RDW 1

Reading, Discovering and Writing Proofs
Version 1.0

c Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo
Contents
I Introduction to Proof Methods 9
1 In the beginning 10
1.1 What Makes a Mathematician a Mathematician? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Why Do We Reason Formally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Structure of the Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 A First Look At Proofs 14

2.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 The Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Propositions, Proofs and Axioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Truth Tables and Logical Operators 18

3.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Compound Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Truth Tables as Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1 Negating Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.2 Conjunctions and Disjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 More Complicated Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5 Equivalent Logical Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Implications and the Direct Proof 26

4.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2 Implications: Hypothesis = Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Rules of Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4 Proving Implications: The Direct Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5 Negating an Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5 Analysis of a Proof 33
5.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2 Divisibility of Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.1 Understanding the Definition of Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2.2 Transitivity of Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3 Analyzing the Proof of Transitivity of Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 Discovering Proofs 37
6.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Divisibility of Integer Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3 Discovering a Proof of Divisibility of Integer Combinations . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4 Proof of Bounds by Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2
Section 0.0 CONTENTS 3
II Foundations: Sets and Quantifiers 43
7 Introduction to Sets 44
7.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.2 Describing a Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.2.1 Set-builder Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3 Set Operations - Unions, Intersections and Set-Differences . . . . . . . . . 48
7.4 Cartesian Products of Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.4.1 Cartesian Products of the Form S S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8 Subsets, Set Equality, Converse and If and Only If 52

8.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.2 Comparing Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.2.1 Concepts related to Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.3 Showing Two Sets Are Equal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.3.1 Converse of an Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.3.2 If and Only If Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.3.3 Set Equality and If and Only If Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.4 Discovering: Sets of Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9 Quantifiers 62
9.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.2 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.3 The Universal Quantifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.3.1 The Select Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.4 The Existential Quantifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9.4.1 The Construct Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
9.5 Negating Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
9.6 Assuming a Quantified Statement is True . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9.6.1 The Substitution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9.6.2 The Object Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10 Nested Quantifiers 73
10.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.2 Nested Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.2.1 Negating Nested Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.3 More Examples with Nested Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4 Functions and Surjections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.1 Graphically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.2 Reading a Proof About Surjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.3 Discovering a Proof About Surjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
III More Proof Techniques 82
11 Contrapositives and Other Proof Techniques 83

11.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
11.2 Proof by Contrapositive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
11.3 More Complicated Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
11.3.1 Method of Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
11.4 Summary Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4 Chapter 0 CONTENTS
12 Proofs by Contradiction 90
12.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
12.2 Proof by Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
12.2.1 When to Use Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
12.2.2 A More Substantial Proof by Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
12.2.3 Discovering and Writing a Proof by Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . 93
13 Uniqueness, Injections and the Division Algorithm 96

13.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.3 Showing X = Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
13.4 Finding a Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
13.5 One-to-one (Injective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
13.5.1 Discovering a proof about injections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
13.5.2 Graphically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
13.6 The Division Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
14 Simple Induction 104

14.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
14.2 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
14.2.1 Summation Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
14.2.2 Product Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
14.2.3 Recurrence Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
14.3 Principle of Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
14.3.1 Why Does Induction Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
14.3.2 Two Examples of Simple Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
14.3.3 A Different Starting Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
14.4 An Interesting Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
15 Strong Induction 114

15.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
15.2 Strong Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
15.3 More Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
16 Whats Wrong? 120

16.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
16.2 Failure Is More Common Than Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
16.3 Some Questions To Ask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
16.4 Assuming What You Need To Prove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
16.5 Incorrectly Invoking A Proposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
16.6 Examples With A Universal Quantifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
16.7 Counter-Examples With An Existential Quantifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
16.8 Using the Same Variable For Different Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
16.9 The Converse Is Not the Contrapositive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
16.10 Base Cases in Induction Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
16.11 Arithmetic and Unusual Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
16.12 Not Understanding a Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
IV Securing Internet Commerce 128
17 The Greatest Common Divisor 129

17.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
17.2 Greatest Common Divisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
17.3 Certificate of Correctess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
18 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm 136

18.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
18.2 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm (EEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
19 Properties Of GCDs 141

19.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
19.2 Some Useful Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
19.3 Using Properties of GCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
20 GCD from Prime Factorization 148

20.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
20.2 Introduction to Primes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
20.3 Unique Factorization Theorem (UFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
20.4 Finding a Prime Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
20.5 Working With Prime Factorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
21 Linear Diophantine Equations: One Solution 156

21.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
21.2 Linear Diophantine Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
22 Linear Diophantine Equations: All Solutions 160

22.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
22.2 Finding All Solutions to ax + by = c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
22.3 More Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
23 Congruence 167
23.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
23.2 Congruences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
23.2.1 Definition of Congruences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
23.3 Elementary Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
24 Congruence and Remainders 174

24.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
24.2 Congruence and Remainders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
25 Linear Congruences 179

25.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
25.2 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
25.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
25.4 Non-Linear Congruences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
26 Modular Arithmetic 183

26.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
26.2 Modular Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
26.2.1 [0] Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6 Chapter 0 CONTENTS
26.2.2 [1] Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

26.2.3 Identities and Inverses in Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
26.2.4 Subtraction in Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
26.2.5 Division in Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
26.3 More Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
26.4 Linear Congruences and Modular Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
26.5 Extending Equivalencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
27 Fermats Little Theorem 193

27.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
27.2 Fermats Little Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
28 Chinese Remainder Theorem 200

28.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
28.2 An Old Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
28.3 Chinese Remainder Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
28.4 Splitting a Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
29 The RSA Scheme 209

29.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
29.2 Public Key Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
29.3 Implementing RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
29.3.1 Setting up RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
29.3.2 Sending a Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
29.3.3 Receiving a Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
29.3.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
29.3.5 RSA calculations without using computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
29.4 Does M = R? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
V Complex Numbers and Eulers Formula 217
30 Complex Numbers 218

30.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
30.2 Different Equations Require Different Number Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 218
30.3 Complex Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
31 Properties Of Complex Numbers 224

31.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
31.2 Conjugate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
31.3 Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
32 Graphical Representations of Complex Numbers 229

32.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
32.2 The Complex Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
32.2.1 Cartesian Coordinates (x, y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
32.2.2 Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
32.3 Polar Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
32.4 Converting Between Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
33 De Moivres Theorem 234

33.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
33.2 De Moivres Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

33.3 Complex Exponentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
34 Roots of Complex Numbers 239

34.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
34.2 Complex n-th Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
34.3 Square Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
VI Factoring Polynomials 245
35 An Introduction to Polynomials 246

35.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
35.2 Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
35.2.1 Comparing Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
35.3 Operations on Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
36 Factoring Polynomials 253

36.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
36.2 Polynomial Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
36.3 Factoring in Special Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
36.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
VII Bijections, Counting and Cardinality 265
37 Compositions and Bijections 266

37.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
37.2 Functions, Surjections and Injections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
37.3 Composition of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
37.3.1 Composing Onto Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
37.3.2 Composing One-to-One Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
37.4 Bijections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
37.4.1 Inverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
38 Counting 271
38.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
38.2 African Shepherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
38.3 What Does It Mean to Count? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
38.4 Showing That a Bijection Exists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
38.5 Finite Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
39 Cardinality of Infinite Sets 279

39.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
39.2 Infinite Sets Are Weird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
39.3 Infinite Sets Are Even Weirder Than You Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
39.4 Not All Infinite Sets Have the Same Cardinality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Preface
These course notes are meant to accompany the lectures of MATH 135 at the University of
Waterloo.
The script, examples and exercises were initially authored by Steve Furino and subsequently
modified by Mukto Akash and J.P. Pretti with help from Carmen Bruni. Please send any
corrections or suggestions to jpretti@uwaterloo.ca.
This version is an update to version 0.5 used in Winter 2016. It corrects mistakes discovered
at that time but several chapters have also been substantially rewritten.
8
Part I
Introduction to Proof Methods
9
Chapter 1
In the beginning
1.1 What Makes a Mathematician a Mathematician?
Welcome to MATH 135!

Let us begin with a question. What makes a mathematician a mathematician?
Many people would answer that someone who works with numbers is a mathematician.
But bookkeepers for small businesses work with numbers and we dont normally consider a
bookkeeper as a mathematician. Others might think of geometry and answer that someone
who works with shapes is a mathematician. But architects work with shapes and we dont
normally consider architects as mathematicians. Still others might answer that people who
use formulas are mathematicians. But engineers work with formulas and we dont normally
consider engineers as mathematicians. A more insightful answer would be that people who
find patterns and provide descriptions and evidence for those patterns are mathematicians.
But scientists search for and document patterns and we dont normally consider scientists
as mathematicians.
The answer is proof - a rigorous, formal argument that establishes the truth of a statement.
This has been the defining characteristic of mathematics since ancient Greece.
This course is about reading, writing and discovering proofs. If you have never done this
before, do not worry. The course will provide you with techniques that will help, and we
will practice those techniques in the context of some very interesting algebra.
1.2 Why Do We Reason Formally?
But why do we reason so formally at all? Many people believe that humans already know
enough mathematics so Why bother with proofs? There are quite a few reasons.
To prevent silliness. In solving quadratic equations with non-real roots, some of you will
have encountered the number i which has the special property that i2 = 1. But
then,
1 = i2 = i i = 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 = 1
Clearly, something is amiss.
10
Section 1.3 Why Do We Reason Formally? 11
To understand better. How would most of us answer the question Whats a real num-
ber? We would probably say that any number written as a decimal expansion is a
real number and any two different expansions represent different numbers. But then
what about this?
Let x = 0.9 = 0.999 . . . .
Multiplying by 10 and subtracting gives
10x = 9.9
x = 0.9
9x = 9
which implies x = 1, not x = 0.9. Consequently, we need a better understanding of

how to distinguish between two real numbers.
Or suppose we wanted to evaluate the infinite sum
1 1 + 1 1 + 1 1 + 1 1 + ...
If we pair up the first two terms we get zero and every successive pair of terms also
gives us 0 so the sum is zero.
z }| { z }| { z }| { z }| {
1 1+1 1+1 1+1 1+...
On the other hand, if we pair up the second and third term we get 0 and all successive
pairs of terms give 0 so the sum is 1.
z }| { z }| { z }| { z }| {
1 1 + 1 1 + 1 1 + 1 1 + 1 + . . .
To resolve this issue, we need to understand how to obtain numbers that represent
such infinite sums.
Or suppose we wanted to resolve one of the famous Zenos paradoxes. Zeno was a
famous ancient Greek philosopher who posed the following problem. Suppose the
Greek hero Achilles was going to race against a tortoise and suppose, in recognition
of the slowness of the tortoise, that the tortoise gets a 100m head start. By the time
Achilles has run half the distance between he and the tortoise, the tortoise has moved
ahead. And now again, by the time Achilles has run half the remaining distance
between he and the tortoise, the tortoise has moved ahead. No matter how fast
Achilles runs, the tortoise will always be ahead! You might object that your eyes see
Achilles pass the tortoise, but what is logically wrong with Zenos argument?
To make better commercial decisions. Building pipelines is expensive. Certainly lots
of pipelines will be built in the next few decades. Pipelines will ship oil, natural gas,
water and sewage. Finding the shortest route given physical constraints (mountains,
rivers, lakes, cities), environmental constraints (protection of the water table, no access
through national or state parks), and supply chain constraints (access to concrete and
steel) is very important. How do pipeline builders prove that the route they have
chosen for the pipeline is the shortest possible route given the constraints?
To discover solutions. Formal reasoning provides a set of tools that allow us to think
rationally and carefully about problems in mathematics, computing, engineering, sci-
ence, economics and any discipline in which we create models.
Poor reasoning can be very expensive. Inaccurate application of financial models led
to losses of hundreds of billions of dollars during the financial crisis of 2008.
To experience joy. Mathematics can be beautiful, just as poetry can be beautiful. But
to hear the poetry of mathematics, one must first understand the language.
12 Chapter 1 In the beginning
1.3 Structure of the Course
He who seeks for methods without having a definite problem in mind seeks for
the most part in vain.
David Hilbert
Let us start with a description of how the course is organized.

Throughout the course, our goal is to develop our mathematical reasoning. We start with
the foundations for mathematical proof and then work on four problems - all of which illus-
trate the need for proof. The first problem resolves a very important practical commercial
problem. The second problem results in a new number system and yields a surprising and
beautiful formula. The third problem relies on a profound theorem proved by Karl Friedrich
Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of the modern age. The fourth problem con-
cerns an astonishing result about one of the simplest things we do, count. Here are the four
problems.
How do we secure internet commerce? Have you ever bought a song or movie digi-
tally? Have you ever done your banking over the web? How do you make sure that
your credit card number and personal information are not intercepted by bad guys?
Number theory allows us to enable secure web transactions, and that theory is backed
by proof.
Why does ei + 1 = 0 ? This is often heralded as the most beautiful equation in math-
ematics. We know that the natural exponent, e, is a very unusual number that arises
in calculus as a limit of a specific sequence of numbers.
On a similar note, i is a very unusual number because it has the property that i2 = 1.
This is strange because we know that the square of a real number is always non-
negative, and clearly the number i violates this rule.
As mathematicians, we appreciate that is also a very unusual number even if it is
common. It is the unique ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Why
should that ratio be unique?
In addition to all of these, one (1) is the basis of the natural numbers, hence the
integers, hence the rationals. Zero (0) is a difficult number and was only accepted
into the mathematics of western Europe because of the influence of Hindu and Islamic
scholars. Why should all of these numbers be connected in so simple and elegant a
form?
How do we factor polynomials? You may have factored positive integers into a product
of prime numbers before. We will see in this course that polynomials, which are
expressions like ax4 + bx3 + cx2 + dx + e, behave a lot like the integers. Hence, there
is also a need in mathematics to factor polynomials into the polynomial equivalent of
prime numbers.
What does it mean to count? You probably learned to count before you went to school.
In fact, counting with our fingers is often the first way we get introduced to the
numbers we use in mathematics. We soon realize there are more numbers than we
can count with our fingers. But how do you count to infinity? Is there only one
infinity?
Section 1.3 Structure of the Course 13
To understand and solve these problems we will need to learn about various mathematical
concepts, such as modular congruences, modular arithmetic, complex numbers,
polynomials, etc. To work with these topics, we must learn some foundational mathe-
matics such as logical expressions and sets, and, most importantly, we must learn how to
recognize and use proof techniques.
There will be a substantial amount of new definitions and propositions introduced through-
out the course. Familiarize yourself with these. We will use a system of acronyms (e.g.
(DML)) to keep track of the proven propositions (e.g. (De Morgans Laws)) and to refer
to them from time-to-time. Disclaimer: These acronyms are somewhat artificial and may
not be meaningful outside the setting of this course. A similar comment applies to the labels
(e.g., Select Method, Construct Method, etc.) that we use for our various proof methods.
Chapter 2
A First Look At Proofs
2.1 Objectives
1. Define statement, proposition, and axiom.
2. Read our first proof.
3. Develop a notion of proofs as convincing arguments that verify propositions.
2.2 The Language
Mathematics is the language of mathematicians, and a proof is a method of com-

municating a mathematical truth to another person who speaks the language.
(Solow, How to Read and Do Proofs)
Mathematics is an extraordinarily precise language. When a making a mathematical argu-

ment, such as a proof, our aim is to leave no ambiguity and no doubt about its correctness.
This depends on the audience which in this course we will assume is a typical MATH 135
student.
However, understanding a proof requires understanding the language. This course will help
you with the basic grammar of the language of mathematics and is applicable to all proofs.
Just as in learning any new language, you will need lots of practice to become fluent.
Hopefully, in the previous lecture, we convinced you of why we need to prove things. Now
what is it that mathematicians prove? Mathematicians prove statements.
Definition 2.2.1 A statement is a sentence that has a definite state of being either true or false.
Statement
14
Section 2.3 Propositions, Proofs and Axioms 15
Example 1 Here are some examples of statements.
1. 2 + 2 = 4. (A true statement.)
2. + 2 < 5. (A false statement.)
3. There is no largest real number. (A true statement.)
4. There exists a real number such that sin() > 1. (A false statement.)
First of all, a statement must have a corresponding truth value. That is, when reading
a statement, we should realize that what is being said has to be either true or false (but
cannot be both), even if we do not know the truth value of the statement.
Example 2 On the other hand, the following are examples of sentences that are not mathematical
statements.
1. Is 7 = 5?
2. Find the smallest positive integer.
3. Let x > 0.
4. This statement is false.
Let us discuss why the above sentences are not statements. Questions, such as is 7 = 5?,
are never statements. We simply cannot assign a true or a false state to questions.
Similarly, instructions to find the smallest positive integer or to assume that x > 0
cannot be given truth values, and are therefore not statements. The last example is different
and paradoxical. Can you see why it cannot be true but also cannot be false?
2.3 Propositions, Proofs and Axioms
A mathematical statement has a definite true or false value. Given a statement, however,
it is not always obvious whether the statement is true or not. Throughout this course we
will encounter statements like this. We will be interested in figuring out whether they are
true or false. Such statements are known as propositions.
REMARK
A proposition is a mathematical claim posed in the form of a statement that either needs
to be proven true or demonstrated false by a valid argument. You will encounter several
variations on the word proposition. A theorem is a particularly significant proposition. A
lemma is a subsidiary proposition, or more informally, a helper proposition, that is used
in the proof of a theorem. A corollary is a proposition that follows almost immediately
from a theorem.
16 Chapter 2 A First Look At Proofs
Consider the following proposition.
Proposition 1 For every real number x, x2 + 1 2x.
This is clearly a statement, but is it true? Well, if we consider the number 5 in place of
x, we note that (5)2 + 1 = 26, whereas 2 5 = 10, and since 26 > 10, the number 5 does
satisfy the claim made in the proposition. However, just as one swallow does not make a
summer, knowing that the sentence is true when x = 5 does not guarantee us that it will
be true for other instances of x. We need to establish this using a proof.
A proof is simply a series of convincing arguments that leaves absolutely no doubt that a
given proposition is true. Proofs work by connecting our assumed knowledge from previously
proven statements, definitions, axioms, etc. in a mathematically accurate way to deduce a
result that establishes the proposed truth.
Let us read our first proof.
Proof of Proposition 1: Suppose x is a real number. Therefore, x 1 must also be a

real number, and hence
(x 1)2 0.
Expanding the terms on the left side, we get x2 2x + 1 0. Adding 2x to both sides
yields x2 + 1 2x.
Note that in the given proof, we did not specify any particular number, rather we worked
with the algebraic symbol x. The significance of using x is that it establishes the rule in
general. The arguments that are used in the proof are just applications of our common
knowledge about real numbers and inequalities. Since we followed a valid line of reasoning,
the last expression must hold true for the x we started with, thus proving the statement.
REMARK
Here is a common mistake made by students when they try to prove Proposition 1 given
above.
Proposition 1 For every integer x, x2 + 1 2x.
Attempted Proof: Suppose x is an integer. Then from x2 + 1 2x, subtract 2x from

both sides to get x2 2x + 1 0. We recognize that this is just saying (x 1)2 0, which
is obviously true, so the proposition must be true.
The problem with this proof is that we are looking at consequences of x2 +1 2x. However,
this means they have already assumed that x2 + 1 2x holds, which is exactly what we
need to verify to be true. This is an example of circular logic, and thus this attempt does
not provide us a proof of the proposition at all.
Exercise 1 Try to prove Proposition 1 another way. Start with the left-hand side x2 +1 and manipulate
it to deduce that x2 + 1 2x.
Section 2.3 Propositions, Proofs and Axioms 17
Finally, there are particular statements, known as axioms, that are more foundational. An
axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true. No proof is given, nor needed. Axioms are
essentially our fundamental beliefs on how mathematics should work. Obviously, choosing
axioms has to be done very carefully.
There are some very famous axioms in mathematics, such as Peanos Axioms on Natural
Numbers, Euclids Axioms on Plane Geometry, the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of Set Theory,
the Principle of Mathematical Induction, etc. However, these formal axioms are often
stated for a professional audience, and their importance is sometimes difficult to grasp at a
beginners level.
In this course, we will not use a formal set of axioms. Instead, we will write for an audience
consisting of other students in the course. Assume other MATH 135 students are reading
your proofs. Facts they all should know can be used without proof. This audience should
be able to follow your arguments without having to question any facts (axioms) that you
use.
Example 3 (Examples of Axioms That May be Used Without Proof )

For any two integers x and y, the following are true:
1. x + y and x y are integers.

x
2. xy is also an integer, but y may or may not be an integer.
3. x + y = y + x and xy = yx.
4. x2 0 and y 2 0.
Definition 2.3.1 We say that an integer even if it can be written in the form 2k where k is an integer.
Even and Odd Otherwise, an integer can be written in the form 2k + 1 where k is an integer and we say
that the integer is odd.
Exercise 2 Let us now try to solve a few problems on our own.
1. Prove that for every integer x, x2 x.

