1.

Reasoning of Mathematicians:

1. Inductive Reasoning: collect information and make observations, about particular cases or
phenomena, in an attempt to form a theory① (a model), that describes patterns or
relationships among quantities and structures. We use logic to develop and extend a theory by
drawing conclusions based on statements accepted as true.

2. Deductive Reasoning: use logic to develop and extend a theory, by drawing conclusions, based
on statements accepted as true.

①theory = collection of true statements

As is typically done in natural and social sciences, the test for truth of a theory is that the results of an
experiment conform to 1) predictions, and that when the experiment is repeated under the 2)same
circumstances the result is always the same.

The difference is that in mathematics we need to know whether a given statement is always true.
Checking examples is not a valid proof technique unless we can somehow check all examples. Therefore
we need deductive reasoning.

2. Basics and Notations

2.1 Set and Number Systems

Set = collection of objects, called the elements / members of the set.

An object x is either in a set or not, that is, x ∈ A, otherwise x ∉ A

 Set builder notation: { x : x . . . } = the set of x such that x is . . .

 ∅ , { } : empty set = a set with no elements.
 A ⊆ B : A is a subset of B ⇔ every element of A is an element of B.
 A = B ⇔ sets A and B have exactly the same elements.
*{5} ≠ 5, the set whose only element is 5 is not the same as the number 5. why?实际意义？

ℕ = {1, 2, 3, . . . } = set of natural numbers

ℤ = { . . . -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, . . . } = " integers
ℚ = " rational numbers
ℝ = " real numbers
ℂ = " complex numbers
ℕ⊂ℤ⊂ℚ⊂ℝ⊂ℂ
Natural Numbers ℕ

Basic arithmetical and ordering structure (小到大排列):

1. Successor properties (inductive definition of ℕ)

1 is a natural number.
 Every natural number x has a unique successor x + 1.
1 is not the successor of any natural number.

2. Closure properties (代表 N 经过这些运算会对回 N，不会对去别的 set)

The sum of two natural numbers is a natural number.
The product of two natural numbers is a natural number.

*其实做么要 cancellation? 第一个只要 z + (-z) = 0，第二个只要 z/z = 1 就可以了啊 (这其实就是

introduce 反元素)。
ANS:

Definitions for ℕ

a divides b ⇔ ∃ k ∈ ℕ, such that b = ak

p is a prime, p ∈ ℕ ⇔ p > 1, the only natural numbers that divide p are 1 and p
A composite is a a natural number that is neither 1 nor prime.

Integers ℤ

The integers share properties 2 - 6 listed above for ℕ (exception: for property 6, we can’t cancel z from
xz = yz if z = 0)
Other properties:
x + 0 = x , x · 0 = 0 , x + (- x) = 0
x < y and z > 0 ⇒ xy < yz natural 也有这个 rule 啊，只是没有 0 和 z > 0 罢了。
正负得负，负负得正
The parity of an integer is the attribute of being either odd or even. The integer 31 has odd parity while
42 has even parity. The integers 12 and 15 have opposite parity.

Definitions for ℤ

x is even ⇔ ∃ k ∈ ℤ, such that x = 2k (注意: 有两个条件)

x is odd ⇔ ∃ j ∈ ℤ, such that x = 2j + 1
a divides b (a ≠ 0) ⇔ ∃ k ∈ ℕ, such that b = ak (要写 a ≠ 0 因为 integer 有 0)

Real Numbers ℝ and Rational Numbers ℚ

We think of the real numbers as being all the numbers along the number line. Each real number can be
represented as an integer together with a finite or infinite decimal part. Note that the infinity symbol
“ ∞ “ is simply a notational convenience and does not represent any real number.

The real number x is rational ⇔ ∃ p,q ∈ ℤ , q ≠ 0, such that x = p/q. The rationals are exactly the
numbers along the number line that have terminating or repeating decimal expressions. All other real
numbers are irrational.

ℝ and ℚ share many of the arithmetic and ordering properties of ℕ and ℤ, along with a new property:
Every number x except 0 has a multiplicative inverse; that is, ∃ y such that xy = 1

Complex Numbers ℂ

Complex numbers do not share the ordering properties of the reals.(不是应该说 complex 没有 ordering
properties 么？)

Complex number 不能从小到大排列。i 与 2i 哪一个大？如果说 2i > i，那么 2i – i > 0，i > 0。既然
i > 0，那么把 2i > i 两边乘上 i > 0，左边应该大过右边。可是结果却是 -2 > -1。反过来如果 2i < i，
那么 i < 0，乘进去，符号会掉反，还是会出现 -2 > -1。

2.2 Functions

A function / mapping = a rule of correspondence that associates to each element in a set A a unique
element in a second set B. No restriction is placed on the sets A and B, which may be sets of numbers,
functions, or vegetables.

Rule:
1. one-to-one
2. many-to-one
3. 对面 set 的元素不一定要全部被对到
It is this single-valued property that make functions so useful. how useful? 以后看

f : A → B : f maps set A to set B ①

If a ∈ A and the corresponding element of B is b, then we write
f (a) = b
The elements of A are called the arguments(why call??) or inputs of the function
b is the image of a, or b is the value of the function f at a
a is a pre-image of b
 Set A is the domain of f, denoted and B is the codomain of f ①不一定 B 的所有元素都被对到
All images under the function f is called the range of f *Therefore, Rng ( f ) ⊆ B
If Rng ( f ) = B ⇔ f maps set A onto set B
When any 2 different arguments have different images, we say that f is one-to-one.

3. Beginning Logic and Proofs

3.1 Propositions
Proposition = a sentence that has exactly 1 truth value -- true T / false F

Examples of sentences that are not propositions:

“What time is it?”
“Look out!”
“She lives in New York City”
“x2 = 36”
“This sentence is false”
– no truth value
– "
-- could be true or false depending upon the person to whom “she” refers
-- open sentence or predicate : " what numerical value is assigned to x
– paradox: neither true nor false

*open sentence or predicate : A sentence that contains variables and becomes a proposition only when
its variables are assigned specific values.
paradox : A situation in which, from premises that look reasonable, one uses apparently acceptable
reasoning to derive a conclusion that seems to be contradictory.

