Proving with contrapositive methode instead of contradition

In summary, The contrapositive method can be used to prove that if x is a rational number and y is an irrational number, then x times y is irrational. This can be done by assuming that xy is rational and demonstrating that both x and y must be either rational or irrational. This method is essentially the same as proof by contradiction. However, it is most useful when there is no obvious proof of "A implies B", but it is possible to prove "(Not B) implies (not A)". A better example is "if the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180°, the surface is non-Euclidean", which can be proven by showing the contrapositive: if the surface is Euclidean, the
  • #1
Uljanov
2
0
Could you tell me how to write a very formal proof of the statement below with the contrapositive methode, if possible.
(I know how to do it with contradiction)

Let x be a rational number and y an irrational number, then x times y is irrational.


V. Uljanov
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The contrapositive of this is "if xy is rational then x and y are either both rational or both irrational" and this can be proved with similar steps to the proof you already have.
 
  • #3
Thx, but I can't see how to proceed in the same manner. If xy=m/n, then x=m/(n*y), but if y is irrational I am back to the start, and can't say anything about x.

In contradiction I assumed xy=m/n, and got y=m/(n*x)=ml/nk=m'/n' (x was rational), and this lead to the contradiction of y beeing irrational from the start.
 
  • #4
Exactly as before: assume x is rational, y is irrational and xy is rational, demonstrate the contradiction.

You see the contrapositive of "A implies B" is "(Not B) implies (not A)". With proof by contradiction you assume (not B) and demonstrate (not A), so proof by contradiction is essentially the same as proof of the contrapositive.

If this seems a bit circular and tautological it is because this is a bad example. Contrapositive proofs only make sense where there is no obvious proof of "A implies B", but it is possible to prove "(Not B) implies (not A)".

Here is a better example: "If the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180° the surface is non-Euclidean"; the easiest way to prove this is to prove the contrapositive: if the surface is Euclidean (so we can constuct a line parallel to any side), the angles of a triangle add up to 180°.
 
  • #5
,

Thank you for your question. I will provide a formal proof of the statement using the contrapositive method.

Proof:
Suppose x is a rational number and y is an irrational number. We want to prove that x times y is irrational.

We will use the contrapositive method, which states that if we want to prove a statement P implies Q, we can instead prove the statement "not Q implies not P".

So, we will prove the following statement:

If x times y is rational, then x is irrational or y is rational.

Assume x times y is rational. This means that x times y can be written as a ratio of two integers, say p and q, where q is not equal to 0.

Thus, we have:

x times y = p/q

Rearranging this equation, we get:

x = p/qy

Since p and q are integers, and y is irrational, qy is also irrational.

Therefore, x is the quotient of two irrational numbers, which makes x irrational.

Hence, the statement "not Q implies not P" is true, and therefore, the original statement "P implies Q" is also true.

Therefore, we can conclude that if x is a rational number and y is an irrational number, then x times y is irrational.

This completes the proof.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,
 

What is the contrapositive method?

The contrapositive method is a logical proof technique where the truth of a statement is shown by proving the negation of its converse. This is done by assuming the negation of the original statement and proving this leads to the negation of the original hypothesis.

How does the contrapositive method differ from the contradiction method?

The contradiction method involves directly proving the negation of the original statement, while the contrapositive method involves proving the negation of the converse of the original statement. The two methods are similar in that they both use proof by contradiction, but the contrapositive method is often considered to be simpler and more direct.

When is the contrapositive method most useful?

The contrapositive method is most useful when the original statement is difficult to prove directly, but its converse is easier to prove. In such cases, it is more efficient to use the contrapositive method rather than trying to prove the original statement directly.

Can the contrapositive method be used for all types of statements?

Yes, the contrapositive method is a general proof technique that can be applied to any type of statement. However, it may not always be the most efficient method for proving a statement, and in some cases, other proof techniques may be more suitable.

What are the benefits of using the contrapositive method?

The contrapositive method can often simplify the process of proving a statement and may be easier to understand and follow compared to other proof techniques. It also allows for a more direct approach to proving a statement, making it a useful tool for scientists and mathematicians.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
230
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top