2. Consider the statement
Suppose x and y are integers, then x + y must always be even.
Provide some evidence that the above statement is clearly false.
Next, identify the mistake in the attempted proof of the given statement.
Attempted Proof: As integers, x and y must be even or odd. When x and y are even,
we may write x = 2k and y = 2m for some integers k and m. Then x + y = 2(k + m),
which is even.
Similarly, when x and y are odd, we may instead write x = 2k + 1 and y = 2m + 1,
where k and m are integers. Once again, x + y = 2(k + m + 1), which is even. This
shows that x + y is always even.
Chapter 3
Truth Tables and Logical

Operators
3.1 Objectives
1. Define AND, OR, NOT using truth tables.
2. Evaluate logical expressions using truth tables.
3. Use truth tables to establish the equivalence of logical expressions.
4. Prove De Morgans Laws.
3.2 Compound Statements
Throughout this course we work with statements and their proofs. To understand methods
for proving statements, we must first understand how complicated statements may often be
dissected into a combination of simpler parts. We may then develop ways to string together
proofs of such parts to prove the complicated statement in its entirety.
Our objective in this chapter is to develop some rules for combining several statements to
produce a new statement. The truth value of the new statement depends on the truth value
of the initial statements that are being combined.
Definition 3.2.1 A compound statement is a statement composed of several individual statements called
Compound, component statements.
Component
18
Section 3.3 Truth Tables as Definitions 19
For example, the statement ( is a real number) and (3 6= 4). contains two components:
1. is a real number.
2. 3 6= 4.
For the time being, we shall focus on compound statements that are composed of two
components. We often label statements with letters such as A, B, C, etc. Suppose A and B
are two arbitrary, unrelated statements. Then A would have its own truth value, as would
B. We may indicate, for example, that A is true (T ) but B is false (F ) by assigning the
state (T, F ) to the pair of statements (A, B). Thus, the pair (A, B) can achieve any of the
following states: (T, T ), (T, F ), (F, T ) and (F, F ).
To form a compound statement S, whose components are A and B, we need to declare the
truth value of S based on the possible states of its components. The simplest way to do so
is to use a truth table. A truth table summarizes the information about the states of each
component and the corresponding truth value of the compound statements. We have a few
examples of how truth tables are used to define compound statements in section 3.3 below.
3.3 Truth Tables as Definitions
In this section, we will use truth tables to introduce three logical operators: AND, OR
and NOT. Note that these do not always coincide with our use of the words and, or, not
in the English language.
3.3.1 Negating Statements
Given some statement A, perhaps the simplest compound statement that we may come up
with is the negation of A. The negation of A, simply known as NOT A, is the statement
whose truth value is the exact opposite of that of A. For example, (3 = 4) and (3 6= 4) are
negations of each other.
Definition 3.3.1 We define NOT A, written A, using the following truth table.
NOT
A A
T F
F T
In prose, if the statement A is true, then the statement NOT A is false. If the statement
A is false, then the statement NOT A is true.
Given a statement A, we often try to negate A by writing A in a manner that does not
involve the symbol. For example, (3 = 4) is written as (3 6= 4), ( < 4) is written as
( 4), etc. We will see in later chapters that such practice becomes useful when we are
trying to prove complicated statements that have many individual components.
20 Chapter 3 Truth Tables and Logical Operators
3.3.2 Conjunctions and Disjunctions
Suppose A and B are arbitrary statements. Let us now use truth tables to define two
compound statements: A B (conjunction) and A B (disjunction).
Definition 3.3.2 The definition of A AND B, written A B, is

AND
A B AB
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
The truth table summarizes the fact that A B is true only when both the components A
and B are true.
Truth tables can be used to define the truth value of a statement or to evaluate the truth
value of a statement. For example, if we now specify that
P : is a real number,
and Q : (3 6= 4),
then, according to the truth table above, the compound statement
P Q : ( is a real number) (3 6= 4),
must be true as both of its components are true. On the other hand, the statement
( is a real number) (3 = 4)
is false as the component (3 = 4) is false.
Proof Method We may also devise methods for proving compound statements by using truth tables. To
AB prove that a statement of the form A B is true, we must establish, separately, that both
A is true and B is true.
On the other hand, showing either A is false or B is false is enough to conclude that A B
must be false.
Definition 3.3.3 The definition of A OR B, written A B, is

OR
A B AB
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
This truth table establishes that A B is false only when A and B are both false.
Section 3.4 More Complicated Statements 21
This is an opportune moment to highlight the difference between mathematical language

and the English language. In English, we sometimes use the word or to dictate exclusivity.
For example, a single coin toss will result in a head or a tail. Here, we are implying
that a coin cannot land with both of its faces (head and tail) showing. Similarly, when
we defined statements, we said that a statement must be either true or false. Once again,
we implicitly meant that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Unfortunately, we also use the word English word or in an inclusive setting. For example,
if you are ordering coffee at your local coffee shop, you may be asked whether you would
like milk or sugar in your beverage. In this setting, you are free to choose just milk, just
sugar, or a combination of both milk and sugar in your coffee. As a result, there is some
ambiguity about how the word or is used in English, and we may have to rely on the
context to fully understand how it is being used.
Fortunately, however, mathematicians detest ambiguity in the language of mathematics. For
instance, we must always keep in mind that the logical A B results in a true statement
when A is true, B is true or both are true. In mathematics, OR is always inclusive.
Example 1 Each of the following statements are true since at least one of the components is true.
1. ( is a real number) (3 6= 4).
2. ( is a real number) (3 = 4).
3. ( is an integer) (3 6= 4).
On the other hand, the statement
( is an integer) (3 = 4)
is false as both components are false.
Proof Method To prove that a statement of the form A B is true, it is enough to establish any one of the
AB statements A or B to be true. On the other hand, to show A B is false, we must show
that both A is false and B is false.
3.4 More Complicated Statements
We may now combine more than one logical operator to form more complicated compound
statements. We can construct truth tables for compound statements by evaluating parts of
the compound statement separately and then combine their corresponding truth value to
evaluate the truth value of the overall statement. Consider the following truth table which
shows the truth values of (A B) for all possible combinations of truth values of the
component statements A and B. (Brackets serve the same purpose in logical expressions as
they do in arithmetic: they specify the order of operations.)
Example 2 Construct a truth table for (A B).
A B A B (A B)
T T T F
T F T F
F T T F
F F F T
In the first row of the table A and B are true, so using the definition of OR, the statement
A B is true. Since the negation of a true statement is false, (A B) is false, which
appears in the last column of the first row. Take a minute to convince yourself that each of
the remaining rows is correct.
Example 3 Construct a truth table for (A) (B).
A B A B (A) (B)
T T F F F
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T
Exercise 1 Suppose A, B and C are statements.
1. Construct a truth table for (A B) C.
2. Suppose A and B are true, and C is false. What is the truth value of A (B C)?
3.5 Equivalent Logical Expressions
Notice that the effect of taking double negation, that is (A), is exactly what we expect:
the truth value of (A) is the same as that of A. Thus, logically, there is no difference
between considering the original statement A or the compound statement (A). We say
that A and (A) are logically equivalent, and express this idea by writing
(A) A.
Definition 3.5.1 Two compound statements, say S1 and S2 , are logically equivalent if they have the same
Logically truth values for all possible states of their component statements. We write S1 S2 to
equivalent mean S1 is logically equivalent to S2 .
Section 3.5 Equivalent Logical Expressions 23
Essentially, S1 S2 tells us that their truth values are perfectly correlated - one cannot be
true while the other is false, and vice versa. Thus, logically, there is no reason to distinguish
between S1 and S2 .
Proof Method Equivalent statements are enormously useful in proofs. Suppose you wish to prove S1 but
Logically are having difficulty. If there is a simpler statement S2 and S1 S2 , then you can prove S2
Equivalent instead. In proving S2 , you will have proved S1 as well.
Statements
Let us look back at examples 2 and 3 from the previous section.
Example 4 Construct a single truth table for (A B) and (A) (B). Are these statements logically
equivalent?
A B A B (A B) A B (A) (B)
T T T F F F F
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T T T T
Since the columns representing (AB) and (A)(B) are identical for the corresponding
truth values of the components, we can conclude that
(A B) (A) (B).
Exercise 2 Use truth tables to show that for statements A, and B, the Commutativity Laws hold.
That is
1. A B B A
2. A B B A
Using a truth table is not the only way to determine whether two statements are logically
equivalent; we may also use established equivalences to obtain new ones. In general, if we
can establish that S1 S2 and S2 S3 , then we may immediately conclude that S1 S3 .
We say that logical equivalence is transitive and use this fact many times in this course.
Example 5 Suppose A and B are arbitrary statements. Use the fact that we have established
1. (A) A (double negation)
2. (A B) (A) (B) (negation of OR)
to prove that
(A) (B) (A B)
without using a truth table.
Solution. To establish the logical equivalence between two statements, we must start with
one statement and convince the reader that it is logically equivalent to the other. Let us
start with the statement to the left of the sign.
(A) (B) [ ((A) (B))] (double negation)

[((A)) ((B))] (negation of OR)
[A B] (double negation).
Note that the final statement is (A B), exactly what appears on the right of the sign.
Since we managed to arrive at (A B) from (A) (B) with the help of established
logical equivalences, we may conclude that (A) (B) (A B).
Exercise 3 Construct a single truth table for (AB) and (A)(B) and verify that these statements
are indeed logically equivalent. Then verify that these statements are not logically equivalent
to (A) (B) and are also not logically equivalent to (A B).
The preceding examples demonstrate De Morgans Laws.
Proposition 1 (De Morgans Laws (DML))

For any two statements A and B
1. (A B) (A) (B)
2. (A B) (A) (B)
Example 6 Suppose A is the statement
A : (5 = 2) (3 < 6 < 7).
Provide a statement that is logically equivalent to NOT A, but does not contain the word
not or the negation () symbol (negative symbols such as 6=, ,
/ etc. are allowed).
Solution. Here, we are asked to negate statement A.
There are two obvious components to statement A, namely (5 = 2) and (3 < 6 < 7), that
are connected by the logical operator OR (). According to De Morgans Laws (DML), we
would have
NOT A (5 = 2) (3 < 6 < 7).
However, we are not allowed to use the symbol, so we shall use (5 6= 2) instead of (5 = 2).
At this point, we must realize that (3 < 6 < 7) is actually an abbreviated form of compound
statement (3 < 6) (6 < 7). Thus, using DML again, we have
(3 < 6 < 7) (3 < 6) (6 < 7).
Finally, we may replace (3 < 6) by (3 6) and (6 < 7) by (6 7). Collecting all this
analysis in one place, we finally get that
Section 3.5 Equivalent Logical Expressions 25
NOT A (5 6= 2) [(3 6) (6 7)].
Several other logical equivalences provide the foundation of the various proof techniques we
will study throughout the course.
Example 7 Use a truth table to determine whether or not A (B C) is equivalent to

(A B) (A C).
A B C BC A (B C) A B A C (A B) (A C)
T T T T T T T T
T T F F T T T T
T F T F T T T T
T F F F T T T T
F T T T T T T T
F T F F F T F F
F F T F F F T F
F F F F F F F F
Since the columns associated with the statements A (B C) and (A B) (A C) are

identical, the two statements are equivalent. That is, A (B C) (A B) (A C).
REMARK
The previous example verifies the first of the following Associativity Laws.
1. A (B C) (A B) C
2. A (B C) (A B) C
The term associative (and commutative seen earlier) is also used in other contexts. For
example, we say that the addition of integers is associative because a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c
for integers a, b and c. Ask yourself what other standard arithmetic operations are also
associative.
Finally, we state the Distributivity Laws:
1. A (B C) (A B) (A C)
2. A (B C) (A B) (A C)
Self Check 1 As in the previous example, use truth tables to verify the remaining laws.
Chapter 4
Implications and the Direct Proof
4.1 Objectives
1. Understand the definition of A = B.
2. Use the truth value of A = B to draw inferences about A and B.
3. Learn how implications can be proved using a direct proof.
4.2 Implications: Hypothesis = Conclusion
We have just started our journey towards understanding mathematical statements and
developing their proofs. So far, we have discovered that a complicated statement may often
be broken down into simpler components, and the connection between these components
may then be leveraged to produce a proof of the complicated statement. We would now
like to start developing the theory of how to prove statements.
The most common type of statement we will prove is an implication. An implication is
a compound statement that has two components, lets call these components A and B for
the time being.
Definition 4.2.1 An implication is commonly read as A implies B and is written symbolically as A = B.

Implication, The definition of A = B is given by the following truth table
Hypothesis,
Conclusion
A B A = B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
The component A located to the left of the = arrow is known as the hypothesis, while
the component B on the right is known as the conclusion.
26
Section 4.2 Implications: Hypothesis = Conclusion 27
When translating the mathematical statement A = B into an English sentence, we often

use conditional sentences such as
If A is true, then B must be true
or more commonly written as

If A, then B.
Conditional statements such as implications have been around since the ages of classical
Greek philosophy, and it may be worth mentioning that the terms hypothesis and conclusion
are inherited from their usage in logic and philosophy. In English language, the structure
of implications is quite easy to understand. The hypothesis (also known as supposition,
premise, protasis, etc.) appears between the if and the then. The conclusion (also
often called proposition, inference, apodosis, etc.) shows up after the then and states the
consequence of the hypothesis condition being met.
Example 1 For example, consider the following statement:
If I read this chapter thoroughly, then I will be able to prove implications.
Here, the hypothesis is I read this chapter thoroughly and the conclusion is I will be
able to prove implications.
Example 2 Let x be a positive real number. Identify the hypothesis and the conclusion of the following
implication:
If x > 1 then x2 > x.
Hypothesis: x > 1
Conclusion: x2 > x
REMARK
1. We usually only use true implications in our day-to-day usage of conditional sentences.
False implications (e.g., if the earth is a planet, then all people are mushrooms) are
rare. We must always keep in mind that the condition imposed on an implication
being false is that the hypothesis must be true while the conclusion is false.
2. Another point of confusion often arises from the last two rows in the definition of
A = B:
A B A = B
F T T
F F T
Inexperienced mathematicians often look at these rows and ask questions such as
28 Chapter 4 Implications and the Direct Proof
(a) How can false imply true?

(b) How is it possible that false implies both true and false at the
same time?
These questions arise from our difficulty in appreciating the fact that the truth table
is simply defining A = B. The purpose of the truth table is to establish the truth
value of A = B depending on the state of the pair (A, B). The states (F, T ) and
(F, F ) are just possible truth values for the pair (A, B), and we assign A = B to
be true for these states.
Example 3 The implications
If (1 + 1 = 4) then ( = 3)
and
If (1 + 1 = 4) then ( 6= 3)
are both true. Another interesting true implication is
If 5 is even, then 5 is odd.
4.3 Rules of Inference
We may try to use to truth value of A = B to obtain information about the truth
values of the components A and B respectively. This is a nice exercise in logic, and helps
us understand how to use previously proven propositions towards proving new ones.
It will be useful for us to remember the truth table for A = B in this section.
A B A = B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
For example, from the second row of the truth table, whenever A = B is false, we
immediately determine that A must be true and B must be false.
On the other hand, suppose A = B is true. Perhaps we also know that A is true. What
can we deduce from these pieces of information? From the definition of A = B, we see
that the only row where both A = B is true and A is true is the first row. Thus, we
may deduce that B must also be true.
Section 4.4 Rules of Inference 29
Example 4 Consider the following examples that illustrate these rules of inference.
1. In each of the given cases, assume that it has been established that the given impli-
cation is true. For the given statements P and Q, when P is true, discuss whether
we can determine if Q must be true or not.
(a) Implication : If I do every problem in the text book, then I will learn discrete
mathematics.
P : I learnt discrete mathematics.
Q : I must have done every problem in the text book.
Solution: We are told that the implication is true, and that P is true. However,
P only tells us that the conclusion of the implication is satisfied, thus it is still
possible for the hypothesis, Q, to be either true or false.
For example, I could have learnt discrete mathematics by other means such as
attending relevant lectures, reading different books, etc, rather than solving every
problem in the text book.
(b) Implication : If the Earth were flat, then Columbus would not set sail.
P : Columbus set sail.
Q : The earth is not flat.
Solution: Given that P is true, this means that the conclusion of the im-
plication is false, but the implication itself is true. From the definition of an
implication, the only way this is possible is when the hypothesis of the implica-
tion is also false. This means Q must be false, so this time we may actually
deduce that Q is true.
2. Let a and b be real numbers. Is it possible for the following implications to be false?
(a) If a < b and b < a then a = b.

Solution: The hypothesis: a < b and b < a can never be true for two real
numbers a and b. Thus, the hypothesis is always false and so the implication is
true.
(b) If a + b = 2 then a b = 0.
Solution: We have no restrictions on a and b other than that they are real
numbers. So if we consider the case when a = 4 and b = 2, then a + b =
4 + (2) = 2 is true, so the hypothesis is satisfied. However, in this case a b =
4 (2) = 4 + 2 = 6 6= 0, and thus the conclusion fails. Hence, for this specific
case, the implication is false.
(c) If a = 0 then a b = 0.
Solution: We know that almost all real numbers are non-zero and, as long as
the hypothesis is not satisfied, the implication would be true.
The only time the hypothesis is true happens to be when a is zero. In that case,
in the conclusion, would have a b = (0) (b) = 0. This means that when the
hypothesis is true, the conclusion is also true, and thus the implication is true.
Since there is no case where the hypothesis is true but the conclusion is false,
this implication can never be false.
4.4 Proving Implications: The Direct Proof
There are a few different methods for proving that an implication is true. In this section,
we will focus on the most obvious method: the direct proof.
Proof Method To prove the implication A implies B is true, you assume that A is true and you use this
Direct Proof assumption to show that B is true. Statement A is what you start with. Statement B is
where you must end up.
Suppose a, b and c are real numbers. You may have seen the following proposition in high
school.
b
Proposition 1 If a 6= 0 and b2 = 4ac and, then x = 2a is a solution to ax2 + bx + c = 0.
We shall prove this proposition through a direct proof, but before that, let us start by
identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion of the implication above.
Hypothesis: a 6= 0 and b2 = 4ac

b
Conclusion: x = 2a is a solution to ax2 + bx + c = 0
Our approach will be to assume a 6= 0 and b2 = 4ac is true, and try to use this assumption
b
to verify that x = 2a is a solution to ax2 + bx + c = 0 is also a true statement. To
check whether a particular value of x solves some equation in the variable x, we need to
substitute the proposed value of x in the equation and check that the left side and the right
side of the equation evaluates to the same number.
Proof of Proposition 1: Assume that (a 6= 0) (b2 = 4ac) is true. This means that the
components a 6= 0 and b2 = 4ac are both true.
b
Since a 6= 0, therefore we are allowed to divide by a, and thus the fraction 2a is a real
b 2
number. Substitute x = 2a into the left side of ax + bx + c = 0 and simplify to get
b 2

b
ax2 + bx + c = a +b +c
2a 2a
2
b b2
=a +c
4a2 2a
b2 b2
= +c
4a 2a
b2 2b2 + 4ac
=
4a
b2 + 4ac
= .
4a
Using the assumption that b2 = 4ac, we get that b2 + 4ac must equal zero. Hence the
left side of the equation evaluates to zero. The right side is already zero, so the two sides
match.
b
Therefore, x = 2a is a solution to ax2 + bx + c = 0.
Section 4.5 Negating an Implication 31
REMARK
Here, it is crucial to note that this proof does not begin with the statement ax2 + bx + c = 0.
Instead, it begins by manipulating the expression ax2 + bx + c which is not a statement on
its own.
Related to this, it is best to start a direct proof of the statement A = B with the
sentence
Assume A is true
and end the proof with
Therefore B must be true.
Although professional mathematicians will take shortcuts, when first learning proofs, all
your assumptions should be stated explicitly. At no point during the proof should we give
the impression that the conclusion, i.e., statement B, has been assumed to be true.
We will see lots of direct proofs in this course, presented in different contexts.
Example 5 Suppose n is an integer. Consider the implication
If n2 is even, then n is even.
What is wrong with the following attempted proof of the given implication?
Attempted Proof: (For reference, each sentence of the proof is written on a separate
line.)
1. Assume n2 is even.
2. Then n2 = 2k of some integer k.
3. Let n = 2` for some integer `.
4. Hence, n must be even.
Solution: In the attempted proof, we cannot yet justify how we obtain step 3 from any
of the previous steps. In fact, in step 3, we are actually assuming that n can be written as
2`, but this is true only when n is even. Therefore, we have inherently assumed that the
conclusion is true instead of deducing it from the hypothesis.
4.5 Negating an Implication
An equivalent way to express an implication is demonstrated in the following example.

Example 6 Construct the truth table for (A) B and demonstrate that this statement is logically
equivalent to A = B.
Solution: Using the following truth table
A B A = B A (A) B
T T T F T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T
we get that (A) B A = B.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the equivalence (A) B A = B is that it

allows us to negate an implication through its components. More specifically, using the
rule for double negations and De Morgans Laws (DML), we get
[(A) B] A (B).
Thus, (A = B) is logically equivalent to A (B). Notice that the negation of an

implication is actually an AND statement.
Example 7 Let x, y and z be integers. Negate the implication
If x < z < y then x2 < z 2 < y 2 .
Solution: (x < z < y) and (x2 z 2 or z 2 y 2 ).
Example 8
Consider the following implication.
If x2 < 0 then x2 + 1 > 2.
1. Explain why the implication is true for all real numbers x.

Solution: Since x is a real number, the hypothesis x2 < 0 is always false, so the
implication is always going to be true.
2. Identify the logical flaw in the following attempted disproof of the implication.
Attempted Disproof: Assume x2 < 0. Then adding 1 to both sides of the inequality
gives x2 + 1 < 1. Thus x2 + 1 2. We have that the hypothesis being true gives us
that the conclusion is false, hence the given implication must be false.
Solution: The argument correctly demonstrates that the implication If x2 < 0 then
x2 + 1 2 is true. However this statement is unrelated to the original statement. It
is not the negation of the implication, which would be x2 < 0 and x2 + 1 2 which
indeed is false for all real numbers.
Chapter 5
Analysis of a Proof
5.1 Objectives
1. Understand what it means to assume a | b.
2. Learn how to prove a | b.
3. Read a direct proof of Transitivity of Divisibility.
4. Learn how to structure the analysis of a proof.
5. Carry out the analysis of a proof.
We have have just learned how to prove an implication using a direct proof. In this chapter,
we shall analyze the proof of the proposition known as Transitivity of Divisibility, and will
recognize it as a direct proof. First, let us introduce the concept of divisibility.
5.2 Divisibility of Integers
For the time being, we will focus exclusively on integers. Division turns out to be a fairly
complicated operation on integers. If we try to divide 6 by 2, we get the integer 3 as a
result; but if we divide say 6 by 4, then the result 46 = 1.5 is no longer an integer. Since we
want to deal solely with integers, we are interested in learning more about the cases where
the result of a division is an integer.
Definition 5.2.1 An integer m divides an integer n, and we write m | n, when there exists an integer k so
Divisibility that n = km.
If m | n, then we say that m is a divisor or a factor of n, and that n is a multiple of m
or that n is divisible by m.
33
34 Chapter 5 Analysis of a Proof
Example 1 Consider the following examples.
3 | 6 since 6 = 3 2. That is, there exists an integer k such that 6 = 3k.
5 - 6 since no integer k exists so that 6 = k 5.
For all integers a, a | 0 since 0 = 0 a. In particular, 0 | 0 is true.
For all non-zero integers a, 0 - a since there is no integer k so that k 0 = a.
1 divides all integers. This is because any integer b can be written as b = b 1.
Some comments about definitions are in order. If mathematics is thought of as a language,

then definitions are the vocabulary and our prior mathematical knowledge indicates our
experience and versatility with the language.
Mathematics and the English language both share the use of definitions as extremely prac-
tical abbreviations. Instead of saying a domesticated carnivorous mammal known scien-
tifically as Canis familiaris we would say dog. Instead of writing down there exists an
integer k so that n = km, we write m | n.
However, mathematics differs greatly from English in precision and emotional content.
Mathematical definitions do not allow ambiguity or sentiment.
5.2.1 Understanding the Definition of Divisibility
Suppose m and n are two integers. Let us also make the assumption that m is non-zero.
We would like to understand what it means:
1. to assume m | n. By definition, we inherently know that there must be some integer

k such that n = k m. The value of k is unknown unless we know the values of m and
n
n, so when m 6= 0, k simply represents the integer m . This k may be used in later
expressions such as k + 1, k 2 , etc., in order to obtain some desired conclusion.
2. to prove m | n. We must obtain an explicit example of an integer that can be

multiplied with m to get n. Often, start with n and try to express it in terms of m.
If we can successfully show that n is equal to an integer multiple of m, then m | n is
true. This desired multiple may be obtained from expressions involving variables that
have already been defined earlier in the context of the proof.
5.2.2 Transitivity of Divisibility
We will now look at a proposition involving divisibility.
Proposition 1 (Transitivity of Divisibility (TD))

Let a, b and c be integers. If a | b and b | c, then a | c.
Section 5.3 Analyzing the Proof of Transitivity of Divisibility 35
When one first encounters a proposition, it often helps to work through some examples to
understand the proof.
Example 2 Suppose a = 3, b = 6 and c = 42. Since 3 | 6 (a | b) and 6 | 42 (b | c), Transitivity of

Divisibility allows us to conclude that 3 | 42 (a | c).
Now you might immediately know that 3 | 42. The strength of this proposition is that it
works for any integers a, b, c that satisfy the condition a | b and b | c, not just for the
particular integers of our example.
Now take a minute to read the following proof of Transitivity of Divisibility.
Proof: Assume a | b and b | c. Since a | b, there exists an integer r so that ra = b. Since

b | c, there exists an integer s so that sb = c. Substituting ra for b in the previous equation,
we get (sr)a = c. Since sr is an integer, a | c.
The proposition Transitivity of Divisibility involves an implication that has some instances
of divisibility of integers (i.e., m | n) both in the hypothesis and in the conclusion. The
proof highlights the difference between assuming m | n versus showing m | n.
5.3 Analyzing the Proof of Transitivity of Divisibility
Let us analyze the proof of the Transitivity of Divisibility in detail because it will give us
some sense of how to analyze proofs in general.
We will do a line by line analysis, so to make our work easier, we will write each sentence
on a separate line. What we do now will seem like overkill but it serves two purposes. It
gives us practice at justifying every line of a proof, and a structure that we can use for other
proofs.
Proof: (For reference, each sentence of the proof is written on a separate line.)
1. Assume a | b and b | c.
2. Since a | b, there exists an integer r so that ra = b.
3. Since b | c, there exists an integer s so that sb = c.
4. Substituting ra for b in the previous equation, we get (sr)a = c.
5. Since sr is an integer, a | c.
Analysis of Proof: We begin by explicitly identifying our assumptions and our desired
conclusion.
Assumptions: a, b and c are integers, a | b and b | c

Desired Conclusion: a | c
36 Chapter 5 Analysis of a Proof
Core Proof Technique: Work forwards from the hypothesis (Direct Proof).
Preliminary Material: The definition of divides. An integer m divides an integer
n, and we write m | n, if there exists an integer k so that n = km.
Let us try to justify each sentence of the existing proof.
Sentence 1 Assume a | b and b | c.