3.2 Connectives ∼ , ∧ , ∨
By applying logical connectives to propositions, we can form new propositions called compound forms.

negation ∼P – not P
conjunction (of P and Q) P ∧ Q -- P and Q Hierarchy (括号顺序) : ∼ , ∧ , ∨, ⇒ , ⇔
disjunction (of P and Q) P ∨ Q -- P or Q

*the form P ∨ Q itself has no truth value unless P and Q are assigned to be specific propositions. A
propositional form does not have one truth value. Instead, each form has a list of truth values that
depend on the values assigned to its components (P and Q).

tautology : a propositional form that is always true exp: Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ∼P
contradiction : " always false exp: ∼(P ∨ ∼P) , Q ∧ ∼Q

*Notice that the negation of a contradiction (always false) is a tautology (always true) and vice versa.

2 propositional forms are equivalent ⇔ they have the same truth tables

Formulae 1:
Intuition :
(h) “You don’t have both P and Q” = “You don’t have P or you don’t have Q.” (have = true)

A denial of a proposition P is any proposition equivalent to ∼P. A proposition has only one negation
∼P, but always has many denials, including ∼P, ∼∼∼P, ∼∼∼∼∼P etc. Denials serve as simplified forms
of negations as successive negations can result in much simpler forms. (Link 1.1)

3.3 Conditionals ⇒

If P then Q Proposition P is called the antecedent and Q is the consequent.

Notice that only one way that P ⇒ Q can be F: when P is T and Q is F.

This agrees with the way we understand promises (if…then) : the only
situation where a promise is broken is when the antecedent is true but
the person making the promise fails to make the consequent true.

Notice that P ⇒ Q is always T if P is F (irrespective of Q) or Q is T

(irrespective of P).

P ⇒ Q depends only on the truth value of components P and Q, so the truth table is still valid even
when there is no connection between P and Q. Therefore, situations like below arises.

“13 > 7 ⇒ 2 + 3 = 5.” (line 1 of the truth table)

The converse of P ⇒ Q is Q ⇒ P
The contrapositive of P ⇒ Q is (∼Q) ⇒ (∼P) , it is equivalent to itself.

3.4 Biconditionals ⇔

P if and only if Q (P iff Q)

Biconditional 一定是 tautology (因为 truth table 一样)，但 tautology 不一定是 biconditional。

Application 1:
They describe exactly the condition(s) to meet the definition. It provides a good test of whether a
statement could serve as a definition or just a description.
Definition : “Vertical lines have undefined slope” -- a line is vertical ⇔ its slope is undefined
Description : “A zebra is a striped animal” -- “An animal is a zebra ⇔ the animal is striped” is false.

Application 2:
Because P ⇔ Q is true exactly when the truth values of P and Q agree, we can use the it to restate the
meaning of equivalent propositional forms:

The propositional forms A and B are equivalent precisely when A ⇔ B is a tautology

Formulae 2:

Intuition :
a) P ⇒ Q is false exactly when P is true and Q is false, which happens exactly when both ∼P and Q are
false, this happens when ∼P ∨ Q is false.

Many of them is related with the rules we proposed before, exp: For (c)

∼ (P ⇒ Q) = ∼ (∼P ∨ Q) ((a))
= ∼ (∼P) ∧ ∼Q (DeMorgan’s Law)
= P ∧ ∼Q (Double Negation Law)

Application of Logic Notation in Reasoning

Recognizing the structure of a sentence and translating the sentence into symbolic form using logical
connectives are aids in determining its truth or falsity. This is sometimes very complicated because some
natural languages such as English have many meanings for a certain word.

Exp of complicated situations:

Suppose a teacher says to a student :

“If you score 74% or higher on the next test, you will pass this course.”
This sentence clearly has the form of P ⇒ Q, but its actual meaning is P ⇔ Q (iff) because if someone
passed the course, then he must have scored 74% or higher (Q ⇒ P is also true). Therefore, to be
precise, the sentence should use “if and only if” instead but in real life situations this is redundant.
However, in other times, “if…..then….” really means P ⇒ Q, such as “If x = 2, then x is a solution to x2 =
2x” because if x2 = 2x, x 不一定等于 2，也可以等于 0.

Exp of translation:

1. Let P denote the proposition “Roses are red”

Q " “Violets are blue”
We can translate the sentence “It is not the case that roses are red, nor that violets are blue(两个都错
0)” in at least two ways: (DeMorgan’s Law)

∼ (P ∨ Q) : roses red 或 violets blue 任何一个 1，答案都是 0，只有两个都是 0 时，答案才是 1

(∼P) ∧ (∼Q) : 两个都一定要是 0 答案才会是 1
*Note that “Violets are purple” requires a new symbol, say R, since it expresses a new idea that cannot
be formed from the components P and Q.

2. “If p is a prime number that divides ab, then p divides a or b”

 (P ∧ Q) ⇒ (R ∨ S)
P = p is a prime number R = p divides a
Q = p divides ab S = p divides b

“17 and 35 have no common divisors” cannot be broken up into the two propositions: “17 has no
common divisors” and “35 has no common divisors” (common to who?) because the word “common”
linked 17 and 35 together. Compare this with the proposition “17 and 35 have digits totaling 8,” which
can be written as P ∧ Q.

then 这句要怎样用 logic 来讲?? 还是它根本不是 proposition??

3.6 Validity and Soundness of a Deductive Argument

Valid: 不可能出现 premise T conclusion F 的情况。

Sound: Valid and all the premises are T.

In a valid deductive argument, the truth of the premise logically guarantees the conclusion to be true. A
deductive argument is valid if the process of reasoning is good.

All invalid arguments are unsound.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be T in order for the
argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in
the right way so that if the premises were T, then the conclusion would have to be T as well.

Even if one of the premises is actually F, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true
as well (valid).

If an argument is not valid nor sound, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its
truth is given by the argument.
exp: All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

This is an exp of a sound argument. From the definition, we can know that sound arguments always end
with true conclusions.

It should be noted that both invalid (有些情况 premise T conclusion F 罢了，其他情况可能 conclusion
T), as well as valid but unsound, arguments can nevertheless have true conclusions.
Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However, the
validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form.

Exp: All basketballs are round. All A's are F;

The Earth is round. has the form X is F;
Therefore, the Earth is a basketball. Therefore, X is an A.

Arguments with this form are invalid. Although the premise and the conclusion are all T, the premise’s
truth does not guarantee the conclusion’s truth. It could have been possible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.

While it is accepted that logical validity and invalidity is determined entirely by form, there are some
exceptions. exp:

My table is circular. and Juan is bachelor.

Therefore, it is not square shaped. Therefore, he is not married.

has the form x is F;

Therefore, x is not G.

