Proof by Contradiction: Converse of A(n) Holds for All n ∈ Z

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on using proof by contradiction to validate the converse of the statement that if n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2, then n^2 = 3t + 1 for some t in Z. Participants clarify that assuming n^2 ≠ 3t + 1 while n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2 does not constitute a valid proof by contradiction, as it merely proves the original statement directly. The focus should instead be on proving that for any n satisfying n^2 = 3t + 1, it follows that n must be of the form 3q + 1 or 3q + 2. Confusion arose regarding the structure of the proof, emphasizing the need to correctly identify the assumptions and conclusions. Ultimately, the key takeaway is the importance of correctly framing the proof to address the converse rather than the original statement.
UOAMCBURGER
Messages
31
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


“If n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2 for some q ∈ Z, then n 2 = 3t + 1 for some t ∈ Z.”
Use proof by contradiction to show that the converse of A(n) is true for all n ∈ Z.
For the proof by contradiction, on the answer sheet provided they have assumed n^2 = 3t+1 but n != 3q+1 and n != 3q+2.

Is it possible to have a valid proof by contradiction if you were to assume n = 3q+1 or n = 3q+2 is true for some n in Z, but n^2 != 3t+1 and then show that you can get n^2 into the form 3(.t..) + 1 ? where 3(.t..) is just obviously some multiple of 3... Hence a contradiction.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
UOAMCBURGER said:
Is it possible to have a valid proof by contradiction if you were to assume n = 3q+1 or n = 3q+2 is true for some n in Z, but n^2 != 3t+1 and then show that you can get n^2 into the form 3(.t..) + 1 ? where 3(.t..) is just obviously some multiple of 3... Hence a contradiction.?
This would not be a proof by contradiction. It would just be proving the statement “If n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2 for some q ∈ Z, then n 2 = 3t + 1 for some t ∈ Z” directly. The assumption that n^2 ##\ne## 3t+1 would be superfluous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tnich said:
This would not be a proof by contradiction. It would just be proving the statement “If n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2 for some q ∈ Z, then n 2 = 3t + 1 for some t ∈ Z” directly. The assumption that n^2 ##\ne## 3t+1 would be superfluous.
Also, the problem is to prove the converse, not the original statement. So what you need to prove is
##\forall t, n \in \mathbb Z ## such that ## n^2=3t+1, \exists q \in \mathbb Z ## such that ## n=3q+1## or ##n=3q+2##
 
tnich said:
Also, the problem is to prove the converse, not the original statement. So what you need to prove is
##\forall t, n \in \mathbb Z ## such that ## n^2=3t+1, \exists q \in \mathbb Z ## such that ## n=3q+1## or ##n=3q+2##
oh that is why i was getting confused, because given statement A>B for a proof by contradiction you get A>~B and show some contradiction, hence my question about the order of the proof. I see what I've done, thanks.
 
UOAMCBURGER said:

Homework Statement


“If n = 3q + 1 or n = 3q + 2 for some q ∈ Z, then n 2 = 3t + 1 for some t ∈ Z.”
Use proof by contradiction to show that the converse of A(n) is true for all n ∈ Z.
For the proof by contradiction, on the answer sheet provided they have assumed n^2 = 3t+1 but n != 3q+1 and n != 3q+2.

Is it possible to have a valid proof by contradiction if you were to assume n = 3q+1 or n = 3q+2 is true for some n in Z, but n^2 != 3t+1 and then show that you can get n^2 into the form 3(.t..) + 1 ? where 3(.t..) is just obviously some multiple of 3... Hence a contradiction.?

Is n 2 supposed to be ##n^2?## If so, write it properly, as n^2.
 
Ray Vickson said:
Is n 2 supposed to be ##n^2?## If so, write it properly, as n^2.
yes its meant to be n2, and obviously I did NOT intentionally write it as n 2 ...
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top