Here, the author clearly indicates that the hypothesis is assumed true. This establishes
the core proof technique.
Sentence 2 Since a | b, there exists an integer r so that ra = b.

In this sentence, the author of the proof uses the hypothesis a | b and the definition
of divides. Note that the author is using the symbol r for the integer that multiplies
with a to produce b. The value of r is unknown, but its existence is known by our
assumption.
Sentence 3 Since b | c, there exists an integer s so that sb = c.

In this sentence, the author uses the hypothesis b | c and the definition of divides.
Here, the author uses a different symbol, s, to designate the integer whose product
with b will give c.
Note that we cannot use the symbol r again to say rb = c. Once we have used r
in sentence 1, its role is fixed so that ra = b, and thus rb has a fixed value. Since c
can take any integer value, then rb is not an appropriate expression for c. If you are
confused by this, return to the previous numerical example and try to use the same
value for r there. What happens?
Sentence 4 Substituting ra for b in the previous equation, we get (sr)a = c.

Here, the author works forward using arithmetic. The actual work is:
c = sb and b = ra implies c = s(ra) which implies c = (sr)a.
Sentence 5 Since sr is an integer, a | c.

Lastly, the author uses the definition of divides. In this case, the m, k and n of the
definition apply to the a, sr and c of the proof. It is important to note that sr is an
integer, otherwise the definition of divides does not apply.
At the end of each proof, you should be able to identify where each part of the hypothesis
was used. It is obvious where a | b and b | c were used. The hypothesis a, b and c are
integers was needed to allow the author to use the definition of divides.
This completes our first careful analysis of a proof.
Chapter 6
Discovering Proofs
6.1 Objectives
1. Understand the statement of Divisibility of Integer Combinations.
2. Discover a direct proof of Divisibility of Integer Combinations.
3. Understand the statement of Bounds By Divisibility.
4. Analyze a direct proof of Bounds By Divisibility.
6.2 Divisibility of Integer Combinations
In the previous chapter we used the proof techniques that we have learned so far to analyze
a proof of the Transitivity of Divisibility.
When we define a new mathematical concept, such as divisibility, we are usually eager to
find out what kind of properties it satisfies. For example, we know that 5 divides both
10 and 15. Then, according to the Transitivity of Divisibility (TD), 5 would divide all
multiples of 10, and similarly, 5 would also divide all multiples of 15. What if we add a
multiple of 10 to a multiple of 15, would 5 divide the result? For instance, does 5 divide
(10 3) + (15 4) = 90?
The answer is a resounding yes ! In fact, it is not very difficult to believe that 5 would
divide all possible linear integer combinations of 10 and 15 (i.e., any expression of the form
10x + 15y, where x and y are integers). This can be generalized to a new result:
Proposition 1 (Divisibility of Integer Combinations (DIC))

Let a, b and c be integers. If a | b and a | c, then for any integers x and y, a | (bx + cy).
However, we still need to prove this result. In this chapter, we will discover a proof of the
above proposition.
37
38 Chapter 6 Discovering Proofs
6.3 Discovering a Proof of Divisibility of Integer Combina-

tions
Discovering a proof of a statement is generally hard. There is no recipe for this, but there
are some tips that may be useful, and as we go on through the course, you will learn specific
techniques.
Let us begin with a numeric example.
Example 1 Suppose a = 3, b = 6 and c = 27. Then, the proposition claims that for any integers x and
y, 3 | (6x + 27y). That is, 3 divides any linear integer combination of 6 and 27. You might
say, Thats obvious. Just take a common factor of 3 from 6x + 27y. That is
6x + 27y = 3(2x + 9y).
That observation is very suggestive of the proof of the Divisibility of Integer Combinations.
The very first thing to do when proving a statement is to explicitly identify the assumptions
and the desired conclusion. Lets do that for Divisibility of Integer Combinations (DIC).
Assumptions: a, b, c Z, a | b and a | c.
Desired Conclusion: For any choice of x, y Z, a | (bx + cy).
Since we are proving an implication, not using it, we assume that the hypothesis is true,
and then demonstrate that the conclusion is true. You may recognize this straightforward
approach to be a direct proof. However, in actually discovering a proof we do not need to
work only forwards from hypothesis. We can work backwards from the conclusion and meet
somewhere in the middle. When writing the proof we must ensure that we begin with the
hypothesis and end with the conclusion.
Whether working forwards or backwards, it is best to proceed by asking questions. When
working backwards, we may ask
What mathematical fact would allow us to deduce the conclusion?
For example, in the proposition under consideration we could ask
What mathematical fact would allow us to deduce that a | (bx + cy)?
The answer tells us what to look for or gives us another statement we can work backwards
from. In this case the answer would be
If there exists an integer k so that bx + cy = ak, then a | (bx + cy).
Note that the answer makes use of the definition of divides. Lets record this statement as
part of a proof in progress.
Section 6.3 Discovering a Proof of Divisibility of Integer Combinations 39
Proof in Progress
1. To be completed.
2. Since there exists an integer k so that bx + cy = ka, then a | (bx + cy).
Now we could ask the question
How can we find such a k?
The answer is not obvious so lets turn to working forwards from the hypothesis. In this
case our standard two questions are
Have we seen something like this before?

What mathematical fact can we deduce from what we already know?
We have seen a | b in a hypothesis before. Twice actually, once in the proof of the Tran-
sitivity of Divisibility and once in the prior example. Just as was done in the proof of the
Transitivity of Divisibility, we can use a | b and the definition of divisibility to assert that
There exists an integer r such that b = ra.
and well add this to the proof in progress.

Proof in Progress
1. Since a | b, there exists an integer r such that b = ra.
2. To be completed.
We also know that a | c so we can use the definition of divisibility again to assert that
There exists an integer s such that c = sa.
and we will add this to the proof in progress as well.

Proof in Progress
1. Since a | b, there exists an integer r such that b = ra.
2. Since a | c, there exists an integer s such that c = sa.
3. To be completed.

Hmm, what now? Lets look again at the last sentence. There is a bx + cy in the last
sentence and an algebraic expression for b and c in the first two sentences. Substituting
gives
bx + cy = (ra)x + (sa)y
and factoring out the a gives
bx + cy = (ra)x + (sa)y = a(rx + sy)
Does this look familiar? We factored in our numeric example and we are factoring here.
If we let k = rx + sy then, because multiplying integers gives integers and adding integers
gives integers, k is an integer. Hence, there exists an integer k so that bx + cy = ak. That
is, a | (bx + cy).
We are done. Almost. We have discovered a proof but this is rough work. We must now
write a formal proof. Just like any other writing, the amount of detail needed in expressing
your thoughts depends upon the audience. A proof of a statement targeted at an audience
of professional specialists in algebra will not look the same as a proof targeted at a high
school audience. When you approach a proof, you should first make a judgement about the
audience. As with our use of axioms, write for your peers. That is, write your proof so that
you could hand it to a classmate and expect that they would understand the proof.
Proof: Assume that a | b and a | c. Since a | b, there exists an integer r such that b = ra.
Since a | c, there exists an integer s such that c = sa. Let x and y be any integers. Now
bx + cy = (ra)x + (sa)y = a(rx + sy). Since rx + sy is an integer, it follows from the
definition of divisibility that a | (bx + cy).
Note that this proof does not reflect the discovery process, and it is a direct proof. It begins
with the hypothesis and ends with the conclusion.
Before we leave this proposition, lets consider the significance of the requirement that x
and y are integers. Suppose, as in our numeric example, a = 3, b = 6 and c = 27. If
we choose x = 3/2 and y = 1/4, then bx + cy = 99/2 which is not even an integer! This
simple example emphasizes the importance of the variables x and y being integers in the
conclusion.
Exercise 1 Let a, b, c and d be integers. Prove the following statements.
1. If a | c and b | d, then ab | cd.
2. If d | (b a) and d | (c b) then d | (c a).
6.4 Proof of Bounds by Divisibility
Here is another proposition and proof.
Proposition 2 (Bounds By Divisibility (BBD))

Let a and b be integers. If a | b and b 6= 0 then |a| |b|.
Section 6.4 Proof of Bounds by Divisibility 41
Proof: Since a | b, there exists an integer q so that b = qa. Since b 6= 0, q 6= 0. However, if

q 6= 0, |q| 1. Hence, |b| = |qa| = |q||a| |a|.
Lets analyze this proof. First, we will rewrite the proof line by line.
Proof: (For reference purposes, each sentence of the proof is written on a separate line.)
1. Since a | b, there exists an integer q so that b = qa.
2. Since b 6= 0, q 6= 0.
3. However, if q 6= 0, |q| 1.
4. Hence, |b| = |qa| = |q||a| |a|.
Now the analysis.
Analysis of Proof As usual, we begin by explicitly identifying the assumptions and the
desired conclusion.
Hypothesis: a and b are integers, a | b and b 6= 0.

Conclusion: |a| |b|.
Core Proof Technique: Direct proof.
Preliminary Material: The definition of divides.
Now we justify every sentence in the proof.
Sentence 1 Since a | b, there exists an integer q so that b = qa.

In this sentence, the author of the proof uses the hypothesis a | b and the definition
of divides.
Sentence 2 Since b 6= 0, q 6= 0.
If q were zero, then b = qa would imply that b is zero. So by our rules of inference,
since b is not zero, q cannot be zero.
Sentence 3 However, if q 6= 0, |q| 1.

Since q is an integer from Sentence 1, and q is not zero from Sentence 2, q 1 or
q 1. In either case, |q| 1.
Sentence 4 Hence, |b| = |qa| = |q||a| |a|.

Sentence 1 tells us that b = qa. Taking the absolute value of both sides gives |b| = |qa|
and using the properties of absolute values we get |qa| = |q||a|. From Sentence 3,
|q| 1 so multiplication of both sides by the positive number |a| gives |q||a| |a|.
REMARK
When reading a proof of a proposition, you should attempt to do the following.
1. Identify all the assumptions that have been made. Sometimes the assumptions may
not be explicitly stated in the proof, but you should try to locate them anyway. Quite
often there are mistakes in incorrect proofs because of unjustified assumptions, so
it is a good practice to keep track of all the assumptions and highlight where each
assumption is being used.
2. Record any preliminary material used in the proof, usually definitions or propositions
that have already been proved. As a rule of thumb for MATH 135, in our proofs, we
are allowed to use any definition that has been stated and any result that has been
proven in the duration of the course, unless instructed otherwise.
3. Justify each step with reference to the definitions, previously proved propositions or
techniques used. Add missing steps where necessary and justify these steps as well.
If a particular step cannot be justified, then the proof is most definitely incorrect.
4. Identify the core proof technique. Although we have not seen this yet, throughout this
course we will learn several proof techniques and then apply them in different mathe-
matical scenarios. You should try to identify the technique that is being employed in
the proof.
Part II
Foundations: Sets and Quantifiers
43
Chapter 7
Introduction to Sets
7.1 Objectives
1. Learn to define a set using set-builder notation.
2. Practice working with sets and set operations: union, intersection and set-difference.
3. Understand Cartesian products of sets.
7.2 Describing a Set
We are now going to improve our understanding of some fundamental concepts. In the next
two chapters, we will discover sets. Sets are foundational in mathematics and appear in
many places.
Definition 7.2.1 A set is a collection of objects. The objects that make up a set are called its elements (or
Set, Element members).
Sets can contain any type of object. Since this is a math course, we frequently use sets of
numbers. But sets could contain letters, the letters of the alphabet for example, or books,
such as those in a library collection. The simplest way to describe a set is to explicitly list
all of its elements inside curly braces, {}, and separate individual elements with a comma.
Example 1 The following are examples of sets:
1. {2, 4, 6, 8} lists all the positive even numbers less that 10.
2. {1, 2, {1, 2, 3}} is a set that contains three elements: 1, 2 and the set {1, 2, 3}. Note
that the set {1, 2, 3} is considered a single element of {1, 2, {1, 2, 3}}, even though
{1, 2, 3} contains three elements itself.
3. {, , , } lists the symbols of the four suites in a deck of playing cards.
44
Section 7.2 Describing a Set 45
4. The set of natural numbers, denoted N, lists all the positive integers starting from 1.
That is,
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, . . .}.
Computer scientists begin counting at 0 so the notation N used in a computer science
context usually means the set of integers 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .. Be sure to note that in MATH
135, we start counting our natural numbers from 1.
It is customary to use uppercase letters (S, T, U , etc.) to represent sets and lowercase letters
(x, y, z, etc.) to represent elements. If x is an element of the set S, we write x S. If x is
not an element of the set S, we write x 6 S.
Example 2 The following examples show how the notation is used:
1. Suppose S = {2, 4, 6, 8}. Then 6 S, but 7

/ S.
2. Let T = {1, 2, {1, 2, 3}}. In this case, 1 T , 2 T and {1, 2, 3} T , but 3

/ T.
Definition 7.2.2 The set { } contains no elements and is known as the empty set. We usually use as a
Empty Set symbol for the empty set, that is,
= { }.
REMARK
It is quite common for students to mistake the set {} as the empty set . However, {} is
actually non-empty, it contains as an element! Thus
{} =
6 .
The number of elements in a finite set is called the cardinality of the set. For a set S, we
use |S| to denote its cardinality. For instance, |{, , , }| = 4, |{1, 2, {1, 2, 3}}| = 3 and
|{, {}}| = 2.
The cardinality of the empty set is defined to be zero, i.e., || = 0.
Although small sets can be explicitly listed, many sets are too large to comfortably list all
their elements. You may have noticed this when we introduced N. Fortunately, a lot of sets
can be defined with the help of some common rules that each of their elements must satisfy.
In these cases, we employ set-builder notation which makes use of a defining property of the
set.
46 Chapter 7 Introduction to Sets
7.2.1 Set-builder Notation
When we work with sets, we assume the existence of a very large set, known as the universe
of discourse, usually denoted U, that contains all the objects that we would need in the
context of our work. The universe of discourse is often not explicitly stated, we simply
assume that it exists. For example, in our work on divisibility, we will primarily be concerned
with integers, so it may be safe to assume that the set of integers Z is the universe of
discourse, even when we dont always explicitly say so.
Quite often we will come across sets whose elements satisfy some membership criteria.
The membership criteria of a set S is simply established by a property P (x) that can be
evaluated for all the elements of the universe of discourse, and P (x) is true if and only if x is
an element of S. Thus P (x) is the defining property of the set we are trying to describe.
Definition 7.2.3 Suppose S is a set that has a defining property P (x) for its elements, then the set-builder
Set-builder notation
Notation {x U : P (x)}
is used to describe S. The part of the description following the colon (:) is the defining
property of the set.
Sometimes we use a vertical bar instead of a colon and write {x U | P (x)} to describe S.
However, this can be confusing because we also use a bar to mean divides.
The statement
S = {x U : P (x)}
is read as The elements of S are exactly all the values of x such that P (x) is true.
Sometimes we only write S = {x : P (x)}, assuming that the universe of discourse is implied
by the context. However, we will try to avoid this sloppiness in this course.
REMARK
The membership criteria P (x) mentioned here is an example of an open sentence.
An open sentence is a sentence that contains one or more variables, where
each variable has values that come from a designated set called the domain of the
variable, and
the sentence is either true or false whenever values from the respective domains of the
variables are substituted for the variables.
Of course, by substituting a particular element of the domain in place of the variable in the
open sentence, we get a statement.
For example, x > 0 is an open sentence. If the domain of x is the set of real numbers,
then for a real number, such as , chosen and substituted for x, the sentence > 0 is a
statement.
Section 7.2 Describing a Set 47
Example 3 (Set-Builder Notation)

Below are examples of the use of set-builder notation and an alternative form of this nota-
tion.
1. When the universe of discourse, U, is explicitly known, the focus is on a defining

property.
The set of all even integers can be described as
{n Z : 2 | n}.
The set of all real solutions to x2 + 4x 2 = 0 can be described as
{x R : x2 + 4x 2 = 0}.
The set of all positive divisors of 30 can be written as
{n N : n | 30}.
In calculus, we often use intervals of real numbers. The closed interval [a, b] is
defined as the set
{x R : a x b}.
Thus [1, 2] = {x R : 1 x 2}.
2. When the universe of discourse is not known or named, or sometimes just because it
is more convenient, elements of the set S can be expressed in terms of other variables.
This alternative form of the set builder notation is
{f (x) : P (x)},
where f (x) is a typical element of S that has been expressed in terms of the variable
x, and the defining property P (x) is true if and only if f (x) is an element of S.
For example, another way of describing the set of even integers is
{2k : k Z}.
In this example, f (k) = 2k and P (k) is k Z. Here, as we go over all the integer
values of k, the values of 2k give us all the even numbers.
The set of rational numbers, denoted Q, is described by

p
: p, q Z, q 6= 0 .
q
Once again, the elements of Q are fractions of the form pq , where p and q are
integers, and q 6= 0. Observe that when there are multiple defining properties
listed for the variables, we implicitly consider these properties to be connected
by an AND. Also, notice here that some elements have multiple representations
(e.g. 21 = 24 ). This is okay but we dont double count them.
The set described by {x2 : x Z, 0 x 4} can be explicitly listed as
{0, 1, 4, 9, 16}.
Example 4 Let S = {x R : x2 = 2} and T = {x Z : x2 = 2}.
1. Describe the set S by listing its elements. What is the cardinality of S?

Solution: S = { 2, 2}. |S| = 2.
2. Describe the set T by listing its elements. What is the cardinality of T ?

Solution: T = . |T | = 0.
Self Check 1 It usually takes some time to get used to the set-builder notation. Check to see whether
you can answer the following question.
Let T be the set of integers divisible by 5. Describe T by using the set-builder

notation in at least two ways.
7.3 Set Operations - Unions, Intersections and Set-Differences
In this section we shall review some of the basic set operations that you need to be familiar
with.
Definition 7.3.1 The union of two sets S and T , written S T , is the set of all elements belonging to either
Union set S or set T . Symbolically we write
S T = {x : x S OR x T } = {x : (x S) (x T )}
Note that when we say set S or set T we mean the mathematical use of OR. That is, the
element can belong to S, T or both S and T .
Definition 7.3.2 The intersection of two sets S and T , written S T , is the set of all elements belonging
Intersection to both set S and set T . Symbolically we write
S T = {x : x S AND x T } = {x : (x S) (x T )}
Definition 7.3.3 The set-difference of two sets S and T , written S T (or S \ T ), is the set of all elements
Set-Difference belonging to S but not T . Symbolically we write
S T = {x : x S AND x 6 T } = {x : (x S) (x 6 T )}
Section 7.4 Set Operations - Unions, Intersections and Set-Differences 49
Definition 7.3.4 Relative to a universal set U, the complement of a subset S of U, written S, is the set of
Set Complement all elements in U but not in S. Symbolically, we write
S = {x : x U AND x 6 S} = {x : (x U) (x 6 S)}
If U is the universal set and S U then S = U S.
Example 5 Let the universal set for this question be U, the set of natural numbers less than or equal to
twelve. Let T be the set of integers divisible by three and F be the set of integers divisible
by five.
1. Describe T by explicitly listing the set and by using set-builder notation in at least
two ways.
2. Find an element which belongs to neither T nor F .
3. Explicitly list the set T .
4. Determine the sets T F , T F and T F .
Solution:
1. Explicitly listing the set gives T = {3, 6, 9, 12}. Two set-builder descriptions of the
set are T = {n N : 3 | n, n 12} and T = {3k : k N, 3k 12}.
2. There are several choices possible. For example, 1 is not in T and also not in F .
3. {1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11}.
4. The sets are
T F = {3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12}, T F = , T F = {1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11}.
Exercise 1 Consider the following proposition.

If A and B are sets, then |A B| = |A| + |B| |A B|.
Complete the following table and verify that the proposition holds for each of the following
pairs of sets.
1. A = {n Z : n | 30} and B = {n Z : n | 42}
2. A = {x R | sin x = 0, 2 x 2} and
B = {x R : cos x = 0, 2 x 2}
|A| |B| |A B| |A B| |A| + |B| |A B|

(a)
(b)
7.4 Cartesian Products of Sets
Suppose S and T are two sets. We have already seen several ways to combine S and T to
form a new set. Here is another way of doing so:
Definition 7.4.1 The Cartesian product of S and T is defined to be the set

Cartesian Product,
Ordered Pair S T = {(x, y) : x S, y T }.
Each element of S T is an ordered pair of the form (x, y), where the first element of
the pair belongs to S and the second element belongs to T . For two ordered pairs (x, y)
and (a, b) to be equal, we must have x = a and y = b. So, if x 6= y, then the pair (x, y) is
different from the pair (y, x).
Example 6 Let S = {4, 5} and T = {n N : n | 6}. By explicitly listing all the elements of each set,
we have
T = {1, 2, 3, 6},
and so
S T = {(4, 1), (4, 2), (4, 3), (4, 6), (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 6)}
whereas
T S = {(1, 4), (1, 5), (2, 4), (2, 5), (3, 4), (3, 5), (6, 4), (6, 5)}.
As this example shows, typically
S T 6= T S.
REMARK
We note the following
1. If S = or T = , then S T = .
2. Suppose S and T are finite sets such that |S| = n and |T | = m, where n and m are
natural numbers. Then |S T | = n m.
7.4.1 Cartesian Products of the Form S S
Given a set S, we can consider collecting all the possible ordered pairs of the elements in
S. The resulting set is the Cartesian product S S.
In an ordered pair, the order in which the elements are listed does matter, so the pair (4, 5)
is distinct from the pair (5, 4). So, for example, when S = {4, 5}, there are four distinct
ordered pairs in S S as demonstrated below:
S S = {(4, 4), (4, 5), (5, 4), (5, 5)}.