Arguments of this form are not valid. However, in the case above and other similar ones, we can see
from the meaning of the sentence that it is impossible for the premises to be T while the conclusion is F.

There are 3 explanations:

1. These arguments actually contain implicit premises such as "Nothing is both circular and square
shaped" or "All bachelors are unmarried," Although they are necessary truths, they nevertheless
play a role in the form of these arguments.
2. (especially with the 1st argument) While there is a necessary connection between the premise
and the conclusion, the sort of necessity involved is something other than "logical" necessity.
Hence this argument (in the simple form) should not be regarded as logically valid.
3. (especially with the 2nd argument) Because "bachelor" is defined as "adult unmarried male
(Q,G,H)", that the true logical form of the argument is the following universally valid form:

x is F and not G and H;

Therefore, x is not G.
4. Quantifiers

As mentioned above in the beginning,

Open sentence or predicate : a sentence that contains variables and becomes a proposition only
when its variables are assigned specific values.

When P is an open sentence with a variable x, it is symbolized by P(x).

Truth set of the sentence : the collection of objects that may be substituted to make an open
sentence a true proposition.

Universe of discourse : Before a truth set can be determined, we must be given or must decide
what objects are available for consideration; that is, we must have specified a universe of
discourse.
exp: For “x likes chocolate,” the universe is presumably the set of all people.

exp: Universe -- truth set :

The truth set of the open sentence “ x2 < 5 ” depends upon ℕ -- {1, 2}
the collection of objects we choose for the universe of ℤ -- {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2}
discourse. ℝ -- the open interval (-√5,√5)

Equivalent open sentences

With a universe specified, two open sentences P(x) and Q(x) are equivalent iff they have the same truth
set. They can be equivalent for some universes and not for other universes.

The notions of truth set, universe, and equivalent open sentences should not be new concepts for you.
Solving an equation such as (x2 + 1)(x - 3) = 0 is a matter of determining what objects x make the open
sentence “(x2 + 1)(x - 3) = 0” true. For the universe ℝ the only solution is x = 3 and thus the truth set is
{3}. But if we choose the universe to be ℂ, the truth set is different.

Quantifiers
In logic, the sentence
“There is a prime number between 5060 and 5090”
is written as a proposition which does have a truth value
“There is a number x such that x is a prime number between 5060 and 5090”
This is formed from the original open sentence by applying a quantifier.

4.1 Existential quantifier ∃

For an open sentence P(x), the sentence (∃x)P(x) is read “There exists x such that P(x) or “For some x,
P(x).”
Truth value of (∃x)P(x)

An open sentence P(x) does not have a truth value, but the quantified sentence (∃x)P(x) does.

 To show that (∃x)P(x) is true for a particular universe, to identify an object a in the universe
such that the proposition P(a) is true. *(∃x)P(x) is true ⇔ the truth set of P(x) is nonempty

 To show (∃x)P(x) is false, we must show that the truth set of P(x) is empty.

Exp: For the statement (∃x)(x2 = 0),

For the universe ℝ, truth set = {0} (non empty), thus the statement is true.
" ℕ, truth set = { } (empty), thus the statement is false.

Sometimes we can say (∃x)P(x) is true even when we do not know the specific object in the universe in
the truth set of P(x), but we can be sure that there (at least) is one.

Exp: Show that (∃x)(x7 - 12x3 + 16x - 3 = 0) is true in the universe ℝ.

4.2 Universal quantifier Ɐ

For an open sentence P(x), the sentence (Ɐx)P(x) is read “For all x, P(x)”and is true iff the truth set of
P(x) is the entire universe. *每一个 x 都要符合 P(x)

All P(x) are Q(x) & Some P(x) are Q(x)

We agree that “All apples have spots” is quantified with Ɐ, but what form does it have?

If we limit the universe to just apples, a correct symbolization would be (Ɐx)(x has spots).
But if the universe is all fruits, we need to be more careful:
Let A(x) = “x is an apple”, S(x) = “x has spots”
Should the sentence be (∀x)[A(x) ∧ S(x)] or (∀x)[A(x) ⇒ S(x)]?

✗ (∀x)[A(x) ∧ S(x)] = “For all objects x in the universe, x is an apple and x has spots.”, meaning all x
are apples and has spot (all fruits are spotted apples).
✓ (∀x)[A(x) ⇒ S(x)] = “For all objects x in the universe, if x is an apple then x has spots.” = “If a fruit is
an apple, then it has spots.”只要 A(x) true，那么 S(x)一定要 true 整个 statement 才会 true，所以包
含了所有的 apple，只要是 apple，就一定有 spot。不是 apple 就不关事。

Now consider “Some apples have spots.” Should this be (∃x)[A(x) ∧ S(x)] or (∃x)[A(x) ⇒ S(x)]?

✓ (∃x)[A(x) ∧ S(x)] = “There is an object x such that it is an apple and it has spots”

✗ (∃x)[A(x) ⇒ S(x)] = 这句是讲 there exists 至少一个 x，使得 [ ] 内的是

真的。框框内显示，只要有一个不是 apple，或者有 spot，整个
statement 也是真的，而我们要的只是第一个情况。

Formulae 3:

Conclusion: In general, “All P(x) are Q(x)” = (∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)]

“Some P(x) are Q(x)” = (∃x)[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]

Exp: 1. “Some real numbers have a multiplicative inverse” =

(∃x)(x is a real number ∧ x has a real multiplicative inverse)
However, “x has an inverse” means there is some number that is an inverse for x (hidden quantifier), so
a more complete translation is
(∃x)[x is a real number ∧ ((∃y)(y is a real number ∧ xy = 1)]

2. One correct translation of “Some integers are even and some integers are odd” is
✓ (∃x)(x is even) ∧ (∃x)(x is odd)
because the first quantifier extends only as far as the word “even.” After that, any variable (even x
again) may be used to express “some are odd.” It would be equally correct and sometimes preferable to
write
✓ (∃x)(x is even) ∧ (∃y)(y is odd)
but it would be wrong to write
✗ (∃x)(x is even ∧ x is odd)
because there is no integer that is both even and odd.

