)g(1)=12=1=(−1)2=g(−1)But 1=−1. Therefore g is not injective on
R.
(c) Claim: g(x)=x2 is injective on [0,∞).
Proof: If a,b≥0 and a2=b2Then a2−b2=(a−b)(a+b)=0. Since a+b≥0We
need a−b=0Giving a=b.
Similarly, g is injective on (−∞,0].
Maximality: Any domain that contains both a positive and a negative number fails to make g
injective (since g(k)=g(−k) for k=0). Adding 0 to either half preserves injectivity.
Therefore the largest subsets are [0,∞) and (−∞,0].
IT-3: Divisibility Proof Using Induction (with Number Theory)
Question:
(a) Prove by induction that n3−n is divisible by 6 for all positive integers n.
(b) Prove that 32n+1+2n+2 is divisible by 7 for all n≥0.
(c) A student claims that n2+n+1 is prime for all positive integers n. Disprove this
claim by counterexample, finding the smallest counterexample.
[Difficulty: hard. Combines induction for divisibility with disproof by counterexample, requiring
systematic search.]
Solution:
(a) Let P(n) be ”n3−n is divisible by 6.”
Base case (n=1):1−1=0=6×0. True.
Inductive step: Assume k3−k=6m for some integer m.
For n=k+1:
(k+1)3−(k+1)=k3+3k2+3k+1−k−1=k3+3k2+2k
=(k3−k)+3k2+3k=6m+3k(k+1)
Since k(k+1) is the product of two consecutive integers, one is even, so k(k+1) is divisible
by 2. Therefore 3k(k+1) is divisible by 3×2=6.
So (k+1)3−(k+1)=6m+6p=6(m+p) for some integer p. Divisible by 6.
By induction, n3−n is divisible by 6 for all n≥1.
(Alternative proof:n3−n=n(n−1)(n+1)=(n−1)n(n+1)The product of three consecutive
integers. Among any three consecutive integers, one is divisible by 3 and at least one is divisible
by 2. So the product is divisible by 3×2=6.)
(b) Let P(n) be ”32n+1+2n+2 is divisible by 7.”
Base case (n=0):31+22=3+4=7=7×1. True.
Inductive step: Assume 32k+1+2k+2=7m for some integer m.
For n=k+1:
32(k+1)+1+2(k+1)+2=32k+3+2k+3=9⋅32k+1+2⋅2k+2
=7⋅32k+1+2(32k+1+2k+2)
=7⋅32k+1+2⋅7m=7(32k+1+2m)
Divisible by 7. By induction, 32n+1+2n+2 is divisible by 7 for all n≥0.
(c) Check values:
n
n2+n+1
Prime?
1
3
Yes
2
7
Yes
3
13
Yes
4
21
No (21=3×7)
The smallest counterexample is n=4: 42+4+1=21Which is not prime.