Section 7.4 Cartesian Products of Sets 51
Example 7 Let T = {n N : n | 6}. The Cartesian product T T is described using the set-builder
notation as
T T = {(n, m) N N : n | 6, m | 6}.
Since there are four elements in T , therefore there are sixteen elements in T T , exhaustively
listed below:
T T ={(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (1, 6), (2, 1), (2, 2), (2, 3), (2, 6),
(3, 1), (3, 2), (3, 3), (3, 6), (6, 1), (6, 2), (6, 3), (6, 6)}
REMARK
In the previous example, a common error is to try to describe T T as
{(n, n) N N : n | 6}.
However, in the set {(n, n) N N : n | 6}, each pair (n, n) has the same number in
the first and the second coordinates. Thus {(n, n) N N : n | 6} only has these four
elements: (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3) and (6, 6) and so it does not consider all possible pairs that can
be formed using the elements of T .
In general, for a set A = {x : P (x)}, the Cartesian product A A is described by
A A = {(x, y) : P (x), P (y)},
and is usually different from the diagonal set {(x, x) : P (x)}.

An example of a Cartesian product that you may be familiar with is the set
R R = {(x, y) : x R, y R}.
The elements of this set are represented by the points on a two dimensional Cartesian plane,
and the diagonal set contains all the points on the line y = x (see Figure 7.4.1).
Figure 7.4.1: The Cartesian plane is a visualization of R R

Chapter 8
Subsets, Set Equality, Converse

and If and Only If
8.1 Objectives
1. To understand the concept of subsets, supersets and powersets.
2. To learn how to prove that two sets are disjoint, or one is contained as a subset of the
other, or they are equal.
3. Define the converse of an implication.
4. Establish connection between set equality and if and only if statements.
8.2 Comparing Sets
In the previous chapter, we developed some basic understanding of sets and set operations.
In this chapter, we will discuss how to compare two sets. Our main criteria for compar-
ison between two sets might be the amount of overlap between the two sets, that is, the
proportion of elements the sets have in common.
Suppose S and T are two sets that we want to compare. Let us start with a few definitions.
Definition 8.2.1 S and T are said to be disjoint sets when S T = .

Disjoint Sets
In other words, we say S and T are disjoint when they have nothing in common. For
example, the sets {1, 2, 3} and {5, 6, 7} are disjoint. Similarly {1, 2, 3} is disjoint from the
set {{1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}}. Finally, note that the empty set is disjoint from every other
set.
If we consider two sets S and T from the same universe U, then they may or may not be
disjoint. When two sets are not disjoint, they share some common elements (i.e., S T 6= ).
In an extreme scenario, it is possible that all the elements of one set, say S, are also shared
by T .
52
Section 8.2 Comparing Sets 53
Definition 8.2.2 A set S is called a subset of a set T , and is written S T , when every element of S belongs
Subset to T .
Notice that we may rewrite the definition of S T in terms of an implication. Suppose

we consider an object x from the universe of discourse U, then S T means if x is an
element of S then x must be an element of T . If there is even a single element of S
that does not belong to T , then S cannot be a subset of T . When S is not a subset of T ,
we write S 6 T .
Given two particular sets S and T , mathematicians must become skilled at verifying whether
S T or not.
Proof Method To prove S T , prove the implication: x S = x T . Usually, this is done through a
ST direct proof .
Example 1 Let S be the set of all roots of f (x) = (x2 1) sin x. We could write S more symbolically
as
S = {x R : f (x) = 0}.
Let T be the set of integer multiples of . We could also write T more symbolically as
T = {n : n Z}.
1. Show that T S.
Solution: We start by assuming that x is an element of T . Therefore, by the defining
property of T , x = n, for some integer n. Since sin(n) = 0 for all integers n, we
know that
f (x) = f (n) = (n)2 1 sin(n) = 0.

Now, the defining property of S is that a real number x belongs to S if and only if
f (x) = 0. Since f (n) = 0, n S. Thus, we have proven that if x T , then x S.
This is equivalent to showing T S.
2. Is S T ? Justify your answer.

Solution: No. Consider x = 1. The value x = 1 is a solution to (x2 1) sin x = 0
and so belongs to S, but it is not an integer multiple of , so it does not belong to T .
That is, S 6 T .
8.2.1 Concepts related to Subsets
There are a few more concepts related to subsets that we need to define.
Definition 8.2.3 A set S is called a proper subset of a set T , and written S ( T , if every element of S
Proper Subset belongs to T and there exists at least one element in T which does not belong to S.
54 Chapter 8 Subsets, Set Equality, Converse and If and Only If
Example 2 For example,

{1, 2, 3} ( {1, 2, 3, 4}
REMARK
You may have seen the notation S T being used to denote S is a proper subset of T .
However, this is not universal. Some authors use S T to mean S T as well. To avoid
any potential confusion, we will not be using the notation S T , and will explicitly use
S T or S ( T as needed.
Definition 8.2.4 A set S is called a superset of a set T , and written S T , if every element of T belongs
Superset to S. S T is equivalent to T S.
Example 3
{1, 2, 3, 4} {1, 2, 3}
Definition 8.2.5 As before, a set S is called a proper superset of a set T , and written S ) T , if every
Proper Superset element of T belongs to S and there exists an element in S which does not belong to T .
Example 4
{1, 2, 3, 4} ) {1, 2, 3}
Example 5 The empty set is a subset of any given set S.

The entire set S is also a subset of itself (i.e., S S), but it is not a proper subset.
Example 6 Let S, T, V and W be sets. Prove that if S V and T W , then S T V W .
Proof: Assume that S V and T W .

Let (x, y) S T . Then, by definition, x S and y T . Since S V , then x S
implies x V . Similarly, y T means that y W . Thus (x, y) V W . Therefore
S T V W.
Self Check 1 Let S, T and V be three sets. Check that you can prove: If S T and T V then S V .
Section 8.3 Showing Two Sets Are Equal 55
8.3 Showing Two Sets Are Equal
Definition 8.3.1 We say that two sets S and T are equal, and write S = T , when S T and T S.
Set Equality
According to the definition of set equality, two sets S and T are equal when every element
of S is in T and every element of T is in S. That is, S = T means that for every element
x from the universe of discourse,
[(x S) = (x T )] AND [(x T ) = (x S)]
is a true statement. More informally, S = T means S and T have exactly the same elements.
Example 7 Suppose we define three sets A, B and C as
A = {n Z : 10 | n}, B = {x Z : x is even}, C = {5x : x Z}.
Show that A = (B C).

Solution: We shall prove that A = (B C) using mutual inclusion. So we must show
1. A (B C) and
2. (B C) A.
Recall that showing A (B C) is equivalent to proving the implication: if x A then

x B C. We shall prove this implication with a direct proof .
Proof of A (B C): Assume that x A. Then, according to the defining property of
A, 10 | x. Since 2 | 10 and 10 | x, by tTransitivity of Divisibility (TD), 2 | x. Hence x is
even, so x B. Similarly, 5 | 10 and 10 | x, therefore 5 | x. Consequently, we may write
x = 5k for some integer k, and so x C. As x B and x C, then x (B C). As a
result, A (B C).
Next, we need to show that (B C) A. Once again, this means we will be proving the
implication: if x (B C) then x A through a direct proof.
Proof of (B C) A: Assume x B C. Thus x B and x C. Since x B, x
must be even. Since x C, x = 5k for some integer k. Now 5 is an odd number, but 5k
must be even as x is even. This means that k must be even. So we may write k = 2m for
some integer m, and get x = 5k = 5(2m) = 10m. Therefore 10 | x, so x A. As a result,
(B C) A.
Since both A (B C) and (B C) A have been proven, then A = (B C).

Example 8 Give a specific example to show that the statement U (S T ) = (U S) T is false.

Solution: Let U = , S = {1} and T = {2}. Then U (S T ) = and (U S) T = {2}.
In this case U (S T ) 6= (U S) T .
8.3.1 Converse of an Implication
Often times, mathematicians ask if an implication in reverse is true. For example, if n

is even, then n2 is even is a true statement. A natural question to ask is whether the
implication if n2 is even, then n is even is also true.
Definition 8.3.2 The statement B = A is called the converse of A = B.

Converse
To obtain the converse of an implication, we simply switch the places of the hypothesis and
the conclusion.
REMARK
It is a common mistake for beginning mathematicians to assume that A = B and
B = A are the same. They are not!
We can use truth tables to show that A = B 6 B = A. Essentially, this means that
the truth values of A = B and B = A are unrelated; when A = B is true, it is
not possible to deduce whether B = A is true or false without knowing the truth values
of the components A and B.
Example 9 Look at Example 1 and Example 7. We may say the following.
1. For all real numbers x, if x = n, for some integer n, then (x2 1) sin(x) = 0 is
true, but its converse if (x2 1) sin(x) = 0 then x = n for some integer n is not
true.
2. For any integer k, the implication if k is even and 5 | k then 10 | k is true, and the
converse if 10 | k then k is even and 5 | k is true as well.
8.3.2 If and Only If Statements
The above discussion that (A = B) 6 (B = A) suggests that statements A and B

where A = B and B = A are both true are of additional importance.
Definition 8.3.3 The definition of A if and only if B, written A B or A iff B, is

If and Only If
A B A B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
The statement A B poses an interesting connection between A and B. According to

the truth table above, whenever A B is true, A and B have the same truth value.
Thus A B is true exactly when A is logically equivalent to B. On the other hand
A B is false indicates that A is not logically equivalent to B.
Using a truth table, we may show that A B is logically equivalent to
(A = B) (B = A).
Proof Method To prove a statement of the form A B, we could prove

as
= and = 1. A = B and
2. B = A.
Example 10 Consider the following statement.
An integer n is even if and only if n + 1 is odd.
To prove this, we must consider both directions. That is, we must prove that if n is even,
then n + 1 is odd and if n + 1 is odd, then n is even. Note that we wont always see such
short simple proofs!
Proof:
=
Assume that n is even. Then n = 2k for some integer k. Hence n + 1 = 2k + 1. That is,
n + 1 is odd.
=
Assume that n + 1 is odd. Then n + 1 = 2` + 1 for some integer `. Hence n = 2`. That is,
n is even.
REMARK
Mathematicians often write definitions like this:
An integer is a perfect square if it equals k 2 for some integer k.
This is sloppy and technically incorrect. We really should say
Definition 8.3.4 An integer is a perfect square if and only if it equals k 2 for some integer k.
Perfect Square
The convention is that when if is used in this way in a definition, it really means if and
only if. Since this is so common, we will sometimes begrudgingly adopt this norm in this
course.
Sometimes, we can also use a chain of true if and only if statements to prove a statement
is true. Recall the following proposition from an earlier chapter.
Proposition 1 For every real number x, x2 + 1 2x.
Our attempted direct proof of this result failed because it began by implicitly assuming the
statement to be proved was true. Instead, we can continually write equivalent statements:
Proof: For every real number x,
x2 + 1 2x x2 2x + 1 0
(x 1)2 0.
Since the square of any real number is never negative, the last statement is true. Hence all
the equivalent statements including x2 + 1 2x are true for all real numbers x.
This proof technique is succinct and correct. However, it requires the reader to check that
each step is correct in both directions. For example, above, the reader must verify that
x2 2x + 1 0 = (x 1)2 0 and that (x 1)2 0 = x2 2x + 1 0. As it is
in this case, the reversibility of each step should be easy to verify. Sometimes, a step is
only true in one direction! Other times it is true in both directions but this is unclear and
further justification is required. There may also be a large number of steps involved. So,
we often advise novice proof writers to write out both directions separately.
Example 11 Let x be a real number and consider the following statement.
1
|x + 3| < 2 if and only if |4x + 13| < 3.
An erroneous proof is provided below. Clearly state the fundamental error in the argument
and explain why it is an error.
Proof: Let x be a real number.

1
|x + 3| < 2 12 < x + 3 < 1
2
72 < x < 25
14 < 4x < 10
1 < 4x + 13 < 3
3 < 4x + 13 < 3
|4x + 13| < 3.
Solution: It is false to claim The statement (1 < 4x + 13 < 3) (3 < 4x + 13 < 3)

holds for any real number x. For example, when x = 3, (1 < 4x + 13 < 3) is false but
(3 < 4x + 13 < 3) is true.
It is important to understand that (1 < 4x + 13 < 3) = (3 < 4x + 13 < 3) is true for

all real numbers x because 3 < 1. Only its converse is false. So the corresponding step
in the proof is not reversible.
Finally, note that the original statement itself is false (the forward direction is however true)
but noticing this is different than identifying the fundamental flaw in a purported proof of
the statement.
8.3.3 Set Equality and If and Only If Statements
Proof Method Given sets S and T , there are two logically equivalent ways to prove that S = T :
S=T
Mutual Inclusion: Show that each of the set relations S T and T S is true.
Chain of If and Only If Statements: Show, through a chain of true if and only if state-
ments, that (x S) (x T ) is a true statement for every x from the universe
of discourse.
We present two proofs of the same statement about sets. The first uses mutual inclusion
and the second uses a chain of if and only if statements.
Proposition 2 Let A, B and C be arbitrary sets.
A (B C) = (A B) (A C)
Proof: This proof uses mutual inclusion. That is, we will show
1. A (B C) (A B) (A C).
2. A (B C) (A B) (A C).
Equivalently, we must show
1. If x A (B C), then x (A B) (A C).
2. If x (A B) (A C), then x A (B C).
Let x A (B C). By the definition of union, x A or x (B C). If x A, then by the

definition of union, x A B and x A C, that is x (A B) (A C). If x B C,
then by the definition of intersection, x B and x C. But then by the definition of union,
x A B and x A C. Hence, by the definition of intersection, x (A B) (A C).
In both cases, x (A B) (A C) as required.
Let x (A B) (A C). By the definition of intersection, x A B and x A C. If
x A, then by the definition of union, x A (B C). If x 6 A, then by the definition of
union and the fact that x A B, x B. Similarly, x C. But then, by the definition
of intersection, x B C. By the definition of union, x A (B C). In both cases,

x A (B C).
REMARK
Notice that we used cases to help with our proof. An arbitrary element x is either in a set
or not in a set. This can often be used to help with a condition like x A B.
Proof: This proof uses a chain of if and only if statements to show that both A (B C)
and (A B) (A C) have exactly the same elements. Let x A (B C). Then
x A (B C)
(x A) (x (B C)) definition of union
(x A) ((x B) (x C)) definition of intersection
((x A) (x B)) ((x A) (x C)) Distributive Law of logic
(x A B) (x A C) definition of union
x ((A B) (A C)) definition of intersection
8.4 Discovering: Sets of Solutions
One common use of sets is to describe values which are solutions to an equation, but care
in expression is required here. The following two sentences mean different things.
1. Let a, b, c R, a 6= 0 and b2 4ac 0. The solutions to the quadratic equation

b2 4ac
ax2 + bx + c = 0 are x = b 2a .

b b2 4ac
2. Let a, b, c R, a 6= 0 and b2 4ac 0. Then x = 2a are solutions to the
quadratic equation ax2 + bx + c = 0.
The first sentence asserts that a complete

description of all solutions is given. The second
sentence only asserts that x = (b b2 4ac)/2a are solutions, not that they are the
complete solution. In the language ofsets, if S is the complete solution (set of all solutions)
to ax2 + bx + c = 0, and T = {(b b2 4ac)/2a}, Sentence 1 asserts that S = T (which
implies S T and T S) but Sentence 2 only asserts that T S.
This point can be confusing. Statements about solutions are often implicitly divided into
two sets: the set S of all solutions and a set T of proposed solutions. One must be careful
to determine whether the statement is equivalent to S = T or T S. Phrases like the
solution or complete solution or all solutions indicate S = T . Phrases like a solution or are
solutions indicate T S.
Similar confusion arises when showing that sets have more than one representation. For
example, a circle centered at the origin O is often defined geometrically as the set of points
equidistant from O. Others define a circle algebraically in the Cartesian plane as the set of
points satisfying x2 + y 2 = r2 . To show that the two definitions describe the same object,
one must show that the two sets of points are equal.
Section 8.4 Discovering: Sets of Solutions 61
Self Check 2 Let a, b, c R, a 6= 0 and b2 4ac 0. Check that you can prove the statement:

b b2 4ac
Proposition 3 The solutions to the quadratic equation ax2 + bx + c = 0 are x = 2a .
Consider the approach outlined in this section. Define two sets S and T to be
( )
2
b b2 4ac
S = x R | ax + bx + c = 0 and T = x R | x = .
2a
Demonstrate that S = T .
Chapter 9
Quantifiers
9.1 Objectives
1. Learn the basic structure of statements with quantifiers.
2. Understand the usage of the universal and the existential quantifier.
3. Learn how to prove quantified statements.
9.2 Quantifiers
This chapter is devoted towards the final piece of the puzzle required to construct well-
formed mathematical statements involving variables. Let us recall some of the statements
that we have seen so far:
1. For every integer x, x2 + 1 2x.
2. For any real number x, if x2 < 0 then x2 + 1 > 2.
3. There exists some integer n such that n2 1 = 0.
4. There is an integer k such that 6 = 3k.
The above sentences are examples of quantified statements. Each of the statements above
contain a variable, and each variable has been introduced through a phrase such as for
every, for any, there exists, there is, etc. Such phrases are called quantifiers, and
they give us some information about how to assess whether the statements are true or false.
The role of a quantifier is to develop a sense of how many elements of a given domain
satisfy a given property. In English, words such as all, some, many, none, few,
etc., are used in quantification. In this course, we will only be interested in two types of
quantifiers: universal and existential. A universal quantifier (e.g., for all) generalizes
a property for all elements of a given domain, while an existential quantifier (e.g., there
exists) demands that the property be satisfied by at least one element from the domain.
62
Section 9.3 Quantifiers 63
REMARK
All statements which use quantified variables share a basic structure:
Quantified variable in given domain, followed by some open sentence containing

the variable.
There are four key parts to a quantified statement.
1. a quantifier which will be either an existential or universal quantifier,
2. a variable which can be any mathematical object,
3. a set which is the domain of the variable, often implicit, and
4. an open sentence which involves the variable.

Recall that an open sentence is a sentence that contains one or more variables, where
the truth of the sentence is determined by the values from the respective domains of
the variables.
It is crucial that you be able to identify the four parts in the structure of quantified state-
ments.
Example 1 Here are some examples of statements with quantified variables. We have identified the four
key parts of each statement.
1. For every integer k, 104 1 = 101k

Quantifier: Universal
Variable: k
Domain: Z
Open sentence: 104 1 = 101k
2. There exists a real number x such that x2 2 = 0.

Quantifier: Existential
Variable: x
Domain: R
Open sentence: x2 3 = 0
After studying quantifiers more carefully in the next sections, you will see that the
first statement is false and the second statement is true.
However, if we change the domain of x in the second statement to integers, we get
the statement
There exists an integer x such that x2 3 = 0.

This is false because neither of the two real roots, 3 or 3, are integers. So
changing the domain can change the truth value of the statement. What would be a
suitable domain for k in the first statement that will give us a true statement?
64 Chapter 9 Quantifiers
9.3 The Universal Quantifier
The universal quantifier, denoted by the symbol , is used to indicate that all elements
of a set satisfy a common property. Thus the statement
x S, P (x),
indicates that all members of the set S satisfy the given property P . We read the above
statement as For all x in S, P (x) is true or simply as For all x in S, P (x).
Example 2 Suppose T is a subset of the letters of the English alphabet, given by T = {i, o, u}. Consider
P (x) to be the open sentence x is a vowel. Then x T, P (x) is a true statement as each
of the statements P (i), P (o) and P (u) is true. Notice that this means that P (i)P (o)P (u)
is a true statement as well.
REMARK
In general, given a finite set S = {x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn }, the statement x S, P (x) is
logically equivalent to P (x1 ) P (x2 ) P (x3 ) P (xn )
When the domain is empty, i.e., S = , then regardless of what the open sentence P (x)
says, the statement x , P (x) is said to be vacuously true.
Example 3 Consider the open sentence P (x) given by x2 0. The statement x R, P (x), or
equivalently, x R, x2 0, is a true statement.
In addition to the standard sentence: For all x in R, x2 0, we also often use the
following sentences in English to convey the same meaning as x R, x2 0.
1. For every x R, x2 0.
2. Any x R satisfies x2 0.
3. Let x be a real number. Then x2 0.
4. The square of every real number is non-negative.
Here is another example of how we may use the universal quantifier. You may be familiar
with the following definition of a prime number.
Definition 9.3.1 An integer p > 1 is called a prime if and only if its only positive divisors are 1 and p itself.
Primes Otherwise, p is called composite.
According to this definition, an integer p > 1 is a prime if and only if
For all k N, if k | p then (k = 1) (k = p).
Note how the universal quantifier is being used to convey the condition about the only
positive divisors of p are 1 and p by looking at all the positive integers k that divide p
and inferring that k must be 1 or p.
Section 9.4 The Universal Quantifier 65
9.3.1 The Select Method
Let us now discuss how to prove that a statement of the form x S, P (x) is true.
We want to justify that each element of S satisfies the property P (x). One way to do so
would be to go through each and every element of S, and check that the open sentence P
is evaluates to true for each member of S.
However, it is easy to see that this process could get tiresome when S has a lot of elements,
perhaps infinitely many, and we have to carefully check that the open sentence is true for
each element of S. Instead, we use the select method.
Proof Method To prove x S, P (x):

Select Method
Select a representative mathematical object x S. This cannot be a specific object. It has
to be a placeholder, that is, a variable, so that our argument would work for any specific
member of S.
Then show that the open sentence P must be true for our representative x. You may use
the rules of algebra, combined with any other previously proven result, to obtain this.
How do we select a representative object x from S? We simply declare Let x be an

arbitrary element of S, or state Let x S. Next, we start using the symbol x as if it
has all the characteristics of a typical member of S. The philosophy here is that we could
replace x by any particular element from S, and all our steps would be correct. Then, when
we symbolically show that P (x) must be satisfied, we are guaranteed that the open sentence
would be true for any element of S.
Example 4 Prove each of the following statements.
1. For each x R, x < x + 1.

Solution: Let x be a real number. Therefore (x+1)(x) = 1 > 0. Since (x+1)(x) >
0,
x<x+1
is true. Thus, since x was arbitrary, x R, x < x + 1 is a true statement.
2. For every natural number n, n n2 .

Solution: Let P (x): x x2 . We know that the set of natural numbers is given by
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . .}.
Let n N. Since n is a natural number, n 1.