4.3 Abbreviation for often used statements

“Every element of the set A has the property P” -- (∀x ∈ A)P(x), meaning “If x ∈ A, then …”
“Some element " ” -- (∃x ∈ A)P(x)

Exp:

1. In the beginning, our statement for the definition of rational numbers ℚ is

 The real number r is rational iff there are integers p and q, with q ≠ 0, such that r = p/q
This is a quantified statement so we use the quantifier symbol:

r is a rational number iff (∃p)(∃q)( p ∈ ℤ ∧ q ∈ ℤ ∧ q ≠ 0 ∧ r = p/q)

Using the abbreviation above:

r is a rational number iff (∃p ∈ ℤ)(∃q ∈ ℤ)(q ≠ 0 ∧ r = p/q)

2. “For every rational number there is a larger integer” =

(∀x)[x ∈ ℚ ⇒ (∃z)(z ∈ ℤ and z > x)]
or in abbreviation
(∀x ∈ ℚ )(∃z ∈ ℤ)(z > x)

4.4 Equivalence of Quantified Sentences

① 2 quantified sentences are equivalent in a given universe ⇔ they have the same truth value in that
universe
② 2 quantified sentences are equivalent ⇔ they are equivalent in every universe

Exp: 1. For (∀x)(x > 3) and (∀x)(x ≥ 4)

Equivalent universe: ℤ (both false), natural numbers > 10 (both true)

Non-equivalent universe: real numbers > 3.7 (1 true 1 false)

∵ They are not equivalent in every universe

∴ They are not equivalent sentences

Formulae 4:
a) (∃x)([P(x) ∧ Q(x)] = (∃x)([Q(x) ∧ P(x)], ∵ P ∧ Q and Q ∧ P are equivalent
b) (∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)] = (∀x)[∼Q(x) ⇒ ∼P(x)]
c) ∼(∀x)A(x) = (∃x) ∼A(x)
d) ∼(∃x)A(x) = (∀x) ∼A(x)
c) and d) is helpful for finding useful denials (Link 1.2)

Proof:
c) Let: U be any universe and
the sentence ∼(∀x)A(x) is true in U
⇔ (∀x)A(x) is false in U
⇔ the truth set of A(x) is not the universe
 ⇔ the truth set of ∼A(x) is nonempty
⇔ (∃x) ∼A(x) is true in U

Intuition: (Link 1.3)

“All primes are odd” 的反(negation)很明显是”Not all primes are odd”, 也就是”Some prime is even”
“All primes are odd” = (∀x)(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)
Negation = ∼(∀x)(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)
According to c) above, this becomes: (∃x)[∼(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)]
∵ ∼ (P ⇒ Q) = P ∧ ∼ Q ∴ this becomes (∃x)[ x is prime ⇒ ∼(x is odd)],
which means “There exists a number that is prime and is not odd (even).” or “Some prime number is not
odd (even).”

Exp: 1. A simplified denial of (∀x)(∃y)(∃z)(∀u)(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v) begins with its negation

∼(∀x) [(∃y)(∃z)(∀u)(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v)] (c)
= (∃x) ∼[(∃y)(∃z)(∀u)(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v)] (d)
= (∃x) (∀y) ∼[(∃z)(∀u)(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v)] (d)
= (∃x)(∀y) (∀z) ∼[(∀u)(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v)] (c)
= (∃x)(∀y)(∀z) (∃u) ∼[(∃v)(x + y + z > 2u + v)] (d)
= (∃x)(∀y)(∀z)(∃u) (∀v) ∼[(x + y + z > 2u + v)]
= (∃x)(∀y)(∀z)(∃u)(∀v)(x + y + z ≤ 2u + v)
After 5 applications of (c) and (d), we arrived at this simplified form.

2. For the universe of all real numbers, find a denial of “Every positive real number has a multiplicative
inverse.” *如果没有注明 universe，那么 translate 的时候就要写 x ∈ ℝ
(∀x)[x > 0 ⇒ (∃y)(xy = 1)]
negation = ∼(∀x)[x > 0 ⇒ (∃y)(xy = 1)]
= (∃x) ∼[x > 0 ⇒ (∃y)(xy = 1)]
= (∃x)[x > 0 ∧ ∼(∃y)(xy = 1)]
= (∃x)[x > 0 ∧ (∀y) ∼(xy = 1)]
= (∃x)[x > 0 ∧ (∀y)(xy ≠ 1)],
which means “There exists at least 1 positive real number that has no multiplicative inverse.”

3. For the universe of living things, find a denial of “Some children do not like clowns.”
4.5 Unique existential quantifier ∃!

For an open sentence P(x), the proposition (∃!x)P(x) is read “there exists a unique x such that P(x)”
and is true iff the truth set of has exactly one element.

Formulae 5:

a) (∃!x)A(x) ⇒ (∃x)A(x)

b) (∃!x)A(x) = (∃x)A(x) ∧ (∀y)(∀z)(A(y) ∧ A(z) ⇒ y = z)

Intuition:
(∀y)(∀z)(A(y) ∧ A(z) ⇒ y = z) : 如果有两个元素 y, z 同时符合 A，那么他们一定相等，就代表其实
就只有一个元素是符合 A 的。
(∃x)A(x)是为了要确保符合 A 的元素存在。因为注意后面那项，就算⇒前 false，整项也 true。

Meaning:
a) ∃! is a special case of the quantifier ∃
b) equivalent to “There is an x “such that A(x)” and “if both A(y) and A(z)”, then y = z”

5. Basic Proof Methods I

Theorem = a statement that describes a pattern or relationship, among quantities or structures
Proof = a justification of the truth of a theorem

We cannot define all terms (因为 definition 本身就包含了一些基本的 vocab) nor prove all
statements from previous ones (一开始要有一些 statement 才能推导出另一些 statement). We begin
with an initial set of statements, called axioms (or postulates), that are very fundamental facts assumed
to be true about a theory. We then derive theorems that are true in any situation where the axioms are
true.

Exp: The Pythagorean Theorem is a theorem whose proof is ultimately based on the 5 axioms of
Euclidean geometry. In a situation where the Euclidean axioms are not all true (curved spacetime), the
Pythagorean Theorem may(not must??) not be true.

There must also be an initial set of undefined terms—concepts fundamental to the context of
study.

Exp: In geometry, the concept of a point is an undefined term.

From the axioms and undefined terms, new concepts (new definitions) can be introduced. And
finally, new theorems can be proved.

Corollary: A proposition inferred immediately from a proved proposition with little or no additional
proof. A proposition that naturally follows or results from another proved proposition.

Lemma:

*Axiomatic Systems

Axiomatic System = any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction
to logically derive theorems.

Theory = Axiomatic System + Derived Theorems

Properties of Axiomatic Systems:

Consistent 自洽 (or 相容 , 一致) 没有矛盾(contradiction)，即不会从 axiomatic system 里的

axioms 导出一个 statement 和它的 denial (否命题).
Independent (In an axiomatic system, an axiom is called independent if it is not
a theorem that can be derived from other axioms in the system)
所以 a system will be called independent if each of its underlying
axioms is independent.
Complete 完备 In an axiomatic system，每个命题及其否命题中至少有一方可
被证明。
*Independence is not a necessary requirement for a system, consistency is.

所以 either complete or independent 啦？

5.1 Four Rules

Rule 1
The structure of a proof for a particular theorem depends greatly on the logical form of the theorem.
The 4 rules that follow provide guidance about what statements are allowed in a proof, and when.

Rule 1: You may (at any time) use (axioms, previously proved results
or assumptions you wish to introduce) as some steps in a proof.

The statement of an axiom is usually easily identified as such by the reader because it is so
fundamental. Sometimes the axiom is so well known that its statement is omitted from proofs but there
are cases (exp: Axiom of Choice) for which it is prudent to mention it in every proof employing it.

Rule 2

An important skill for proof writing is the ability to replace a complex statement with an equivalent form
that is more useful① or helps to clarify its meaning②.

Rule 2: You may (at any time) state a sentence equivalent to

any statement earlier in the proof.

This replacement rule is often used in combination with the equivalences of Theorems 1.1.1 and
1.2.2 to rewrite a statement involving logical connectives.

Exp:
“It is not the case that x is even and prime.” has the form ∼(P ∧ Q),
so according to DeMorgan’s Law, we may deduce that
“x is not even or x is not prime,” which has form ∼P ∨ ∼Q

The replacement rule allows you to use definitions in two ways:

① If you are told or have shown that x is odd, you can correctly state that for some natural number k, x
= 2k + 1. You now have an equation to use and you can replace the x in your statement.

② If you need to prove that x is odd, it is the same to prove that x = 2k + 1. You can then replace the x
in your statement.

Exp: If a proof contains the line “The product of real numbers a and b is zero”, then we can replace that
a = 0 or b = 0. In this example, the equivalence of the two statements comes from our knowledge of the
real numbers that (ab = 0) ⇔ (a = 0 or b = 0).

Rule 3
Tautologies is used to create rules for making deductions in a proof. Exp: If a proof involves a real
number x, you may at any time assert “Either x > 0 or x ≤ 0” (a rule that could be used). This has the
form of a tautology P ∨ ∼P.

Rule 3: You may (at any time) state a sentence which is a tautology.

Rule 4

The most fundamental rule of reasoning is modus ponens, which is based on the tautology [P ∧ (P ⇒
Q)] ⇒ Q.
Rule 4: At any time after P and P ⇒ Q appear in a proof, state that Q is true.

就是讲当你有一个确定是成立的关系(P ⇒ Q)，那么如果现在条件 P meet 到了，那么就可以知道

Q 也对。This rule allows us to get from statement P to a different statement Q by making a connection
between them.

Exp: From calculus we know that if a function f is differentiable on an interval (a , b), then f is
continuous on the interval (a , b). (P ⇒ Q true)

If we get “ f is differentiable on (a , b) (P true)” , then we can deduce “therefore f is continuous on the

interval (a , b) (therefore Q is true)”

Exp:
*Statement (1),(2),(3)一定是 true 的，因为是题目给的。Notice that it is the forms of the propositions
and not their meanings that allowed us to make the deductions.

5.2 Direct Proof: 证 P ⇒ Q and (P ∧ Q) ⇒ R:

Assume P
……. Since is P ⇒ Q false only when P is true and Q is false, this situation will not
……. happen as we assumed P to be true and deduced that Q is true, thus P ⇒ Q must
……. be true. Therefore, we proved that P ⇒ Q is true.
Therefore, Q .
Thus, P ⇒ Q

Exp: Proof the theorem: “Let x be an integer. Prove that if x is odd, then x + 1 is even.”

< The theorem has the form P ⇒ Q >

Let x be an integer < We may assume this hypothesis since it is given in the statement of the theorem.>

Suppose x is odd. < Assume that the antecedent P is true. The goal is to derive the consequent Q >

x = 2k + 1 for some integer k < Use the replacement rule: replace “ x is odd” with “x = 2k + 1”> *记得
要 define k

then x + 1 = (2k + 1) + 1 < Use the algebraic property of ℕ in the replacement rule: replace “x + 1”
in the statement with “(2k + 1) + 1”>

Since (2k + 1) + 1 = 2k + 2 = 2(k + 1), < Replacement again: replace “(2k + 1) + 1” with “2k + 2”
x + 1 is the product of 2 and an integer. and “2k + 2” with” 2(k + 1)” >

Thus x + 1 is even. <We have deduced the consequent Q >

Proof Flow (1=条件，2=左式，3=右式，4=运算)

5.3 Working Backwards

To get a sense of how a proof of should proceed, it is sometimes useful to “work backward” from what
is to be proved: To show that a consequent is true, decide what statement could be used to prove it,
another statement that could be used to prove that one, and so forth. Continue until you reach a
hypothesis which you can assume, the antecedent, or a fact known to be true. After doing such
preliminary work, construct a proof “forward” so that your conclusion is the consequent.

Exp: Prove that if x2 ≤ 1, then x2 - 7x > -10

Work Backwards

Forward Proof

5.2.1 证 P ⇒ (Q ∨ R)

如果 P 对，那么就只有 Q 或 R 对 2 种选择，如果我们知道 P 对，但不导致 Q 对，那么肯定是 R

对，因为只有 2 种选择。所以要证 P ⇒ (Q ∨ R)成立等于证 P ∧ ∼Q ⇒ R 或 P ∧ ∼R ⇒ Q 成立。

5.2.2 证(P ∨ Q) ⇒ R

A natural way to prove is to set cases.

Case 1: Assume P ….… Therefore R.

Case 2: Assume Q ….… Therefore R.

This method is valid because [(P ∨ Q) ⇒ R] ⇔ [(P ⇒ R) ∧ (Q ⇒ R)] is a tautology.

5.2.3 证(P ⇒ Q) ⇒ R

Assume P ⇒ Q and deduce R. We cannot assume P; must assume P ⇒ Q

5.2.4 证 P ⇒ (Q ⇒ R)
As P ⇒ (Q ⇒ R) ⇔ (P ∧ Q) ⇒ R, we assume P and Q then deduce R.