Multiply both sides of the inequality by n (note: n is positive) to get n2 n. Thus,
P (n) is true and since n was arbitrary, n N, P (n) is a true statement.
9.4 The Existential Quantifier
The existential quantifier, denoted by the symbol , is used to express the idea that at
least one element of a given set satisfies a given property. We read the statement
x S, P (x)
as There exists at least one value of x in S for which P (x) is true or simply as There
exists x in S such that P (x).
Here are some other ways in which the statement x S, P (x) is expressed in written
English:
1. There is an x S such that P (x) is true.
2. The statement P (x) is true for some x S.
3. At least one x S satisfies P (x).
4. The set S has an element x such that P (x) is satisfied.
For example, the symbolic statement
x [0, 2], x2 1 = 0
could be read as The value of x2 1 is 0 for some x between 0 and 2 (inclusive). However,
the standard way to read the above statement is to say There exists an x in the interval
[0, 2] such that x2 1 = 0.
Example 5 Let us look at a few uses of the existential quantifier.
1. The statement n Z, 0 | n is true because n = 0 is an integer and 0 | 0. However,

the statement n N, 0 | n is false because 0 cannot divide any non-zero integer.
2. Suppose n and m are integers. The statement n | m is defined to mean
k Z, m = kn.
REMARK
In general, given a finite set S = {x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn } with n-elements, we have
[ x S, P (x)] [P (x1 ) P (x2 ) P (x3 ) P (xn )] .
The statement x S, P (x) is true if and only if we can find at least one element from the
set S that satisfies the property P , which happens if and only if P (x1 ) P (x2 ) P (xn )
is a true statement.
Note that x S, P (x) would be a false statement when there are no elements of x
that satisfy the property P . This implies that when the domain is empty, the statement
x , P (x) is vacuously false.
Section 9.4 The Existential Quantifier 67
9.4.1 The Construct Method
We use the construct method to prove a statement of the form

x S, P (x).
Proof Method To prove x S, P (x).

Construct
Method Provide an explicit value of x from the domain S, and show that P (x) is true for this value.
In other words, find an element in S that satisfies the property P .
The following examples demonstrate how the construct method works.
Example 6 Prove each of the following statements.
1. x {1, 2, 3, 4}, such that x is even.
Proof: Consider x = 2. Since 2 is an element of the given domain, and 2 is even,

therefore the above statement is true.
Note that 4 is also an even number from the domain, so we could have chosen x = 4 as
well. However, all we need to do is find one element from the domain that satisfies the
given property. So once we find one value that works, such as x = 2, we dont need
to concern ourselves with whether other elements of the domain satisfy the property
or not.
2. There is a real number [0, 2] such that sin = cos .

Proof: Consider = . Clearly, [0, 2]. Since
4
1 1
sin = sin = and cos = cos =
4 2 4 2
sin = cos as required.
3. x2 2 = 3x for some x [1, 1].

3 17
Proof: Consider x = 2 .

1
Note that 1 = 32 25 32 17 3 16
2 = 2 1, so 3 17
2 [1, 1].

Substitute x = 32 17 into x2 2 to get
!2
2 3 17 (3)2 + 2(3)( 17) + ( 17)2 8 18 6 17
x 2= 2= = .
2 4 4

3+ 17
Similarly, substitute x = 2 into 3x to get
!
3 17 9 3 17 18 6 17
3x = 3 = =
2 2 4

3 17
as well. Therefore, the value x = 2 satisfies the equation x2 2 = 3x.
Let us provide some more insights into how to use the construct method. In particular, if
we look back at the previous example, how did we manage to obtain the values from the
corresponding domain that seem to magically satisfy the required property? There are two
ways to find such values as discussed below.
1. By Trial and Error : We could attempt to substitute each element of the domain for
x in the open sentence until we find one that works. This approach works well when
the domain is small, and it is easy to verify whether the property is true or false for
each domain element.
For instance, when S = {1, 2, 3, 4} and P (x) is the statement x is even, we can
simply exhaustively examine each of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 until we find an even
number. So, we try x = 1 and find that P (1) is false. We then move onto x = 2, find
P (2) is true, and may immediately conclude that x S, P (x) is a true statement.
When we write down the final proof, we do not need to demonstrate all the values
that we tried, but just use the one that we found to work.
2. By using preliminary knowledge about what we wish to prove. The method of trial
and error is not such a great idea when we are dealing with infinite domains such as
[0, 2] or [1, 1]. In these cases, we try to use any prior knowledge that we may have
about the open sentence to try to come up with a value that works.
For example, heres a table of special angles for trigonometric ratios that you may
remember from high school:

0 6 4 3 2
0 1 1 2 1 3 4
sin 2 =0 2 = 2 2 = 2 2 2 = 1
3 1 1
cos 1 2 2 2 0
From this table, we notice that sin and cos take the same value when = 4 .
Alternatively, we might note that sin = cos if and only if tan = 1 and come up
with = 4 . Armed with this knowledge, we may now write a formal proof of the
statement there is a real number [0, 2] such that sin = cos . In our proof, we
do not need to mention how we came across the value of = 4 , but just demonstrate
that it works.
Similarly, while proving x2 2 = 3x for some x [1, 1], we may use our knowledge
of quadratic equations. The equation x2 2 = 3x may be written as x2 3x 2 = 0,
and using the quadratic formula to solve for the values of x gives us
p
(3) (3)2 (4)(1)(2) 3 17
x= = .
2 2
Then we can work with inequalities, or possibly use a calculator to compute approxi-
mations, and test if these values are within our our intended interval [1, 1].
REMARK
When we apply our preliminary knowledge in a constructive proof, we usually do it on a
rough piece of paper. The final written proof does not usually contain any reference of
how we obtained the value that works. We simply propose this value for x, make sure the
proposed value is in the domain, and then demonstrate that the property holds for this
value.
Section 9.6 Negating Quantifiers 69
9.5 Negating Quantifiers
Here is a quick summary of what we have learned so far.
Quantified Statement When True? When False

x S, P (x) P (x) is true P (x) is false for
for every x S at least one element in S
x S, P (x) P (x) is true for P (x) is false
at least one element in S for every element in S
The above suggests that the following rules of negation should apply for quantified state-
ments.
The negation of For all x S, P (x) is true is
There exists some x S for which P (x) is false.
That is, using the symbols for the quantifiers, we are saying
[ x S, P (x)] [ x S, (P (x))].
Similarly, the negation of There exists some x S such that P (x) is true is
For all x S, P (x) is false.
In other words,
[ x S, P (x)] [ x S, (P (x))].
These rules of negation help us understand the methods for disproving quantified statements.
1. To show x S, P (x) is false, we need to prove x S, (P (x)). Thus, we need

to find a value of x from the domain S for which P is false. This process is called
finding a counter-example.
For example, the statement: n N, n! < 2n is false, because when n = 4, we
have 4! = 24, but 24 = 16, so 4! > 24 . Thus n = 4 acts as a counter-example to the
statement n N, n! < 2n .
2. To show x S, P (x) is false, we need to show that x S, (P (x)) is true. This

involves the select method. We must show that P (x) fails for any arbitrary x from the
domain.
For example, we may show that n N, n2 < n is false by proving n N, n2 n,
which we have already done in an earlier example (see Example 4).
Self Check 1 Check that you can negate the following statement without using the word not or the
symbol:
For all x R, if x4 + 2x2 2x < 0 then 0 < x < 1.
Either prove or disprove the statement above.

9.6 Assuming a Quantified Statement is True
Let us now discuss the consequence of assuming a statement such as x S, P (x) or

x S, P (x) is true.
9.6.1 The Substitution Method
Let n N. Consider the following statement about n:
If x N, n | x then n = 1.
To directly prove this implication, we assume that the hypothesis x N, n | x is

true. This is a very strong assumption. By our assumption, we may substitute any positive
integer in place of x, and the property n | x must be satisfied for that value of x.
For example, if we use x = 12, then we get n | 12. So n must be one of the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 12. On the other hand, if we use x = 5, then n | 5 tells us that n is either 1
or 5, and so on. The trick here is to choose an appropriate value of x from N such that the
information n | x helps us get to the desired conclusion that n = 1. Lets now write a proof
of the given implication.
Proof: Assume that x N, n | x. Since 1 N, consider x = 1. By our assumption,

n | 1. We know that the only positive divisor of 1 is 1 itself. Therefore n = 1.
Proof Method Suppose we assume x S, P (x) is true, and we want to use this assumption in a proof.
Substitution
Method Substitute one or more appropriate values of x from S into the open sentence P (x), and
use the fact that P (x) must be true to arrive at the desired conclusion.
Self Check 2 Let r be a real number. Prove the following statement:
If x [0, ), r2 x then r = 0.
9.6.2 The Object Method
Let p be a real number and k be an integer. Consider the following statement about p and
k:
p
If there exists a non-zero integer q such that q = k, then p must be an integer.
To prove this statement, we assume that non-zero integer q, such that pq = k is true.
Here p and k are integers, but we do not know their numerical values. We will now use the
symbol q as an (hypothetical) object that
1. is a non-zero integer, and

Section 9.6 Assuming a Quantified Statement is True 71
p
2. satisfies the equation q = k.
Our goal is to use these properties of q to convince the reader that p must be an integer.
The proof is below.
Proof: We are given that p is a real number and k is an integer. Let us assume that q is
a non-zero integer for which pq = k.
We may now multiply both sides of pq = k by q to get p = qk. Since q and k are both
integers, then qk is also an integer. Hence p must be an integer.
Proof Method Assume x S, P (x) is true.

Object Method
Use a symbol, such as x, to denote an element of S for which P (x) is true. Since we do
not know exactly which element of S satisfies P (x), we cannot assign a specific value to x.
Instead, we work with x as a variable.
We may then apply the rules of mathematics and other established results about the ele-
ments of S to this x in order to prove the desired conclusion.
Example 7 Let n be an integer. Prove the following statement about n:
If n is of the form 4` + 1 for some positive integer `, then 8 | (n2 1).
Discussion: Once again, we are proving an implication, so we start by identifying the

hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: n is of the form 4` + 1 for some integer `.
Conclusion: 8 | (n2 1).
Note that we may rewrite the hypothesis in its symbolic form:
` Z, such that n = 4` + 1.
Our goal is to prove 8 | (n2 1), which is equivalent to proving that k Z, 8k = (n2 1).
Proof: Assume that we can write n = 4` + 1 for some integer `.

Let k = 2`2 + `. Since ` is an integer, therefore k must also be an integer. In that case,
n2 1 = (4` + 1)2 1 = 16`2 + 8` + 1 1 = 16`2 + 8` = 8(2`2 + `) = 8k.
Thus, we have shown that k Z, 8k = (n2 1) is true. Therefore, 8 | (n2 1).
Note that when using the object method, we should not use a variable that already exists
in the problem as that can lead to potential confusion and error.
Can you see that we also used the construct method in the above proof?
The next example shows such a mistake in an attempted proof.
Example 8 Let m N and a, b, c Z. Consider the following statement:
If m | (b a) and m | (c b) then (c a) is even.
Here is an incorrect proof of this statement:

Incorrect Proof: Assume that the hypothesis is true. Since m | (b a), we may say
x Z, b a = mx. Similarly, from m | (c b), we get x Z, c b = mx. We may
add b a = mx and c b = mx to get c a = 2mx. As 2mx is an even number, therefore
(c a) must also be even. .
Self Check 3 Discuss what is wrong with the previous attempt at proving the above statement. Either
prove the given statement, or provide a value for each of the variables m, a, b and c such
that the statement is false.
Example 9 Let m N and a, b, c Z. Prove the following statement:
If m | (b a) and m | (c b) then m | (c a).
Proof: Assume that m | (b a) and m | (c b).

From m | (ba), we can say that there exists an integer x for which (ba) = mx. Similarly,
from m | (cb), we may say that there is an integer y (note: we are using a variable different
from x) such that (c b) = my.
Add b a = mx with c b = my to get c a = m(x + y). As x and y are both integers,
x + y must also be an integer. Thus by definition m | (c a).
Chapter 10
Nested Quantifiers
10.1 Objectives
1. Recognize nested quantifiers.
2. Learn how to parse statements with nested quantifiers.
3. Discover proof techniques that apply to a sentence containing nested quantifiers.
10.2 Nested Quantifiers
Most of the statements that we will see in mathematics contain more than one variable.
Each variable must come with its own domain and quantifier. When a statement has more
than one quantified variable, it is important to note the order in which they appear.
For example, consider the following statement containing three variables x, y and z:
x R, y Z, z R, x + y + z = 0.
We read mathematical statements from left to right. If a statement contains more than one
quantified variable, then we first read the leftmost quantified variable, and regard the rest
of the statement as a property of this variable. Thus, the other quantified variables become
nested within the property of the leftmost variable. We then proceed through the rest of
the statement in a similar manner. Therefore, we may parse the above statement in layers,
like an onion. For instance, we can consider this statement to be of the form
x R, P (x),
where P (x) is y Z, Q(x, y),

where Q(x, y) is z R, R(x, y, z),
where R(x, y, z) is x + y + z = 0.
Here, the quantifier for y is nested within the property P (x), the quantifier for z is nested
within the property Q(x, y), and so on. A useful way to think about nested quantifiers is
in terms of nested loops that we use in programming.
73
74 Chapter 10 Nested Quantifiers
It takes a bit of practice to become good at parsing and using nested quantifiers in state-
ments. To start, we will focus on statements that have only two variables. There are four
possible combinations of nested quantifiers to consider. The following examples illustrate
how to prove statements with nested quantifiers.
x+y
Example 1 For all x N, for all y N, 2 xy.
Proof. Let x N and y N. We know that the following algebraic equation is true for all
natural numbers x and y:
(x y)2 = (x + y)2 4xy.
Since N R, (x y)2 0. Thus, we have (x + y)2 4xy 0, which simplifies to
(x + y)2
xy.
4
x+y
Taking the positive square-root on both sides, we get 2 xy.
Proof Method To prove x S, y T, Q(x, y):

x S, y T
1. either exhaustively verify Q is true for each pair (x, y) from S T ,
2. or use the select method on both the variables x and y, show Q(x, y) is true.
Example 2 There exists a positive even integer m such that for every positive integer n,

1 1
1.

m n 2
Proof. The first quantifier is existential, so we must use the construct method. Let m = 2.
Let n be any arbitrary positive integer. We consider three cases.
1
n1 = 12 11 = 12 = 12 .

Case 1. When n = 1, we have m
1
n1 = 21 12 = 0 < 12 .

Case 2. When n = 2, then m
Case 3. When n 3, then 0 < n1 13 < 12 . Thus

1
= = < 1.
1 1 1 1 1
m n 2 n 2 n 2
We note that in each case, the required inequality is satisfied. Thus 12 n1 12 is true

for every n N. Consequently, the given statement is true as well.

x S, y T
Propose a definite value of x from S. The value of x gets fixed and cannot depend on
y, in particular, x should not be an expression in y. Use the select method on y T to
demonstrate Q(x, y) is true for the proposed value of x.
Section 10.2 Nested Quantifiers 75
Example 3 For every integer n 2, there exists an integer m such that n < m < 2n.
Proof. Let n be an integer greater than or equal to 2. We need to provide a value of m that
satisfies the property n < m < 2n. As the value of m may depend on n, we will try to
express m in terms of n.
Let m = n + 1. Since n is an integer, n + 1 must also be an integer, therefore m is indeed
an integer.
Notice that m = n + 1 > n. On the other hand, 2n = n + n. We are given that n 2,
therefore n + n n + 2 > n + 1. In other words, 2n > m. Thus, our proposed value of m
satisfies
n < m < 2n.

x S, y T
Use the select method to choose x as a representative of S. Construct y, possibly in terms
of x, and show that the resulting value of the expression is in T . Finally, demonstrate that
Q(x, y) is true.
Example 4 There exists a positive even integer s for which there exists a positive odd integer t such
that 2s + 3t is prime.
Proof. Let s = 2 and t = 1. Then
22 + 31 = 4 + 3 = 7,
which is a prime. Therefore the given statement is true.

x S, y T
Find a value of x from S and a value of y from T . Show that Q(x, y) is satisfied.
10.2.1 Negating Nested Quantifiers
A statement involving nested quantified variables is negated layer-by-layer.

Here are the general rules:
1. ( x S, y T, Q(x, y)) x S, y T, Q(x, y)

2. ( x S, y T, Q(x, y)) x S, y T, Q(x, y)
3. ( x S, y T, Q(x, y)) x S, y T, Q(x, y)
4. ( x S, y T, Q(x, y)) x S, y T, Q(x, y)
For instance, the negation of the statement n N, m Z, n | m is given by

n N, m Z, n - m.
REMARK
To disprove a statement involving quantifiers, we usually just prove that the negation of
the statement is true.
10.3 More Examples with Nested Quantifiers
Prove or disprove each of the following statements.
1. There exists a non-negative integer k such that for every integer n, k < n.
Solution: The given statement is false. Let k be any non-negative integer. Consider
n = k 1. Then k > n. So we cannot find a non-negative integer k that would satisfy
k < n for all values of n.
2. For every two integers a and c, there exists an integer b such that a + b = c.
Solution: The given statement is true.
Proof: Let a, c Z. Suppose b = c a. Since a and c are integers, therefore c a

must also be an integer, thus b Z. Consequently,
a + b = a + (c a) = c.
3. For every set S where S N, there exists t S such that t 1.

Solution: The given statement is false. Let S = . Since the empty set is a subset
of all sets, then S N.
However, for the empty set, the statement t , t 1 is vacuously false. Hence
the empty set acts as a counter example to the above statement.
4. For every non-empty set S where S N, there exists t N such that t 1.
Solution: The given statement is true.
Proof: Suppose S is a non-empty subset of N. Since S is non-empty, it must have at

least one element, which we shall call t. As S N, we get t N.
Now, we know that 1 is the smallest positive integer. Thus, t N implies t 1.
Self Check 1 Prove or disprove the following statements.
1. Suppose S = {1, 3, 5} and T = {6, 14}. For every x S there exists some y T such
that x + y is a prime.
2. There exists a non-negative integer k such that for every non-negative integer n, k < n.
3. There exists a non-negative integer k such that for every positive integer n, k < n.
4. For every non-negative integer n, there exists a non-negative integer k such that k < n.
Section 10.4 Functions and Surjections 77
REMARK (Order of Nested Quantifiers)

It is important to keep track of the order in which the quantified variables appear in a
statement. It is also important to note the corresponding domain for each variable. Suppose
S and T are two sets, and Q(x, y) is an open sentence. Then
x S, y T, Q(x, y) is not logically equivalent to y T, x S, Q(x, y),
and
x S, y T, Q(x, y) is not logically equivalent to x T, y S, Q(x, y),
and
x S, y T, Q(x, y) is not logically equivalent to x T, y S, Q(x, y).
Exercise 1 Consider the following mathematical statements:
P : x R y R y 2 2xy + x2 2x + 2y 0,

Q : y R x R y 2 2xy + x2 2x + 2y 0 .
Prove that statement P is true and disprove statement Q.
10.4 Functions and Surjections
One of the most fundamental notions of modern mathematics is that of a function. You
may be familiar with the concept of functions from studying high school mathematics. We
may formally define functions with the help of nested quantifiers.
Definition 10.4.1 Let S and T be two sets. A function f from S to T , denoted by f : S T , is a rule that
Function, Domain, assigns to each element s S a unique element f (s) T . The set S is called the domain
Codomain, Value of the function and the set T is called the codomain. The element f (s) is called the value
of the function f at s.
In terms of nested quantifiers, f : S T is a function if and only if
For every s S, there exists a unique t T such that f (s) = t.
Sometimes a picture helps. In this case, Figure 10.4.1 illustrates when a rule is not a
function.
If there exists an element in the domain which maps to more than one element in the
codomain, then the given rule is not a function.
S T
Figure 10.4.1: NOT a Function
Example 5 Prove that f : Q Z defined by a

f =a+b
b
is not a function.
Solution: Note that 31 = 62 in Q. However, f 1 2

3 = 1 + 3 = 4, whereas f 6 = 2 + 6 = 8.
As 4 6= 8, f cannot be a function.
Suppose f : S T is a function with domain S and codomain T . The set of values that
can be obtained by the function f is a subset of T , known as the image of f . For example,
the familiar function sin x is often defined with domain R, codomain R and image [1, 1].
In special cases, the image of f and the codomain of f may be the same set.
Definition 10.4.2 Let S and T be two sets. A function f : S T is onto (or surjective) if and only if for
Onto, Surjective every y T there exists an x S so that f (x) = y.
More prosaically, every element of T is mapped to by some element of S.

In calculus, S and T are often equal to R or are subsets of R. Also in calculus and elsewhere,
you may see the word range to mean the codomain or the image. This usage is not consistent
throughout mathematics and we will not use the term range in this course.
The important observation for us is that the definition contains two quantifiers. The order
of quantifiers matters. We should be able to determine the structure of any proof that a
function is onto.
10.4.1 Graphically
As with the illustration of a rule that is not function, sometimes a picture helps to illustrate
when a function is not surjective. See Figure 10.4.2.
If there exists an element in the codomain which is not the value of any element in the
domain, then the given function is not surjective.
S T
Figure 10.4.2: NOT Surjective
10.4.2 Reading a Proof About Surjection
Lets work through an example.
Proposition 1 Let m 6= 0 and b be fixed real numbers. The function f : R R defined by f (x) = mx + b
is onto.
1. Let y R.
2. Consider x = (y b)/m.
3. Since y R, x R.
4. But then f (x) = f ((y b)/m) = m((y b)/m) + b = y as needed.
Lets perform an analysis of this proof.
Analysis of Proof The definition of onto uses a nested quantifier.
Hypothesis: m 6= 0 and b are fixed real numbers, and f (x) = mx + b.

Conclusion: f (x) is onto.
Core Proof Technique: y S, x T
Preliminary Material: Let us remind ourselves of the definition of the defining
property of onto as it applies in this situation.
For every y R there exists x R so that f (x) = y.
Sentence 1 Let y R.
The first quantifier in the definition of onto is a universal quantifier so the author uses
the select method. That is, the author chooses an element, y, in the domain, R. The
author must now show that the open sentence is satisfied (there exists an x R so
that f (x) = y).
Sentence 2 Consider x = (y b)/m.

The second quantifier in the definition is a nested existential quantifier so the author
uses the construct method. The constructed object in this example is not surprising
we can simply solve for x in y = mx + b. In general, though, it can be difficult to
construct a suitable object. Note also that the choice of x depends on y so it is not
surprising that x is a function of y.
Sentence 3 Since y R, x R.
Because this step is usually straightforward, it is often omitted. It is included here to
emphasize that the constructed object lies in the appropriate domain.
Sentence 4 But then f (x) = f ((y b)/m) = m((y b)/m) + b = y as needed.

Here the author confirms that the open sentence is satisfied.
10.4.3 Discovering a Proof About Surjection
Having read a proof, lets discover one.
Proposition 2 The function f : [1, 2] [4, 7] defined by f (x) = x2 + 3 is onto.
We can begin with the basic proof structure that we discussed earlier.
Proof in Progress
1. Let y [4, 7].
2. Consider x = . . .. We must construct x.
3. Show that x [1, 2]. To be completed.
4. Now we show that f (x) = y. To be completed.
What is our candidate value for x? Since x must satisfy
y = x2 + 3
we can solve for x to get p

x= y3
Since we want x [1, 2], we will choose the positive square root. Lets update the proof in
progress.
Proof in Progress
1. Let y [4, 7].