5.4 Proof by exhaustion

Proof by exhaustion = Examination of every possible case. The statement to be proved may have any
form P.

Exp: To prove that every number x in the closed interval [0, 5] has a certain property, we examine
whether x has that property in the cases x = 0, 0 < x < 5, and x = 5.

The idea of proof by exhaustion is appealing only when the number of cases is small, or when large
numbers of cases can be systematically handled. Care must be taken to ensure that all possible cases
have been considered.

Exp:

1. Prove: Suppose n is an odd integer. Then n = 4j + 1 for some integer j, or n = 4i – 1 for some integer i,
but not both.

Part 1:
Suppose n is odd. Then n = 2m + 1 for some integer m. <找一些 m 做检验就能发现 when m is even, n
总能写成 4j + 1 ; when m is odd, n 总能写成 4i – 1。integer 分 case 通常是分 odd & even 或者
interval。>

Case 1: If m is even, then m = 2j for some integer j, and so n = 2(2j) + 1 = 4j + 1

Case 2: If m is odd, then m = 2k + 1 for some integer k. In this case n = 2(2k + 1) + 1 = 4k + 3 = 4(k + 1) –
1. Choosing i to be the integer k + 1, we have n = 4i – 1.

*The logical form here is (P ∨ Q) ⇒ (R1 ∨ R2) and the method we choose to show is P ⇒ R1 and Q ⇒
R2.

Part 2:

2. Let x be a real number. Prove that -|x| ≤ x ≤ |x|.

5.5 Without Loss of Generality

There are proofs by exhaustion with cases so similar in reasoning that we may simply present a single
case and alert the reader with the phrase “without loss of generality” that this case represents the
essence of arguments for the other cases.

Exp: Prove that for the integers m and n, one of which is even and the other odd, has the form 4k + 1 for
some integer k.

<这里有 2 个情况，因为 2 个情况的证法一样，我们可以只证一个，但要注明 “without loss of

generality”>

Proof: Let m and n be integers. Without loss of generality, we may assume that m is even and n is odd.
才开始证。在这个情况下, 凭着这个 assumption 证到了，如果要推广到一般情况(具一般性
generality), 只要调换 m 跟 n 就可以了。

6. Basic Proof Methods II (Indirect Proof)

Use tautologies to replace statements.

6.1 Proof by Contraposition of P ⇒ Q

Based on the tautology (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (∼Q ⇒ ∼P)

This method can work well when the connection

between denials of P and Q are easier to understand
than the connection between P and Q themselves,
or when the statement of either P and Q is itself a
negation.

6.2 Proof of P by Contradiction

 Based on the tautology [(∼P) ⇒ (Q ∧ ∼Q)] ⇔ P

Advantage: This method of proof can be applied to any

proposition P, whereas direct proofs and proofs by
contraposition can be used only for conditional sentences.
还有一个好处就是如果你觉得要 prove 的 statement P
好用，你可以设∼P 来用 (refer sin x + cos x > 1)。

Disadvantage: The proposition Q is not given in the

proposition P that we want to prove since Q does not appear on the right side of the tautology. This
means that it may require a spark of insight to determine a useful Q.

Exp:

1.

6.2.1 √2 is an irrational number

2. Prove “√2 is an irrational number” – by Hippasus, a disciple of Pythagoras

Assume that √2 is a rational number. <Suppose ∼P>

Then √2 = a/b, where b ≠ 0 and
a and b have no common factors. <This is the proposition Q that we need to come up with ourselves>
From √2 = a/b we have 2 = a2/b2 , 2b2 = a2.
Therefore a2 is even so a is even. <proven in pg 40>
It follows that there exists an integer k such that a = 2k
therefore 2b2 = a2 = (2k)2 = 4k2
thus b2 = 2k2, which shows b2 is even. Therefore b is even too.
Since both a and b are even, they have a common factor 2. <We deduced ∼Q>
This is a contradiction. We conclude that √2 is irrational.

How to prove other odd numbers irra??

* You may wonder why √2 is important or why it should be the first number to be proved irrational. The ancient
Greeks geometers constructed numbers (lengths of line segments) using only a compass and a straightedge. It’s
easy to construct a square with sides of length 1, for which the length of a diagonal is √2. The fundamental
Pythagorean belief that all numbers that arise in nature are either integers or ratios of integers is disproved by the
irrationality of √2.
6.2.2 The set of primes is infinite

3. Prove “The set of primes is infinite” – by Euclid

Suppose the set of primes is finite. <Suppose ∼P. This means that the set of primes has k elements for
some natural number k. Then the set of all primes can be listed,
from the first one to the kth (last) one.>

Let p1, p2, p3, … , pk be all those primes.

Let n = (p1 p2 p3 … pk) +1 <We made up a number n which will not have any of the pi in the
list of all primes as prime factors, we are going to prove this
below.>

n is a natural number (prime*/composite), < *n 不能是 prime，因为所有

so n has a prime divisor q 的 prime 已经 list 出来了>

Since q is prime, q > 1. <This is the Q statement>

Since q is a prime and p1, p2, p3, … , pk are all the primes, q is one of the pi in the list.

Thus, q divides the product p1 p2 p3 … pk.

Since q divides n (and p1 p2 p3 … pk), q divides <This is ∼Q>

n - (p1 p2 p3 … pk), which equals to 1, so q = 1
From the contradiction, q > 1 (Q) and q = 1 (∼Q), we conclude that the assumption “the set of primes
is finite” is false, then the other way round – “the set of primes is infinite” must be true.

6.3 证 P ⇔ Q
Method 1: We make use of the tautology (P ⇔ Q) ⇔ (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P)
i) Show P ⇒ Q The separate proofs of parts (i) and (ii) may use different methods. Often the
ii) Show Q ⇒ P proof of one part is easier than the other.
Therefore, P ⇔ Q
P iff R1
Method 2: iff R2
……
We start with P and then replace it with a sequence of equivalent statements R1, R2,….,
iff Rn
Rn, the last one being Q. iff Q

Exp:

Method 1 : Prove Let m and n be integers. Then m and n have the same parity iff m2 + n2 is even.

(i) P ⇒ Q
(ii) Q ⇒ P

Method 2 : A triangle has sides of length a, b, and c. Prove that it is a right triangle with hypotenuse c iff
a 2 + b2 = c2.

3.5
Translation of Eng into Logic Symbol
7. Proof involving Quantifiers

We previously came across and then proved the statement “If x is odd then x + 1 is even”. This
statement actually has the meaning “For every integer x, if x is odd then x + 1 is even” which involes a
quantifier.

To prove (∀x)P(x), we must show that is true for every object x in the universe. The selection of an
appropriate proof technique will depend on the logical form of P(x).

Complete Proof: Whenever the statement was universally quantified, the proof given had the form of a
complete proof, because each begins with an assumption such as “Let x be an integer” or “Let x and y
be real numbers.” 有什么是不 complete 的？

In a direct proof, it is essential that for the first step, we assume nothing about x other than it is an
object in the universe.

7.1 Proof of (∀x)P(x)

7.1.1 Direct Proof

Exp: 1. Prove that for every natural number n, 4n2 - 6.8n + 2.88 > 0

2. Prove ”If x is an even integer, then x2 is an even integer.”

<The statement has the form (∀x)(A(x) ⇒ B(x)), where the universe is ℤ.>
Let x ∈ ℤ <We give a direct proof of A(x) ⇒ B(x), which we begin by assuming A(x)>
Assume x is even. …………..

In the example above, there are two assumptions about the variable x — for two very different reasons.
The assumption “Let x ∈ ℤ” appears first because we are assuming x is an object in the universe. Then,
we make the statement “Assume x is even” because we are initiating a direct proof of a conditional
sentence, which starts by assuming the antecedent.

7.1.2 Proof by Contradiction

Exp: 1. Prove that for all x ∈ (0, π/2), sin x + cos x > 1
Notice the different roles that the symbols “x” and “t” play in the above example. x is a variable of the
sine and cosine functions. t is some fixed value in (0, π/2) with the property that sin t + cos t > 1.

7.1.2.1 Some knowledge of Real and Complex Algebra

2. Prove that the polynomial

7.2 Proof of (∃x)P(x)

7.2.1 Proof by Constructive Proof

In a constructive proof we actually find an object a in the universe (usually by observation or by

computer search) such that is true, which directly verifies that the truth set of is nonempty.

Exp: Prove that “There is an even prime natural number.”

We simply observe that 2 is prime and 2 is even.
It is not necessary to find an object a in the universe. We can also prove by showing that there must be
some object for which P(x) is true. This is the strategy used in the Rolle’s Theorem and the Mean Value
Theorem from calculus.

7.2.2 Proof by Contradiction

Exp: Starting from 9 a.m. (Monday), a hiker walked from a base camp up a mountain trail and reached
the summit at 3 p.m. He camped for the night and then hiked back down the same trail at 9 a.m
(Tuesday). On the way down, he stopped and walked faster on other parts of the trail and returned to
the starting point at 3 p.m. Prove that there is some point on the trail that the hiker passed at the same
time on two days.

Sol:

The universe is the open interval (0, 6). The statement has the form ∃t ∈ (0, 6), meaning there exists a
point on the trail at time t on Monday that is the same as the point at time t on Tuesday. <P>

Suppose there is no such point along the trail <Suppose ∼P>. Then for every time t ∈ (0, 6), the point
where the hiker is at time t on Monday is different from the point where the hiker is at time t on
Tuesday. <(∀x) ∼P>

Let A follow the pace of the hiker on Monday and B follow the pace on Tuesday simultaneously on the
same day, that is, A will go up the mountain whereas B will go down on the same day.

Since A and B are at different points at every time between (0, 6), they will never meet <then Q>. But
they must meet at some point on the trail <therefore ∼Q>. This is a contradiction <Q ∧ ∼Q>. Therefore
there is some point on the trail that the hiker passed at the same time on the two days.

*它问在相同时间在相同的点。所以我们可以设相同的时间(同时走)，看有没有在相同的点遇到。

7.2.3 Proof of (∃x)P(x) ⇒ Q

We first assume (∃x)P(x). However, the fact that some object x in the universe has the property does
not give us much to work with. A useful next step is to name some particular object that has the
property and use the property of the object to derive Q.

Exp:
1. The graph of x2 + y2 = r2, with r > 0 is a circle with center (0, 0) and radius r. Prove that if one of the x
-intercepts of the circle has rational coordinates, then all four intercepts have rational coordinates.

Suppose an x -intercept (a, 0) of the circle has rational coordinates. <We name some particular object
that has the property>

Then a is a rational number and a2 + 02 = r2 so a2 = r2 and a = ±r .Then the other x -intercept is (-a,
0).To find the y -intercepts, we solve 02 + y2 = r2 and find y = ±r = ±a Therefore, the four intercepts are
(a, 0), (-a, 0), (0, a), (0,- a) all of which have rational coordinates. <We used the object we named above
to derive Q>

7.3 Proof with many Quantifiers

Many statements have more than one quantifier. We must deal with each in succession, starting from
the left.

Exp:

7.3.1 Between any two rational numbers x and y, there is always another rational number z

1. Prove: “Between any two rational numbers x and y,where x < y, there is always another rational
number z”

2. Prove: “For every natural number n, there is a natural number M such that for all natural numbers
m > M,
观察一下就懂 m > 3n 了啦

The statement may be symbolized by

< We begin with the universal quantifier ∀ on the left >

Let n be a natural number. <As given by the question. 1st quantifier taken care of. We must prove the
existence of a natural number M with the given property>

Working backwards, we can see that

Therefore, we choose M to be 3n <2nd quantifier taken care of: there exist such M and it is 3n>
Let m be a natural number <3rd quantifier taken care of>
Suppose m > M. Then m > 3n and since 3mn > 0 (m,n are natural numbers), dividing by 3mn we have

3. Prove: There is a real number z with the property that for any two larger numbers x,y there is another
real number w that is larger than the sum of the two numbers and less than their product.