2. Consider x = y 3.
3. Show that x [1, 2]. To be completed.
It is not immediately obvious that x [1, 2]. Some arithmetic manipulation with inequalities
helps us here. Since y [4, 7], we know that
4y7
Subtracting three gives
1y34
Now taking the positive square root gives
p
1 y32

and since x = y 3 we have
1x2
which is exactly what we need. We can update our proof in progress.
Proof in Progress
1. Let y [4, 7].

2. Consider x = y 3.
3. Now
p
4 y 7 = 1 y 3 4 = 1 y 3 2 = 1 x 2.
Substitution will give us the last step. Here is a complete proof. Note that techniques are
not named and the steps in the arithmetic are not explicitly justified. These are left to the
reader.

Proof: Let y [4, 7]. Consider x = y 3. Now
p
4 y 7 = 1 y 3 4 = 1 y 3 2 = 1 x 2.
Since
f (x) = x2 + 3 = ( y 3)2 + 3 = y
p
f is onto.
The choice of the domain and codomain for the function is important. Consider the state-
ment
Statement 3 The function f : R R defined by f (x) = x2 + 3 is onto.
This is very similar to the proposition we just proved, and you might think that the same
proof would work. But it doesnt. Consider the choice y = 0 R. What value of x maps to
0? Since f (x) = x2 + 3 3 for all real numbers x, there is no choice of x so that f (x) = 0,
and Statement 3 is false.
Part III
More Proof Techniques
82
Chapter 11
Contrapositives and Other Proof

Techniques
11.1 Objectives
1. Learn how to prove statements using the contrapositive.
2. Develop proof methods for more complicated implications.
11.2 Proof by Contrapositive
We now have some basic idea about implications and the direct proof method for proving
implications. The recipe for a direct proof is simple: assume that the hypothesis is true
and use it to prove the conclusion. Unfortunately, there are several implications that are
very difficult to prove using a direct proof.
Example 1 Let x be a real number. Consider the implication
If x5 3x4 + 2x3 x2 + 4x 1 0, then x 0.
Let us try to prove this implication using a direct proof. If we assume that the hypothesis
x5 3x4 + 2x3 x2 + 4x 1 0 is true, then we have a monstrous polynomial inequality
to deal with. It will be very difficult to try to get information about x from this hypothesis
alone. We must find a better method to solve this problem.
Definition 11.2.1 The statement B = A is called the contrapositive of A = B.

Contrapositive
We can use truth tables to show that (A = B) (B = A).
A B A = B B A B = A
T T T F F T
T F F T F F
F T T F T T
F F T T T T
83
84 Chapter 11 Contrapositives and Other Proof Techniques
The logical equivalence of an implication and its contrapositive is extremely useful. If

proving A = B seems difficult, we could try to prove B = A instead. It may be
easier!
Proof Method We want to prove A = B.

Proving the
Contrapositive Replace the given implication A = B with its contrapositive B = A. Next, prove
the implication B = A, usually through a direct proof.
That is, assume B is true and thus try to deduce that A must be true as well.
Since the two statements are logically equivalent, proving B = A is true establishes
that A = B is true as well.
Example 2 From the previous example, replace the given implication - if x5 3x4 +2x3 x2 +4x1 0,
then x 0 - by its contrapositive
If x < 0 then x5 3x4 + 2x3 x2 + 4x 1 < 0.
We will now prove this contrapositive using a direct proof. Let us assume that x < 0. Then
x5 < 0, 2x3 < 0 and 4x < 0. In addition, 3x4 < 0, x2 < 0 and 1 < 0. As all the terms
are negative, we add them to get
x5 3x4 + 2x3 x2 + 4x 1 < 0.
Since the contrapositive is true, the original implication must be true as well.
When To Use The Contrapositive
Suppose you need to prove the statement A = B. Use the contrapositive when the
statement NOT A or the statement NOT B gives you useful information. This is most
likely to occur when A or B contains a negation. Especially when both A and B contain
negations, it is highly likely that using the contrapositive will be productive.
Another possible motivation for using contrapositive may come from the statements A or
B themselves. If A or B contains a condition that is one of only two possibilities, then the
negation, which indicates the second possibility, may be useful. For example, an integer
can be either odd or even (not both). So if we have a statement about an even integer, the
contrapositive will give us a statement about an odd integer.
In addition to that, we often use the method of contrapositve when the hypothesis of an
implication looks more complicated than the conclusion.
Finally, these are just rules of thumb. There are no rules that tell you exactly when the
contrapositive should be used. However, with practice, you should develop a feel for when
it is a good technique to attempt.
Section 11.2 Proof by Contrapositive 85
Reading a Proof That Uses the Contrapositive
Consider the following proposition.
Proposition 1 Suppose a is an integer. If 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)) then a is even.
1. We will prove the contrapositive.
2. If a is odd we can write a as 2k + 1 for some integer k.
3. Substitution gives
(a2 + 3)(a2 + 7) = ((2k + 1)2 + 3)((2k + 1)2 + 7)

= (4k 2 + 4k + 1 + 3)(4k 2 + 4k + 1 + 7)
= (4k 2 + 4k + 4)(4k 2 + 4k + 8)
= 4(k 2 + k + 1) 4(k 2 + k + 2)
= 16(k 2 + k + 1)(k 2 + k + 2)
4. Since one of the consecutive integers k 2 + k + 1 or k 2 + k + 2 must be even, and the last
line above shows that a factor of 16 already exists disjoint from (k 2 +k +1)(k 2 +k +2),
(a2 + 3)(a2 + 7) must contain a factor of 32. That is, 32 | ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).
Analysis of Proof As usual, we begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: A: 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).

Conclusion: B: a is even.
Since the hypothesis of the proposition contains a negation, and the conclusion is one
of two possible choices, it makes sense to consider the contrapositive.
For the contrapositive
Hypothesis: NOT B: a is odd.

Conclusion: NOT A: 32 | ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7))
Sentence 1 We will prove the contrapositive.

Not all authors will be so obliging as to state the proof technique up front. The
provided proof would also be correct if this sentence was omitted. Correct, but harder
to understand.
Sentence 2 If a is odd we can write a as 2k + 1 for some integer k.

This is the statement NOT B. Knowing from Sentence 1 that the author is using the
contrapositive we would expect to see statements moving forward from the hypothesis
of the contrapositive (a is odd) or backwards from the conclusion of the contrapositive
(32 | ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7))).
Sentence 3 Substitution gives (a2 + 3)(a2 + 7) = . . . = 16(k 2 + k + 1)(k 2 + k + 2).

This is just arithmetic.
Sentence 4 Since one of the consecutive integers k 2 + k + 1 or k 2 + k + 2 must be even, and

the last line above shows that a factor of 16 already exists disjoint from (k 2 +k+1)(k 2 +
k + 2), (a2 + 3)(a2 + 7) must contain a factor of 32. That is, 32 | ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).
These sentences establish the conclusion of the contrapositive. Since the contrapositive
is true, the original statement is true.
11.3 More Complicated Implications
We have seen that the hypothesis and conclusion of an implication can be compound state-
ments. Let us look as some examples that outline the process for proving implications where
the hypothesis or conclusion is of the form (P Q) or (P Q). The logical equivalences
mentioned here can be proved using truth tables.
We have already seen examples where the hypothesis and conclusion include the AND
logical operator. These situations are not actually all that complicated.
Proof Method To prove If A and B then C:

(A B) = C
Nothing new needs to be considered in this case. A direct proof would begin by assuming
that both A and B are true and continue to establish that C must be true. If A and B
involve negations, then the contrapositive may be helpful and will lead us to a situation
described below.
Example 3 Look back at our propositions involving divisibility. Our results Transitivity of Divisibility
(TD), Divisibility of Integer Combinations (DIC) and Bounds By Divisibility (BBD) all
involve a hypotheses of the form (A B).
Proof Method To prove If A then B and C:

A = (B C)
Prove the logically equivalent statement (A = B) (A = C).
Example 4 Let p, q and r be prime numbers. Prove that
if p2 | qr then p = q and p = r.
We will prove the following two implications
1. if p2 | qr then p = q, and
2. if p2 | qr then p = r
are true.
Section 11.3 More Complicated Implications 87
Proof: Assume p2 | qr.

Since r is an integer, q | p2 . As p is a prime, the only factors of p2 are 1, p and p2 . However,
q is prime so q 6= 1 and q 6= p2 , therefore q = p. This proves the first implication.
Again, assume p2 | qr.
Since q is an integer, r | p2 . As p is a prime, the only factors of p2 are 1, p and p2 . However,
r is prime so r 6= 1 and r 6= p2 , therefore r = p. This proves the second implication.
REMARK
Both subproofs in the previous example use the exact same logic, and in fact the second
is a word-for-word rewrite of the first if we simply switch the variables q and r.
In proofs like these, it is redundant to go through both cases. Often, we use the phrase
without loss of generality or the word and only show one case. It is implied that the
other case will be proved in exactly the same way apart from some obvious interchange of
variables. Some authors will write that the second case follows similarly.
We will see this again in the next example.
Proof Method To prove If A or B then C:

(A B) = C
Prove the logically equivalent statement (A = C) (B = C).
Example 5 Let a, b and c be integers. Prove the implication
If a | b or a | c then a | (bc).
We prove the above implication by proving that both
1. if a | b then a | (bc), and
2. if a | c then a | (bc)
are true. Notice that the two cases are nearly identical.
Proof: Without loss of generality, assume a | b. Since b | (bc), by Transitivity of Divisibility

(TD), a | (bc).
Warning: It takes some experience and expertise in mathematics to know when we can
write a proof without loss of generality. It is best to avoid using this if you are not confident
in your approach. In general, it is not correct to prove A = C and immediately conclude
that (A B) = C. A simple example of this is when A is false, B is true, and C is false.
11.3.1 Method of Elimination
The remaining situation to consider is an implication of the form A = (B C). It

tends to cause novice mathematicians more trouble than the previous situations. The most
common approach to proving a statement of this form is sometimes called the method of
elimination. We begin with an important exercise.
Exercise 1 Prove that

A = (B C) is logically equivalent to (A B) = C
Proof Method To prove If A then B or C:

A = (B C)
Prove the logically equivalent statement If A and B, then C.
Example 6 Consider the following statement for some x R.
If x2 7x + 12 0, then x 3 or x 4.
1. Suppose that x2 7x + 12 0 and x > 3.
2. Factoring gives (x 3)(x 4) 0.
3. Since x > 3, x 3 > 0.
4. Dividing the inequality in Sentence 2 by x 3 gives x 4 0, or
5. Therefore x 4 as desired.
11.4 Summary Examples
Example 7 Let x be a real number. Consider the following statement about x:
Statement 2 If x2 3x + 2 0 then x is between 1 and 2 (inclusive).
1. Rewrite the given statement in symbolic form.

Solution: x2 3x + 2 0 = (1 x 2).

2. State the hypothesis of Statement 2.

Solution: x2 3x + 2 0.
Section 11.4 Summary Examples 89
3. State the conclusion of Statement 2.

Solution: 1 x 2.
4. State the negation of Statement 2 without using the word not or the symbol.
Solution: x2 3x + 2 0 [(x < 1) (x > 2)].

5. State the contrapositive of Statement 2.

x2 3x + 2 > 0

Solution: [(x < 1) (x > 2)] =
6. Prove or disprove Statement 2.

Solution: Statement 2 is true.
Proof: We shall prove the given statement through its contrapositive:
[(x < 1) (x > 2)] = x2 3x + 2 > 0 .

Assume that (x < 1) or (x > 2). For a real number x, since x < 1 and x > 2 cannot
be true simultaneously, this gives us two cases to work with.
Case I: Assume x < 1. Note that x2 3x + 2 can be factored as (x 1)(x 2). Since
x < 1, therefore both (x 1) < 0 and (x 2) < 0. Thus, their product (x 1)(x 2)
must be positve. Hence x2 3x + 2 > 0.
Case II: Assume x > 2. Then (x 1) > 0 and (x 2) > 0. Once again, the product
(x 1)(x 2) must be positive, so x2 3x + 2 > 0.
Self Check 1 Analyze the proof above. Make sure to justify each sentence.
Self Check 2 Let U be a universal set containing sets S and T . Consider the following statement.
Statement 3
ST ST
This may be mystifying. How is this connected to the other examples in this chapter? But
lets rephrase the statement as
If x S T , then x S T
or
If x S T , then x S or x T
Now the implication and use of the word or is apparent. Prove this rephrased statement.
Chapter 12
Proofs by Contradiction
12.1 Objectives
1. To learn how to read and discover proofs by contradiction.
2. Read a proof of Prime Factorization.
3. Discover a proof of Infinitely Many Primes.
Let us begin with a riddle. Suppose a group of three mathematicians and four engineers
are seated at a round table. Assuming there are no empty chairs, is it possible to make sure
that no two engineers sit next to each other?
We may answer the riddle in the following way. Suppose each engineer sits between two
mathematicians. Then there must be a mathematician to the right of each engineer, so
we get that there must be at least four mathematicians at the table. However, the riddle
stipulates that there are three mathematicians in the group, so saying that there are four
or more mathematicians at the table does not make any sense.
We reached a conclusion that must be false. The only way this can happen is if our initial
assumptions was also false, that is, it is not possible for each engineer to sit between two
mathematicians. In other words, we have proven that there must be at least two engineers
who sit next to each other. We have just seen an example of a proof by contradiction.
12.2 Proof by Contradiction
Definition 12.2.1 Let A be a statement. Note that either A or A must be false, so the compound statement
Contradiction A (A) is always false. The statement A (A) is true is called a contradiction.
In other words, any time we come across an argument that claims both A and A to be
true, we say that there must be a contradiction in the argument.
90
Section 12.2 Proof by Contradiction 91
Proof Method Suppose we are trying to prove statement C.

Proof by
Contradiction Start with the assumption that C is false (or that C is true).
Use a series of true implications to deduce that a statement A is true as a direct consequence
of C being false, where A is also true because of an earlier assumption or because of some
proposition that we have already proven.
As a result, we get a situation where A (A) is true, also known as a contradiction. Since
A (A) must be false, we trace back our steps to conclude that our initial assumption is
not correct.
Thus, we have proven that C is true.
Suppose that we wish to prove that the statement A implies B is true. To use a contra-
diction, we must assume that (A = B) is true. Hence, our assumption becomes A
is true and B is false. We must now proceed to find a contradiction. Let us demonstrate
this with an example.
Example 1 Let a, b and c be integers. Prove that if a | (b + c) and a - b, then a - c.

Solution: Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that a | (b + c) and a - b and a | c.
Since a | (b + c) and a | c, then by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations (DIC), we get
that
a | [(1)(b + c) + (1)(c)],
or in other words, a | b.
Note that a part of our initial assumptions was that a - b, and now we have concluded that
a | b. This is a contradiction.
As a result, the implication if a | (b + c) and a - b, then a - c must be true.
12.2.1 When to Use Contradiction
We have mostly used the direct method to discover proofs, often in conjunction with one
of the methods associated with quantifiers. There are times when this is difficult. A proof
by contradiction provides a new method. Unfortunately, it is not always clear what
contradiction to find, or how to find it. What is more clear is when to use contradiction.
The general rule of thumb is to use contradiction when the statement NOT B gives you
more useful information that B, the statement you wish to prove. There are typically two
instances when this is useful. The first instance is when the statement B is one of only two
alternatives. For example, if the conclusion B is the statement f (x) = 0 then the only two
possibilities are f (x) = 0 and f (x) 6= 0. NOT B is the statement f (x) 6= 0 which could be
useful to you. The second instance is when B contains a negation. As we saw earlier, NOT
B eliminates the negation.
92 Chapter 12 Proofs by Contradiction
REMARK
There is a subtle connection between a proof by contrapositive and a proof by contradiction
for an implication A = B. In a proof by contradiction, we would start by assuming
A (B) is true and one possible contradiction to deduce is that A must be false. However,
this is similar to proving the contrapositive B = A.
So a proof by contrapositive may be viewed as a very special instance of a proof by contra-
diction.
12.2.2 A More Substantial Proof by Contradiction
Suppose we want to prove the following proposition.
Proposition 1 (Prime Factorization (PF))

Let n N. If n is an integer greater than 1, then n can be expressed as a product of primes.
Example 2 The integers 2, 3, 5 and 7 are primes and mathematicians use the convention that a number
by itself is a product. The integers 4 = 2 2, 6 = 2 3 and 8 = 2 2 2 have been factored
as products of primes.
1. Let N be the smallest integer, greater than 1, that cannot be written as a product of
primes.
2. Now, N is not itself a prime, so we can write N = rs where 1 < r s < N .
3. Since r and s are less than N , they can be written as a product of primes.
4. But then it follows that N = rs can be written as a product of primes, a contradiction.
Analysis of Proof An interpretation of sentences 1 through 4 follows.
Sentence 1 Let N be the smallest integer, greater than 1, that cannot be written as a
product of primes.
The first sentence of a proof by contradiction usually gives the specific form of NOT
B that the author is going to work with. In this case, the author identifies that this is
a proof by contradiction by assuming the existence of an object which contradicts the
conclusion, an integer N which cannot be written as a product of primes. Moreover,
of all such candidates for N the author chooses the smallest one. Though it may not
be obvious when first encountering the proof why the author would stipulate such a
condition, it always has to do with something needed later in the argument.
Once you know that this is a proof by contradiction, look ahead to find the contra-
diction. In this case, the contradiction appears in Sentence 4.
Sentence 2 Now, N is not itself a prime, so we can write N = rs where 1 < r s < N .
If N were prime, then N by itself is a product of primes (with just one factor). But
the author has assumed that N is not a product of primes, hence N is composite and
can be written as the product of two non-trivial factors r and s.
Sentence 3 Since r and s are less than N , they can be written as a product of primes.
This sentence makes it clear why N needs to be the smallest integer that cannot be
written as a product of primes. In order to generate the contradiction, r and s must
be written as products of primes. If it were the case that N was not the smallest such
integer, it might be the case that neither r nor s could be written as a product of
primes.
Sentence 4 But then it follows that N = rs can be written as a product of primes, a
contradiction.
Since both r and s can be written as a product of primes, the product rs = N can
certainly be written as a product of primes. But this contradicts the assumption in
Sentence 1 that N cannot be written as a product of primes.
Since our reasoning is correct, it must be the case that our assumption that there is an
integer which cannot be written as a product of primes is incorrect. That is, every integer
can be written as a product of primes.
REMARK
A subtle point needs to be addressed. In Sentence 1, we choose the smallest integer N from
a set of positive integers. How do we know such an integer exists? When assuming this,
we are actually relying on the well-ordering principle which famously states that every
non-empty set of positive integers contains at least one element.
12.2.3 Discovering and Writing a Proof by Contradiction
Discovering a proof by contradiction can be difficult and often requires several attempts at
finding the path to a contradiction. Lets see how we might discover a proof to a famous
theorem recorded by Euclid.
Proposition 2 (Euclids Theorem (ET))

The number of primes is infinite.
We should always be clear about our hypothesis and conclusion. There is no explicit hy-
pothesis in this case and the conclusion is the statement
Conclusion: The number of primes is infinite.
This statement contains a negation, infinite is an abbreviation of not finite, and so is a

candidate for a proof by contradiction. Our first statement in a proof by contradiction is a
negation of the conclusion so we have
Proof in Progress
94 Chapter 12 Proofs by Contradiction
1. Assume that the number of primes is finite. (This is NOT B.)
2. To be completed.
Now comes the tough part. What do we do from here? How do we generate a contradiction?
Well, if the number of primes is finite, could we somehow use that assumption to find a
new prime not in our finite list of primes? Our candidate should not have any of the
finite primes as a factor. At this point, it sounds like we need to list our primes.
Proof in Progress
2. Label the finite number of primes p1 , p2 , p3 , . . . , pn .
3. To be completed.
Now we have a way to express a candidate for a new prime.

Proof in Progress
3. Consider the integer N = p1 p2 p3 pn + 1.
4. To be completed.
Clearly N is larger than any of the pi so, by the first sentence, N cannot be in the list of
primes. Thus
Proof in Progress
4. Since N > pi for all i, N is not a prime.
5. To be completed.
This is where we can find our contradiction. The value N has no non-trivial factors since
dividing N by any of the pi leaves a remainder of 1. But that means N cannot be written
as a product of primes, which contradicts the previous proposition. The contradiction in
this proof arises from a result which is inconsistent with something else we have proved.
Proof in Progress

4. Since N > pi for all i, N is not a prime.
5. Since N = pi q + 1 for each of the primes pi , no pi is a factor of N . Hence N cannot

be written as a product of primes, which contradicts our previous proposition.
Putting all of the statements together gives the following proof.
Proof: Assume that there are only a finite number of primes, say p1 , p2 , p3 , . . . , pn . Consider
the integer N = p1 p2 p3 pn + 1. Since N > pi for all i, N is not a prime. But N = pi q + 1
for each of the primes pi , so no pi is a factor of N . Hence N cannot be written as a product
of primes, which contradicts our previous proposition.
Chapter 13
Uniqueness, Injections and the

Division Algorithm
13.1 Objectives
1. Learn how to prove a statement about uniqueness.
2. Prove the uniqueness of the quotient and the remainder from the Division Algorithm.
13.2 Introduction
Proof Method To prove a statement of the form

Uniqueness
If . . ., then there is a unique object x in the set S such that P (x) is true.
there are basically two approaches.
1. Demonstrate that there is at least one object in the set S that satisfies P (X).
Assume that there are two objects X and Y in the set S such that P (X) and P (Y )
are true. Show that X = Y .
2. Demonstrate that there is at least one object in the set S that satisfies P (X).
Assume that there are two distinct objects X and Y in the set S such that P (X)
and P (Y ) are true. Derive a contradiction.
You can use whichever is easier in the given circumstance.
96
Section 13.4 Showing X = Y 97
13.3 Showing X = Y
The method is as follows.
1. Demonstrate that there is at least one object in the set S that satisfies P .
2. Assume that there are two objects X and Y in the set S such that P (X) and P (Y )
are true.
3. Show that X = Y .
For example, let us prove the following statement.
Proposition 1 If a and b are integers with a 6= 0 and a | b, then there is a unique integer k so that b = ka.
As usual, we begin by explicitly identifying the hypothesis and conclusion.
Hypothesis: a and b are integers with a 6= 0 and a | b.
Conclusion: There is a unique integer k so that b = ka.
The appearance of unique in the conclusion tells us to use one of the two approaches
described in the previous section. In this case, we will assume the existence of two integers
k1 and k2 and show that k1 = k2 . But first, we need to show that at least one integer k
exists, and this follows immediately from the definition of divisibility.
Proof in Progress
1. Since a | b, at least one integer k exists so that b = ka.
2. Let k1 and k2 be integers such that b = k1 a and b = k2 a. (Note how closely this
follows the standard pattern where k1 corresponds to X, and k2 corresponds to Y .
Both come from the set of integers and if P (x) is the statement b = xa, then P (X)
and P (Y ) are assumed to be true.)
3. To be completed.
4. Hence, k1 = k2 .
The obvious thing to do is equate the two equations to get
k1 a = k2 a
Since a is not zero we can divide both sides by a to get
k1 = k2
A proof might look like the following.
Proof: Since a | b, by the definition of divisibility there exists an integer k so that b = ka.
Now let k1 and k2 be integers such that b = k1 a and b = k2 a. But then k1 a = k2 a and
dividing by the non-zero value a gives k1 = k2 .
98 Chapter 13 Uniqueness, Injections and the Division Algorithm
13.4 Finding a Contradiction
The method is as follows.
1. Demonstrate that there is at least one object in the set S that satisfies P .
2. Assume that there are two distinct objects X and Y in the set S such that P (X)
and P (Y ) are true.
3. Derive a contradiction.
For example, let us prove the following statement.
Proposition 2 Suppose a solution to the simultaneous linear equations y = m1 x + b1 and y = m2 x + b2

exists. If m1 6= m2 , then there is a unique solution to the simultaneous linear equations
y = m1 x + b1 and y = m2 x + b2 .
As usual, we begin by explicitly identifying the hypothesis and conclusion.
Hypothesis: A solution to the simultaneous linear equations y = m1 x+b1 and y = m2 x+b2

exists, and m1 6= m2 .
Conclusion: There is a unique solution to the simultaneous linear equations y = m1 x + b1

and y = m2 x + b2 .
The appearance of unique in the conclusion tells us to use one of the two approaches
described in the previous section. In this case, we will assume the existence of two distinct
points of intersection and derive a conclusion.
Proof in Progress
1. Suppose that y = m1 x + b1 and y = m2 x + b2 intersect in the distinct points (x1 , y1 )

and (x2 , y2 ). (The existence of at least one solution is guaranteed by the hypothesis.
Note again how closely this follows the standard pattern where (x1 , y1 ) corresponds to
X, and (x2 , y2 ) corresponds to Y . Both come from the set of ordered pairs and both
satisfy the statement are a solution to the simultaneous linear equations y = m1 x+b1
and y = m2 x + b2 .)
2. To be completed, hence a contradiction.
But now if we substitute (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) into y = m1 x + b1 we get
y1 = m1 x1 + b1 (13.1)
y2 = m1 x2 + b1 (13.2)
which implies that

y1 y2 = m1 (x1 x2 )
Similarly, substituting (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) into y = m2 x + b2 gives
y1 y2 = m2 (x1 x2 )
Section 13.5 One-to-one (Injective) 99
Equating the two expressions for y1 y2 gives
(m1 m2 )(x1 x2 ) = 0
Since m1 6= m2 , m1 m2 6= 0 and we can divide by (m1 m2 ). This gives x1 x2 = 0.

That is, x1 = x2 . But then,
y1 y2 = m1 (x1 x2 ) and x1 x2 = 0
imply
y1 y2 = 0
That is, y1 = y2 . But then the points (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) are not distinct, a contradiction.
13.5 One-to-one (Injective)
You may already be familiar with the concept of one-to-one functions, also known as injec-
tions. Let us now write a formal definition of one-to-one functions.
Definition 13.5.1 Let S and T be two sets. A function f : S T is one-to-one (or injective) if and only if
One-to-one, for every x1 S and every x2 S, f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies that x1 = x2 .
Injective
We should be able to recognize that the definition above contains the concept of uniqueness,
although it is not spelled out explicitly. In particular, according to the above definition, a
function f is one-to-one if and only for a given element y from the image of f , there is a
unique x S such that y = f (x).
Lets work through an example. Notice how closely the proof follows the structure of a
uniqueness proof.
Proposition 3 Let m 6= 0 and b be fixed real numbers. The function f : R R defined by f (x) = mx + b
is one-to-one.
1. Let x1 , x2 S.
2. Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ).
3. Now we show that x1 = x2 .
4. Since f (x1 ) = f (x2 ), mx1 + b = mx2 + b.
5. Subtracting b from both sides and dividing by the non-zero m gives x1 = x2 as

required.
Lets perform an analysis of this proof.

Analysis of Proof The definition of one-to-one uses a nested quantifier.
Hypothesis: m 6= 0 and b are fixed real numbers, and f (x) = mx + b.

Conclusion: f (x) is one-to-one.
Core Proof Technique: x S, y T and uniqueness.
Preliminary Material: Let us remind ourselves of the definition of the defining
property of one-to-one as it applies in this situation.
For every x1 R and every x2 R, f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies that x1 = x2 .
Sentence 1 Let x1 , x2 R.
The author combines the first two sentences of the structure of a one-to-one proof into
a single sentence. This works because both of the first two quantifiers in the definition
are universal quantifiers and so the author uses the select method twice. That is, the
author chooses elements x1 and x2 in the domain R. The author must now show that
the open sentence is satisfied. That is, f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies that x1 = x2 .
Sentences 2 and 3 Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ). Now we show that x1 = x2 .

The open sentence that must be verified is an implication, and f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) is the
hypothesis. To prove an implication, we assume the hypothesis and demonstrate that
the conclusion, x1 = x2 , is true.
Sentence 3 Since f (x1 ) = f (x2 ), mx1 + b = mx2 + b.

This is just substitution.
Sentence 4 Subtracting b from both sides and dividing by the non-zero m gives x1 = x2 as
required.
Here the author confirms that the open sentence is satisfied. Observe that the hy-
pothesis m 6= 0 is used here.
13.5.1 Discovering a proof about injections
Having read a proof, lets discover one.
Proposition 4 The function f : [1, 2] [4, 7] defined by f (x) = x2 + 3 is one-to-one.
We can begin with the basic proof structure that we discussed earlier.
Proof in Progress
1. Let x1 , x2 [1, 2].
2. Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ).
3. Now we show that x1 = x2 . To be completed.

Section 13.5 One-to-one (Injective) 101
The obvious starting point is to write down f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) and see if algebraic manipulation
can take us to x1 = x2 . And that is indeed the case.
f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) = x21 + 3 = x22 + 3 = x21 = x22
We need to be careful here since x21 = x22 does not generally imply x1 = x2 . For example,
x1 = 5 and x2 = 5 satisfy x21 = x22 but not x1 = x2 . However, in this case because
the domain is [1, 2] we are justified in taking the positive square root and concluding that
x1 = x2 . Here is a complete proof.
Proof: Let x1 , x2 [1, 2]. Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ). But then x21 + 3 = x22 + 3 and
so x21 = x22 . Since x1 , x2 [1, 2] we can take the positive square root of both sides to get
x1 = x2 .
Just as with onto functions, the choice of the domain and codomain for the function is
important. Consider the statement
Statement 5 The function f : R R defined by f (x) = x2 + 3 is one-to-one.
This is very similar to the proposition we just proved, but this statement is false. It is easier
to see why by working with the contrapositive of f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) x1 = x2 . Recall that the
contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement. For one-to-one functions, we
can make the following statement which is equivalent to the definition.
Statement 6 Let S and T be two sets. A function f : S T is one-to-one (or injective) if and only if
for every x1 S and every x2 S, if x1 6= x2 , then f (x1 ) 6= f (x2 ).
For the function f (x) = x2 + 3, consider x1 = 1 and x2 = 1. It is indeed the case

that x1 6= x2 , but f (x1 ) = 4 = f (x2 ) which contradicts the definition of one-to-one. So,
f : R R defined by f (x) = x2 + 3 is not one-to-one.
13.5.2 Graphically
As with the illustration of a function that is not surjective, sometimes a picture helps to
illustrate when a function is not injective. See Figure 13.5.1.
If there exists an element in the codomain which is the value of more than one element in
the domain, then the given function is not injective.
S T
Figure 13.5.1: NOT Injective
13.6 The Division Algorithm
In this section, we will see the partial proof of an important proposition about divisibility
of integers.
Proposition 7 (Division Algorithm)

If a and b are integers and b > 0, then there exist unique integers q and r such that
a = qb + r where 0 r < b
If the statement of Division Algorithm, the integer a is called the dividend and b is called
the divisor. The corresponding q is called the quotient and r is called the remainder.
Suppose that in a proof of the Division Algorithm it has already been established that
integers q and r exist and only uniqueness remains. A proposed proof of uniqueness follows.
1. Suppose that a = q1 b + r1 with 0 r1 < b. Also, suppose that a = q2 b + r2 with

0 r2 < b and r1 6= r2 .
2. Without loss of generality, we can assume r1 < r2 .
3. Then 0 < r2 r1 < b and
4. (q1 q2 )b = r2 r1 .
5. Hence b | (r2 r1 ).
6. By Bounds By Divisibility, b r2 r1 which contradicts the fact that r2 r1 < b.
7. Therefore, the assumption that r1 6= r2 is false and in fact r1 = r2 .
8. But then (q1 q2 )b = r2 r1 implies q1 = q2 .

Section 13.6 The Division Algorithm 103
Lets make sure that we understand every line of the proof.
Sentence 1 Suppose that a = q1 b + r1 with 0 r1 < b. Also, suppose that a = q2 b + r2

with 0 r2 < b and r1 6= r2 .
Since a statement about uniqueness appears in the conclusion, we would expect one
of the two uniqueness methods to be used. In fact, both are used. The assertion of
uniqueness applies to both q and r. Since the author writes r1 6= r2 , that is, there are
distinct values of r1 and r2 , we should look for a contradiction regarding r. But the
author does not assume distinct values of q and so we would expect that the author
will show q1 = q2 .
Sentence 2 Without loss of generality, we can assume r1 < r2 .

Without loss of generality is an expression that means the upcoming argument
would hold identically if we made any other choice, so we will simply assume one of
the possibilities.
Sentence 3 Then 0 < r2 r1 < b and

This is a particularly important line. It comes, in part, from r1 < r2 by subtracting r1
from both sides (this gives 0 < r2 r1 ) and by remembering that the largest possible
value of r2 is b 1 and the smallest possible value of r1 is 0, so the largest possible
difference is b 1, thus r2 r1 < b. Stop to make sure you understand this argument
as it can be difficult to follow the first time you see it, and we will use it again later
in the course.
Sentence 4 (q1 q2 )b = r2 r1 .
This follows from equating a = q1 b + r1 and a = q2 b + r2 .
Sentence 5 Hence b | (r2 r1 ).

This follows from the definition of divisibility.
Sentence 6 By BBD, b r2 r1 which contradicts the fact that r2 r1 < b.

Note the importance of the strict inequality in the relation
b r2 r1 < b.
Sentence 7 Therefore, the assumption that r1 6= r2 is false and in fact r1 = r2 .

The contradiction we were looking for. The Division Algorithm states that both q
and r are unique. So far, only the uniqueness of r has been established.
Sentence 7 But then (q1 q2 )b = r2 r1 implies q1 = q2 .

And this is where the uniqueness of q is established. Originally, the author assumed
the existence of q1 and q2 and now has shown that they are, in fact, the same.
Chapter 14
Simple Induction
14.1 Objectives
1. Learn how to use sum and product notation, and recognize recurrence relations.
2. Learn how to use The Principle of Mathematical Induction.
14.2 Notation
Suppose we had 10 spheres of radii from 1 to 10 and wanted the total volume? How would
we express this? What if there were 100 spheres? It helps to have notation for this. This
section introduces sum, product and recursive notation that you may not be familiar with.
14.2.1 Summation Notation
The sum of the first ten perfect squares could be written as
12 + 22 + 32 + + 102
10
X
In mathematics, a more compact notation is used often: i2 .
i=1
Definition 14.2.1 The notation

n
X
Summation xi
Notation
i=m
is called summation notation and it represents the sum
xm + xm+1 + xm+2 + + xn
P
The summation symbol, , is the upper case Greek letter sigma. The letter i is the index
of summation; the letter m is the lower bound of summation, and the letter n is the
upper bound of summation. The notation means that the index i begins with an initial
value of m and increments by 1 stopping when i = n. The index of summation is a dummy
variable and any letter could be used in its place.
104
Section 14.2 Notation 105
Example 1
7
X
i2 = 32 + 42 + 52 + 62 + 72
i=3
3
X
sin(k) = sin(0) + sin() + sin(2) + sin(3)
k=0
n
X 1 1 1 1
2
= 1 + + + + 2
i 4 9 n
i=1
There are a number of rules that help us manipulate sums.
Proposition 1 (Properties of Summation)
1. Multiplying by a constant
n
X n
X
cxi = c xi where c is a constant
i=m i=m
2. Adding two sums and subtracting two sums

n
X n
X n
X
xi + yi = (xi + yi )
i=m i=m i=m
n
X n
X n
X
xi yi = (xi yi )
i=m i=m i=m
3. Changing the bounds of the index of summation

n
X n+k
X
xi = xik
i=m i=m+k
The first two properties tell us that summation is linear. They require indices with the
same upper and lower bounds. The last property allows us to change the bounds of the
index of summation, which is often useful when combining summation expressions.
Self Check 1 Restate the following using summation notation:
The sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 .
14.2.2 Product Notation

P
Just asQsummation notation using is an algebraic shorthand for a sum, product notation
using is an algebraic shorthand for a product.
106 Chapter 14 Simple Induction
Definition 14.2.2 The notation

n
Y
Product Notation xi
i=m
is called product notation and it represents the product
xm xm+1 xm+2 xn
Q
The product symbol, , is the upper case Greek letter pi. The index i and the upper and
lower bounds m and n behave just as they do for sums.
Example 2 n
Y 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 = 1 1 1 1 2
i 4 9 16 n
i=2
14.2.3 Recurrence Relations
You are accustomed to seeing mathematical expressions in one of two ways: iterative and
closed form. For example, the sum of the first n integers can be expressed iteratively as
1 + 2 + 3 + + n
or in closed form as
n(n + 1)
2
There is a third way.
Definition 14.2.3 A recurrence relation is an equation that defines a sequence of numbers and which is
Recurrence Relation generated by one or more initial terms, and expressions involving prior terms.
Example 3 (Sum of First n Integers)

We can define the sum of the first n terms recursively as
f (1) = 1 and
f (n) = f (n 1) + n for n > 1
You are probably familiar with the Fibonacci sequence which is a recurrence relation.
Example 4 (Fibonacci Sequence)

The initial two terms are defined as f1 = 1 and f2 = 1. All subsequent terms are defined by
the recurrence relation fn = fn1 + fn2 . The first eight terms of the Fibonacci sequence
are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21.
Section 14.3 Principle of Mathematical Induction 107
14.3 Principle of Mathematical Induction
Definition 14.3.1 An axiom of a mathematical system is a statement that is assumed to be true. No proof
Axiom is given. From axioms we derive propositions and theorems.
Sometimes axioms are described as self-evident, though many are not. Axioms are defining
properties of mathematical systems. The Principle of Mathematical Induction is one such
axiom.
Axiom 1 Principle of Mathematical Induction (POMI)

Let P (n) be a statement that depends on n N.
If
1. P (1) is true, and
2. P (k) is true implies P (k + 1) is true for all k N
then P (n) is true for all n N.
Induction is a common and powerful technique and should be a consideration whenever you
encounter a statement of the form
For every integer n 1, P (n) is true.
where P (n) is a statement that depends on n.

The structure of a proof by induction models the Principle of Mathematical Induction. The
three parts of the structure are as follows.
Base Case Verify that PP (1) is true. Usually, we prove that a relation (for example, an
equality such as ni=0 2i = 2n+1 1, or an inequality such as 3n > n2 , or divisibility
such as 4 | (5n 1), etc.) holds true for n = 1. The typical approach in such a case is
to substitute n = 1 on the left side and also on the right side of the relation separately,
and show that you can obtain the same number or expression from both sides. This
is usually easy, but it is best to write this step out completely.
Inductive Hypothesis Assume that P (k) is true for some integer k 1. It is best to
write out the statement P (k).
Note that we are using the select method on k, so it is important to mention that
P (k) is assumed true for some k N. If the assumption stated P (k) is true for all
k N, then the whole proof would fall apart.
Inductive Conclusion Using the assumption that P (k) is true, show that P (k + 1) is
true. Again, it is best to write out the statement P (k + 1) before trying to prove it.
14.3.1 Why Does Induction Work?
The basic idea is simple. We show that P (1) is true. We then use P (1) to show that P (2)
is true. And then we use P (2) to show that P (3) is true and continue indefinitely. That is
P (1) = P (2) = P (3) = . . . = P (k) = P (k + 1) = . . .
14.3.2 Two Examples of Simple Induction
Our first example is very typical and uses an equation containing the integer n.
Proposition 2 For every integer n N,

n
X n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
i2 = .
6
i=1
Proof: We begin by formally writing out our inductive statement. Let P (n) be the state-
ment:
n
X n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
i2 = .
6
i=1
Base Case We verify that P (1) is true where P (1) is the statement
1
X 1(1 + 1)(2 1 + 1)
i2 = .
6
i=1
As in most base cases involving equations, we can evaluate the expressions on the
left hand side and right hand side of the equals sign. The left hand side expression
evaluates to
X1
i2 = 12 = 1.
i=1
and the right hand side expression evaluates to
1(1 + 1)(2 1 + 1)
= 1.
6
Since both sides equal each other, P (1) is true.
Inductive Hypothesis We assume that the statement P (k) is true for some integer k 1.
That is, assume
k
X k(k + 1)(2k + 1)
i2 = .
6
i=1
Inductive Conclusion Now we show that the statement P (k + 1) is true. That is, we
show
k+1
X (k + 1)((k + 1) + 1)(2(k + 1) + 1)
i2 = .
6
i=1
This is the difficult part. When working with equations, you can often start with the
more complicated expression and decompose it into an instance of P (k) with some
leftovers. Thats what we will do here.
k+1 k
!
X X
2
i + (k + 1)2
2

i = (partition into P (k) and other)
i=1 i=1

k(k + 1)(2k + 1)
+ (k + 1)2

= (use the inductive hypothesis)
6
k(k + 1)(2k + 1) + 6(k + 1)2
= (algebraic manipulation)
6
2

(k + 1) 2k + 7k + 6
= (factor out k + 1, expand the rest)
6
(k + 1)(k + 2)(2k + 3)
= (factor)
6
(k + 1)((k + 1) + 1)(2(k + 1) + 1)
=
6
The result is true for n = k +1, and so holds for all n by the Principle of Mathematical
Induction.
Our next example does not have any equations.
Proposition 3 Let Sn = {1, 2, 3, . . . , n}. Then Sn has 2n subsets.
Lets be very clear about what our statement P (n) is. Let P (n) be the statement
Sn has 2n subsets.
Now we can begin the proof.
Proof: Base Case We verify that P (1) is true where P (1) is the statement
S1 has 2 subsets.
Note that S1 = {1}. We can enumerate all of the sets of S1 easily. They are { } and
{1}, exactly two as required.
That is, we assume
Sk has 2k subsets.
Inductive Conclusion Now show that the statement P (k + 1) is true. That is, we show
Sk+1 has 2k+1 subsets.

The subsets of Sk+1 can be partitioned into two sets. The set A in which no subset
contains the element k+1, and the complement of A, A, in which every subset contains
the element k + 1. Now A is just the subsets of Sk and so, by the inductive hypothesis,
has 2k subsets of Sk . Further, A is composed of the subsets of Sk to which the element
k + 1 is added. So, again by our inductive hypothesis, there are 2k subsets of A. Since
A and A are disjoint and together contain all of the subsets of Sk+1 , there must be
2k + 2k = 2k+1 subsets of Sk+1 .
Induction.
14.3.3 A Different Starting Point
Some true statements cannot start with for all integers n, n 1. For example, 2n > n2
is false for n = 2, 3, and 4 but true for n 5. But the basic idea holds. If we can show
that a statement is true for some base case n = b, and then show that
P (b) P (b + 1) P (b + 2) . . . P (k) P (k + 1) . . .
this is also induction. Perhaps this is not surprising because we can always recast a state-
ment For every integer n b, P (n) as an equivalent statement For every integer m 1,
P (m). For example,
For every integer n 5, 2n > n2 .
is equivalent to
For every integer m 1, 2m+4 > (m + 4)2 .
In this case, we have just replaced n by m + 4.

The basic structure of induction is the same. To prove the statement
For every integer n b, P (n) is true.
the only changes we need to make are that our base case is P (b) rather than P (1), and that
in our inductive hypothesis we assume P (k) is true for k b rather than k 1.
Here is an example.
Proposition 4 For every integer n 3, n2 > 2n + 1.
As usual, lets be very clear about what our statement P (n) is. Let P (n) be the statement
n2 > 2n + 1.

32 > 2(3) + 1.
This is just arithmetic as
32 = 9 > 7 = 2(3) + 1.
That is, we assume
k 2 > 2k + 1 .
(k + 1)2 > 2(k + 1) + 1.
We take the left-hand side and note that
(k + 1)2 = k 2 + 2k + 1 > (2k + 1) + (2k + 1) = 4k + 2 > 2k + 3 = 2(k + 1) + 1.
The first inequality follows from the inductive hypothesis and the second inequality
uses the fact that k > 0.
Induction.
Here is another, similar example.
Proposition 5 For every integer n 5, 2n > n2 .
The statement P (n) is:
2n > n2 .
25 > 52 .
This is just arithmetic as
25 = 32 > 25 = 52 .
That is, we assume
2k > k 2 .
Inductive Conclusion Now show that the statement P (k + 1) is true. That is, we assume
2k+1 > (k + 1)2 .
We will use the fact that for k 5, k 2 > 2k + 1 which follows from the previous
proposition:
2k+1 = 2 2k > 2 k 2 = k 2 + k 2 > k 2 + 2k + 1 = (k + 1)2 .
Induction.
14.4 An Interesting Example
A triomino is a tile of the form
Proposition 6 A 2n 2n grid of squares with one square removed can be covered by triominoes.
As usual, we begin by explicitly stating P (n). Let P (n) be the statement
A 2n 2n grid of squares with one square removed can be covered by triominoes.
We will use induction.
Proof: Base Case We verify that P (1) is true. That is, we verify:
A 2 2 grid of squares with one square removed can be covered by triomi-

noes.
A 2 2 grid with one square removed looks like or or or .

Each of these can be covered by one triomino.
That is, we assume:
A 2k 2k grid of squares with one square removed can be covered by tri-

ominoes.
Note that our inductive hypothesis covers every possible position for the empty square
within the grid.
Inductive Conclusion We now show that the statement P (k + 1) is true. That is, we
show:
A 2k+1 2k+1 grid of squares with one square removed can be covered by
triominoes.
Consider a 2k+1 2k+1 grid with any square removed.
Split the 2k+1 2k+1 grid in half vertically and horizontally.