<The universe is ℝ. A symbolic form of the statement is (∃z)(∀x)(∀y)[(x > z ∧ y > z) ⇒ (∃w)(x + y < w
< xy)].We must choose z so that the statement (x > z ∧ y > z) ⇒ (∃w)(x + y < w < xy) will be true for
all x and y.>
We chose z = 2 <So that x + y < xy as we will soon show. Notice that x + y is not always less than
xy. For example, let x = 1.6 and y = 1.4>
Let x and y be real numbers such that x > z and y > z. <Conditions given by the question>
Without loss of generality, we may assume that y ≥ x.
Then x + y ≤ 2y and 2y < xy, so x + y < xy <Now that we have made sure that there exists a z so
that x + y < xy, we can insert w in between them.>
Anything in between can be represented by

Here we choose w to be the midpoint between x + y and xy, so

And we have x + y < w < xy

7.4 Proof of (∃!x)P(x)

The proof is based on: (∃!x)P(x) = (∃x)P(x) ∧ (∀y)(∀z)(P(y) ∧ P(z) ⇒ y = z). Since the main
connective is a conjunction, the method will have two parts:
Great care must be taken in proofs that contain expressions involving more than one quantifier. 有一些
可以改有一些不能。

Equivalent statements (Biconditional): Implications (Conditional):

1. (∀x)(∀y)P(x, y) ⇔ (∀y)(∀x)P(x, y) 4. [(∀x)P(x) ∨ (∀x)Q(x)] ⇒ (∀x)[P(x) ∨ Q(x)]
2. (∃x)(∃y)P(x, y) ⇔ (∃y)(∃x)P(x, y) 5. (∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)] ⇒ [(∀x)P(x) ⇒ (∀x)Q(x)]
3. (∀x)[P(x) ∧ Q(x)] ⇔ [(∀x)P(x) ∧ (∀x)Q(x)] 6. (∃x)(∀y)P(x, y) ⇒ (∀y)(∃x)P(x, y)

Intuition:
6. If (∃x)(∀y)P(x, y) is true, meaning that there is (at least) one x that makes P(x, y) true no matter
what y is.

Invalid Implications and why:

上面的 3 and 4 不明白

8. Some Complications

1. 如果题目要证 for some，结果证到 for all，也可以。 for all implies for some??
2. 如果题目要证 ⇒，结果证到 ⇔，也可以。 ⇔ implies ⇒ ??
3. 如果题目要证 inclusive or，结果证到 exclusive or，或 vice versa，那么就错了。因为对于
inclusive or，两个都对，那么命题也对，但是 exclusive or，两个对，命题错。

1. 如果说 P 导致 Q 或 R，那么就算 P 肯定不会导致 R，那个 statement 也是对的。

9. Formulae Table

Below are the formulae that appeared in this chapter.

1. Connectives

Intuition :
(h) “You don’t have both P and Q” = “You don’t have P or you don’t have Q.” (have = true)

2. Conditionals and Biconditionals

Intuition :
a) P ⇒ Q is false exactly when P is true and Q is false, which happens exactly when both ∼P and Q are
false, this happens when ∼P ∨ Q is false.
3. Existential and Universal Quantifier 1
“All P(x) are Q(x)” = (∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)]
“Some P(x) are Q(x)” = (∃x)[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]

4. Existential and Universal Quantifier 2

(∃x)([P(x) ∧ Q(x)] = (∃x)([Q(x) ∧ P(x)], ∵ P ∧ Q and Q ∧ P are equivalent
(∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)] = (∀x)[∼Q(x) ⇒ ∼P(x)]
∼(∀x)A(x) = (∃x) ∼A(x)
∼(∃x)A(x) = (∀x) ∼A(x)

Proof:
c) Let: U be any universe and
the sentence ∼(∀x)A(x) is true in U
⇔ (∀x)A(x) is false in U
⇔ the truth set of A(x) is not the universe
⇔ the truth set of ∼A(x) is nonempty
⇔ (∃x) ∼A(x) is true in U

Intuition: (Link 1.3)

“All primes are odd” 的反(negation)很明显是”Not all primes are odd”, 也就是”Some prime is even”
“All primes are odd” = (∀x)(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)
Negation = ∼(∀x)(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)
According to c) above, this becomes: (∃x)[∼(x is prime ⇒ x is odd)]
∵ ∼ (P ⇒ Q) = P ∧ ∼ Q ∴ this becomes (∃x)[ x is prime ⇒ ∼(x is odd)],
which means “There exists a number that is prime and is not odd (even).” or “Some prime number is not
odd (even).”

5. Unique Existential Quantifier

(∃!x)A(x) ⇒ (∃x)A(x)
(∃!x)A(x) = (∃x)A(x) ∧ (∀y)(∀z)(A(y) ∧ A(z) ⇒ y = z)
Intuition:
(∀y)(∀z)(A(y) ∧ A(z) ⇒ y = z) : 如果有两个元素 y, z 同时符合 A，那么他们一定相等，就代表其实
就只有一个元素是符合 A 的。
(∃x)A(x)是为了要确保符合 A 的元素存在。因为注意后面那项，就算⇒前 false，整项也 true。

Meaning:
a) ∃! is a special case of the quantifier ∃
b) equivalent to “There is an x “such that A(x)” and “if both A(y) and A(z)”, then y = z”

6. Basic Proof Method 1

P ⇒ (Q ∨ R) ⇔ P ∧ ∼Q ⇒ R ⇔ P ∧ ∼R ⇒ Q
[(P ∨ Q) ⇒ R] ⇔ [(P ⇒ R) ∧ (Q ⇒ R)]
P ⇒ (Q ⇒ R) ⇔ (P ∧ Q) ⇒ R
(P ∨ Q) ⇒ (R1 ∨ R2) ⇔ (P ⇒ R1) ∧ (Q ⇒ R2) *P 对后 Q 对，看有没有对 R1 R2 其中一个，就可以
收工了。

7. Basic Proof Method 2

Contradiction [(∼P) ⇒ (Q ∧ ∼Q)] ⇔ P
(P ⇔ Q) ⇔ (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P)

8. Translation of Eng into Logic Symbol

9. More than one Quantifier

Equivalent statements (Biconditional):
1. (∀x)(∀y)P(x, y) ⇔ (∀y)(∀x)P(x, y)
2. (∃x)(∃y)P(x, y) ⇔ (∃y)(∃x)P(x, y)
3. (∀x)[P(x) ∧ Q(x)] ⇔ [(∀x)P(x) ∧ (∀x)Q(x)]
Intuition:
Implications (Conditional):
4. [(∀x)P(x) ∨ (∀x)Q(x)] ⇒ (∀x)[P(x) ∨ Q(x)]
5. (∀x)[P(x) ⇒ Q(x)] ⇒ [(∀x)P(x) ⇒ (∀x)Q(x)]
6. (∃x)(∀y)P(x, y) ⇒ (∀y)(∃x)P(x, y)
6. If (∃x)(∀y)P(x, y) is true, meaning that there is (at least) one x that makes P(x, y) true no matter
what y is.