Section 14.4 An Interesting Example 113
The missing square occurs in one of the four 2k 2k subgrids formed. Well start by
placing one tile around the centre of the grid, not covering any of the 2k 2k subgrids
where the square is missing:
We can now view the grid as being made up of four 2k 2k subgrids, each with one
square missing. The Inductive Hypothesis tells us that each of these can be covered
by triominoes. Together with one more triomino in the centre, the whole 2k+1 2k+1
grid can be covered. The result is true for n = k + 1, and so holds for all n by the
Principle of Mathematical Induction.
REMARK
Outside of this course, proofs can often be difficult to read because of the habits of writing
for professional audiences. In general, many proofs share the following properties which can
be frustrating for students.
1. Proofs are economical. That is, a proof includes what is needed to verify the truth of
a proposition but nothing more.
2. Proofs do not usually identify the assumptions and the goals explicitly.
3. Proofs sometimes omit or combine steps.
4. Proofs do not always explicitly justify steps.
5. Proofs do not reflect the process by which the proof was discovered.
All of this is often especially true for proofs that use induction. The reader of a proof must
be conscious of the assumptions being made and the desired goal of the proof, fill in the
omitted parts and justify each step.
In this course, we will train towards writing proofs that do not share the points from the
list above. The point is not frustrate the readers of our proofs!
Chapter 15
Strong Induction
15.1 Objectives
1. Learn when to use The Principle of Strong Induction.
2. Learn how to use The Principle of Strong Induction.
15.2 Strong Induction
Sometimes Simple Induction doesnt work where it looks like it should. We then need to
change our approach a bit. The following example is similar to examples that weve done
earlier. Lets try to make The Principle of Mathematical Induction (POMI) work and see
where things go wrong.
Proposition 1 Let the sequence {xn } be defined by x1 = 0, x2 = 30 and xm = xm1 + 6xm2 for m 3.
Then
xn = 2 3n + 3 (2)n for all n 1.
The proposition is saying that the closed form of xn agrees with the recursive definition.
This seems like a classic case for induction since the conclusion clearly depends on the
integer n. Lets begin with our statement P (n):
xn = 2 3n + 3 (2)n .
Proof: Use induction on n,
x1 = 2 31 + 3 (2)1 .
From the definition of the sequence x1 = 0. The right side of the statement P (1)
evaluates to 0 so P (1) is true.
114
Section 15.2 Strong Induction 115
That is, we assume
xk = 2 3k + 3 (2)k .
show
xk+1 = 2 3k+1 + 3 (2)k+1 .
Starting with the left-hand side,
xk+1 = xk + 6xk1 (by the definition of the sequence)

k k
= 2 3 + 3 (2) + 6xk1 (by the Inductive Hypothesis)
(Proof is not completed)
Now two problems are exposed. The more obvious problem is what do we do with xk1 ?
The more subtle problem is whether we can even validly write the first line. When k + 1 = 2
we get
x2 = x1 + 6x0
and x0 is not even defined.
The basic principle that earlier instances imply later instances is sound. We need to
strengthen our notion of induction in two ways. First, we need to allow for more than
one base case so that we avoid invalidly using the recursive definition. Second, we need to
allow access to any of the statements P (1), P (2), P (3), ... , P (k) when showing that P (k+1)
is true. This may seem like too strong an assumption but is, in fact, quite acceptable. This
practice is based on the Principle of Strong Induction.
Axiom 2 Principle of Strong Induction (POSI)

Let P (n) be a statement that depends on n N.
If
1. P (1), P (2), . . . , P (b) are true for some positive integer b, and
2. P (1), P (2), . . . , P (k) are all true implies P (k + 1) is true for all k N,
then P (n) is true for all n N.
Just as before, there are three parts in a proof by strong induction.
Base Cases Verify that P (1), P (2), . . . , P (b) are all true. This is usually easy.
Inductive Hypothesis Assume that P (1), P (2), . . . , P (k) are true for some k b. This
is sometimes written as Assume that P (i) is true for integers i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , k, for
some integer k b or Assume that P (i) is true for all integers 1 i k, for some
k b.
116 Chapter 15 Strong Induction
Inductive Conclusion Using the assumption that P (1), P (2), . . . , P (k) are true,
show that P (k + 1) is true.
As a rule of thumb, use strong induction when the general case depends on multiple previous
cases. Though we could use strong induction all the time, it is often confusing to do so.
Lets return to our previous proposition.
Proposition 2 Let the sequence {xn } be defined by x1 = 0, x2 = 30 and xm = xm1 + 6xm2 for m 3.
Then
xn = 2 3n + 3 (2)n for n 1.
We will use Strong Induction. Recall our statement P (n):
xn = 2 3n + 3 (2)n .
Proof: Base Case We verify that P (1) and P (2) are true. Now, P (1) is
x1 = 2 31 + 3 (2)1 .
evaluates to 0 so P (1) is true. Now, P (2) is
x2 = 2 32 + 3 (2)2 .
Inductive Hypothesis We assume that the statement P (i) is true for all integers 1 i
k, for some k 2. That is, we assume
xi = 2 3i + 3 (2)i .
show
xk+1 = 2 3k+1 + 3 (2)k+1 .
Starting with the left-hand side which is valid because k 2 = k + 1 3,
k k k1 k1
= 2 3 + 3 (2) + 6(2 3 + 3 (2) ) (by the Inductive Hypothesis)
= 3k1 [2 3 + 6 2] + (2)k1 [3 (2) + 6 3] (expand and factor)
k1 k1
= 18 3 + 12 (2)
= 2 32 3k1 + 3 (2)2 (2)k1
= 2 3k+1 + 3 (2)k+1
The result is true for n = k + 1, and so holds for all n by the Principle of Strong
Induction.
Section 15.3 Strong Induction 117
As with simple induction, strong induction can have a starting point other than n = 1.
Proposition 3 Every integer n 9 can be written in the form 3x + 4y for non-negative integers x and y.
Before we attempt a proof lets check small values.
x y 3x + 4y
3 0 9
2 1 10
1 2 11
4 0 12
3 1 13
2 2 14
There seems to be a pattern. After every group of three integers n, we can generate the
next group of three integers by adding one to the preceding values of x. Since this is a case
where previous values allow us to generate later values, induction may work.
Our first task is to come up with a suitable statement P (n). Let P (n) be the statement
There exist non-negative integers x and y so that 3x + 4y = n.
Proof: Base Case We verify that P (9), P (10) and P (11) are true. We repeat the table
above for the required values of 9, 10 and 11. Note that x and y are non-negative
integers.
x y 3x + 4y
3 0 9
2 1 10
1 2 11
Inductive Hypothesis We assume that the statement P (i) is true for all integers 9 i
k, for some k 11. That is, we assume
There exist non-negative integers x and y so that 3x + 4y = i.
show
There exist non-negative integers x and y so that 3x + 4y = k + 1.
Consider the integer (k + 1) 3 = k 2. Since 9 k 2 < k we can use the Inductive

Hypothesis to assert the existence of non-negative integers x0 and y0 such that
3x0 + 4y0 = k 2. Now consider the non-negative integers x1 = x0 + 1 and y1 = y0 .
We have that
3x1 + 4y1 = 3(x0 + 1) + 4y0 = 3x0 + 4y0 + 3 = (k 2) + 3 = k + 1.
Induction.
118 Chapter 15 Strong Induction
15.3 More Examples

1. A sequence {xn } is defined by x1 = 11, x2 = 23 and xn = xn1 + 12xn2 for all
integers n 3. For all n N, xn = 2 4n (3)n .
Proof: We will use Strong Induction. Our statement P (n) is

xn = 2 4n (3)n
Base Case We verify that P (1) and P (2) are true. For P (1),
x1 = 2 41 (3)1 ,
from the definition of the sequence x1 = 11. The right side of the statement P (1)
evaluates to 11 so P (1) is true. For P (2),
x2 = 2 42 (3)2 ,
from the definition of the sequence x2 = 23. The right side of the statement P (2)
Inductive Hypothesis We assume that the statement P (i) is true for all integers
1 i k, for some k 2. That is, we assume that
xi = 2 4i (3)i
Inductive Conclusion Now we show that the statement P (k + 1) is true. Namely,
xk+1 = 2 4k+1 (3)k+1

= 2 4k (3)k + 12(2 4k1 (3)k1 ) (by the Inductive Hypothesis)
= 4k1 [2 4 + 12 2] + (3)k1 [(3) + 12 1] (expand and factor)
= 32 4k1 + (9) (3)k1
= 2 42 4k1 32 (3)k1
= 2 4k+1 (3)k+1
Induction.
2. If n 2 is an integer, then n can be written as a product of primes.
Proof: Let P (n) be the statement: n can be written as a product of primes.

P (2) is true since 2 is itself a prime. (A product with one factor is fine.) For our
Inductive Hypothesis, let k 2 be some integer and assume that P (i) is true for
integers 2 i k. That is, such i can be written as a product of primes. Now we
show that P (k + 1) is true, that is, k + 1 can be written as a product of primes. If
k + 1 is a prime, we are done. We have a product consisting of the single prime factor
k + 1. If k + 1 is composite, then we can write k + 1 = rs where r and s are integers
and 2 r, s k. But then, by our Inductive Hypothesis, both r and s can be written
as a product of primes, so rs = k + 1 is a product of primes. The result is true for
n = k + 1, and so holds for all n by the Principle of Strong Induction.
Section 15.3 More Examples 119
REMARK
When using strong induction, we prove the base cases P (1), P (2), . . . , P (b) are true
for some positive integer b. Depending on the nature of the problem, sometimes we
may have b = 1, and proving P (1) is sufficient for the base case. The proof carried
out in the induction conclusion will tell us whether we need more than one base case.
As a rule of thumb, when the induction conclusion is completed, check whether you
can use P (1) to logically deduce that P (2) must be true using solely the procedure
from the induction conclusion step. Then check whether P (1) and P (2) implies P (3),
whether P (1) P (2) P (3) implies P (4), and so on. If this can be consistently done,
then we need only one base case.
3. Every positive integer n can be written as a sum of non-negative distinct powers of 2.
Proof: We use strong induction on n.
Base Case When n = 1, 1 = 20 .

Induction Hypothesis Assume that for some k N, each integer between 1 and k
can be written as a sum of distinct, non-negative powers of 2.
Induction Conclusion We will break into two cases: k + 1 is odd or k + 1 is even.
Suppose k + 1 is odd. By the Induction Hypothesis, k is the sum of distinct
powers of 2. In particular, k is even, so this sum cannot include 20 , since it is
the only power of 2 that is odd. By adding 20 to this sum, we obtain k + 1 as a
sum of distinct powers of 2.
Suppose k + 1 is even. Then (k + 1)/2 is a positive integer less than k + 1. So by
induction hypothesis, (k +1)/2 is the sum of distinct powers of 2. By multiplying
each term in the sum by 2, each power increased by 1, but the overall powers are
still distinct. So this gives us k + 1 as a sum of distinct powers of 2.
By The Principle of Strong Induction, the result holds for all n N.
REMARK
An interesting, but technical point is that the Well-Ordering Principle (mentioned briefly
in Chapter 12), The Principle of Mathematical Induction and The Principle of Strong
Induction are logically equivalent. That is, nothing can be proven by one of these that
cannot be proven by any of the others.
Chapter 16
Whats Wrong?
16.1 Objectives
1. To practice reading proofs carefully.
2. To gain experience in identifying common errors.
16.2 Failure Is More Common Than Success
Proving statements is hard. Both for beginners and for professionals, it is usually the case
that one needs to make several attempts to prove a given statement. Even when it seems
like a proof has been discovered, errors are common.
This chapter identifies some of the most common errors and gives you practice in detecting
those errors. Being aware of these common errors will hopefully allow you to identify them
and so avoid them in your own work.
16.3 Some Questions To Ask
Lets assume you are reading a proposed proof of the statement S. How do you go about
assessing whether or not the proof is correct? Here are some questions to ask yourself.
Is S in the form of an implication, or does it begin with a quantifier? If S is in the

form of an implication, explicitly identify the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Are there any explicit quantifiers in the statement S? If so, identify the four parts of
the quantifier and the proof technique associated with the quantifier.
How can I justify each sentence in the proof? What definition, previously proved
proposition or proof technique justifies the sentence?
Have any steps been omitted? If so, what should those steps be and what definition,
previously proved proposition or proof technique justifies the omitted step?
120
Section 16.5 Assuming What You Need To Prove 121
16.4 Assuming What You Need To Prove
To prove an implication, you assume that the hypothesis is true and deduce, by careful
reasoning, that the conclusion is true. It is an extremely common error among beginning
mathematicians to assume that the conclusion is true. Typically the flawed proof begins
by assuming the conclusion and reasons to some true statement. The problem in this case
does not lie with the reasoning, but with the assumption.
Consider the following statement and proposed proof.
Statement 1 Suppose a is an integer. If 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)), then a is even.
1. Suppose a is even.
2. Then a2 is even, so both a2 + 3 and a2 + 7 are odd.
3. Since 32 is even, 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).
The reasoning from Sentence 1 to Sentence 2 is correct. The reasoning from Sentence 2 to
Sentence 3 is correct., and 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)) does appear in the statement we are trying
to prove. But it appears as the hypothesis, not as the conclusion. The problem lies in Step
1 where the author assumed the conclusion, what needed to be proved.
REMARK
When proving an implication, assume that the hypothesis is true and deduce, by careful
reasoning, that the conclusion is true. Do not assume that the conclusion is true.
16.5 Incorrectly Invoking A Proposition
This common error is related to the previous one in that inadequate attention is paid to
an hypothesis and conclusion. Typically, this error occurs when a proposition is invoked
but the hypotheses for the proposition are not satisfied. Hence, invoking the proposition is
wrong.
Statement 2 Let a, b, d be integers. If d | a and d | b, then d |a b|.
1. Let d | a and d | b.
122 Chapter 16 Whats Wrong?
2. By the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, d | (1 a 1 b), that is, d | (a b).

3. From Bounds By Divisibility, d |a b|.
The statement is false but the proof looks convincing. To see that the statement is false,
consider the case where a = b = d = 3. Since a, b and d are integers, and 3 | 3 the
hypotheses are true. But d = 3 6 0 = |a b| so the conclusion is false.
Sentence 1 simply restates the hypothesis so it is correct. The reasoning from Sentence 1
to Sentence 2 is correct. So, the error lies somewhere in Sentence 3. Recall the statement
of Bounds By Divisibility. We have changed the variable names to make a comparison with
the above statement clearer.
Proposition 3 (Bounds By Divisibility (BBD))

Let m and n be integers. If m | n and n 6= 0 then |m| |n|.
In going from Sentence 2 to Sentence 3, the author is assuming that m = d and n = a b.

Let us check the hypotheses of Bounds By Divisibility. It is certainly the case that m and
n are integers and that m | n (since d | (a b)). But, when a = b, n = 0, which contradicts
the hypothesis that n 6= 0. Since the hypotheses of Bounds By Divisibility are not satisfied,
the proposition Bounds By Divisibility cannot be invoked.
REMARK
Before invoking a proposition, make sure that all of the hypotheses of the proposition are
satisfied.
16.6 Examples With A Universal Quantifier
When you try to prove a statement of the form For every x in the set S, P (x) is true,
you must cover every element in the set S. It is not enough to give a particular example.
Statement 4 For every odd integer a, 32 | ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).
1. Consider the case a = 3.

2. Then a2 + 3 = 12 and a2 + 7 = 16.
3. Since (a2 + 3)(a2 + 7) = 12 16 = 192, and 32 | 192, the statement is true.
The proof shows that in the particular case a = 3 the statement is true. It does not
address the infinitely many other odd cases all of which are included under For every odd
integer a.
Section 16.8 Counter-Examples With An Existential Quantifier 123
REMARK
You cannot use an example to show that a universal statement is true. Use the select
method when you want to prove that a universal statement is true.
16.7 Counter-Examples With An Existential Quantifier
When you try to prove a statement of the form There exists an x in the set S such that
P (x) is true, showing that there are elements in S which do not satisfy the statement P (x)
is not useful. There may be many, even infinitely many, elements in S which do not satisfy
P (x). The point is to show that at least one element does satisfy P (x).
Consider the following statement and proposed proof that the statement is false.
Statement 5 There exists an integer in the set S = {10, 11, 12, . . . , 20} such that 2n 1 is prime.
1. Consider the case n = 10.
2. Then 210 1 = 1023.
3. But since 1023 = 3 341, 210 1 is not prime and the statement is false.
The proof shows that in the particular case n = 10 the statement is false. However, the
statement does not claim that all of the elements of S have the property that 2n 1 is
prime. The statement only claims that one element in the set S has such a property. In
fact, there is an element with that property, n = 13.
REMARK
You cannot use a counter-example to show that an existential statement is false. To show
that an existential statement is false, negate the statement to get a universal statement and
then use the select method to prove that this universal statement is true. To show that an
existential statement is true, use the construct method.
16.8 Using the Same Variable For Different Objects
We see in the example below that using the same variable for different objects can lead to
an incorrect conclusion.
Statement 6 Let a, b and c be integers. If a | b and a | c then b c = 0
1. Assume a | b and a | c.
2. From a | b, b = ka for some integer k.
3. From a | c, c = ka for some integer k.
4. Therefore b c = ka ka = 0.
There is no reason to believe that dividing b by a gives the same quotient as when dividing
c by a. Assuming this leads to a false statement.
REMARK
When using the object method on multiple existential quantifiers, use a new variable for
each quantifier.
16.9 The Converse Is Not the Contrapositive
Recall that the contrapositive of A B is B A and the converse of A B is B A.

Truth tables tell us that the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement,
but the converse is not. Thus, it makes sense to use the contrapositive to prove A B,
but not the converse.
If we go back to the very first proof of this chapter, reproduced below, we see that the
author begins with the conclusion and ends with the hypothesis, that is, the author proved
the converse, not the original statement.
Statement 7 Suppose a is an integer. If 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)), then a is even.
1. Suppose a is even.
2. Then a2 is even, so both a2 + 3 and a2 + 7 are odd.
3. Since 32 is even, 32 - ((a2 + 3)(a2 + 7)).

Section 16.11 Base Cases in Induction Proofs 125
REMARK
To prove A B, you can prove the contrapositive B A which is logically equivalent
to A B. Proving or disproving the converse, B A, is not helpful.
16.10 Base Cases in Induction Proofs
Induction works on the basis that
P (1) P (2) P (3) . . . P (k) P (k + 1) . . .
If P (1) is false, the chain of reasoning fails. Thus, it is always important to establish the
base case in induction.
Statement 8 For all n N, n > n + 1.
1. Let P (n) be the statement: n > n + 1.
2. Assume that P (k) is true for some integer k 1. That is, k > k + 1 for some integer
k 1.
3. We must show that P (k + 1) is true, that is, k + 1 > k + 2.
4. But this follows immediately by adding one to both sides of k > k + 1.
5. Since the result is true for n = k +1, it holds for all n by the Principle of Mathematical
Induction.
This induction fails because we did not verify that P (1) is true. In fact, P (1) is not true in
this case. One is not greater than two.
REMARK
When doing induction, always verify the base cases.
16.11 Arithmetic and Unusual Cases
It may be that the structure of a proof is correct, but the proof stumbles while doing compli-
cated arithmetic or not properly treating unusual cases. Consider the following statement
and proposed proof.
1
Statement 9 If r is a positive real number with r 6= 1, then there is an integer n such that 2 n < r.
1
1. Let n be any integer with n > .
log2 (r)
1
2. It then follows that < log2 (r).
n
1
3. Hence 2 n < 2log2 (r) = r.
Because the error in this proof is more subtle than others we have looked at, lets do a
formal analysis of the proof.
Analysis of Proof As usual, we begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
An interpretation of Sentences 1 through 3 will follow.
Hypothesis: r is a positive real number. r 6= 1.

1
Conclusion: There is an integer n such that 2 n < r.
Sentence 1 Let n be any integer with n > 1/ log2 (r).

Since an existential quantifier occurs in the conclusion, the author uses the Construct
Method. The four parts of the quantifier are:
Quantifier:
Variable: n
Domain: Z
1
Open sentence: 2n < r
In the first sentence of the proof, the author constructs an integer n. Later in the
proof, the author intends to show that n satisfies the open sentence of the quantifier.
Since r is a real number (not equal to 1), 1/ log2 (r) evaluates to a real number and
we can certainly find an integer greater than any given real number.
1
Sentence 2 It then follows that n < log2 (r).
Here the author takes the reciprocal of n > 1/ log2 (r).
1
Sentence 3 Hence 2 n < 2log2 (r) = r.
Use the left and right sides of n1 < log2 (r) as exponents of 2 and recall that the
function 2x always increases as x increases.
Even the analysis looks good. What went wrong? Lets look again at Sentence 2. Here we
used the statement
Section 16.12 Not Understanding a Definition 127
Statement 10 If a, b R, neither equal to 0, and a < b, then 1/b < 1/a.
A proof seems pretty straightforward divide both sides of a < b by ab. Except that
the statement is false. Consider the case a = 2 and b = 4. 2 < 4 but 41 2
1
. Our
proposition really should be
Statement 11 If a, b R, and 0 < a < b, then 1/b < 1/a.
Now we see the problem in the proof. Choose r so that 0 < r < 1, say r = 1/2. That
will make log2 (r) negative and hence 1/ log2 (r) negative. Choose n = 1. Now Sentence 1 is
satisfied but Sentence 2 fails.
16.12 Not Understanding a Definition
This is the most common error in our experience, and that is not surprising. Even great
mathematicians have had difficulty with definitions. In the historical development of math-
ematics, correct definitions often come well after the associated mathematics has been used.
Cauchys definition of a limit came two hundred years after Newtons description of
calculus.
Statement 12 Let n be an integer. If n = k 3 + 1 3, where k N, then n is not prime.
1. Assume n = k 3 + 1, where k N.
2. By factoring, n = (k + 1)(k 2 k + 1).
3. Since k + 1 and k 2 k + 1 are integer factors of n, n cannot be a prime.
The problem is in step 3, which misses important parts of the definition of a prime.
Primes
To convince the reader that n is not a prime, it is insufficient to factor n as (k+1)(k 2 k+1).
We also need to show that these factors of n are positive and are different from 1 and n.
REMARK
Know your definitions.
Part IV
Securing Internet Commerce
128
Chapter 17
The Greatest Common Divisor
17.1 Objectives
1. To discover a proof of the proposition GCD With Remainders.
2. Do an example of the Euclidean Algorithm.
3. Prove the GCD Characterization Theorem.
17.2 Greatest Common Divisor
Definition 17.2.1 Let a and b be integers, not both zero. An integer d > 0 is the greatest common divisor
Greatest Common of a and b, written gcd(a, b), if and only if
Divisor
1. d | a and d | b (this captures the common part of the definition), and
2. if c | a and c | b then c d (this captures the greatest part of the definition).
Example 1 Here are some examples.
gcd(24, 30) = 6
gcd(17, 25) = 1
gcd(12, 0) = 12
gcd(12, 12) = 12
Definition 17.2.2 For a 6= 0, the definition implies that gcd(a, 0) = |a| and gcd(a, a) = |a|. We define gcd(0, 0)
gcd(0, 0) as 0. This may sound counterintuitive, since all integers are divisors of 0, but it is consistent
with gcd(a, 0) = |a| and gcd(a, a) = |a|.
129
130 Chapter 17 The Greatest Common Divisor
Lets prove a seemingly unusual proposition about greatest common divisors.
Proposition 1 If a and b are integers not both zero, and q and r are integers such that a = qb + r, then
gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, r).
Before we begin the proof, lets take a look at a numeric example.
Example 2 Suppose a = 72 and b = 30. Now 72 = 2 30 + 12 so the proposition asserts that

gcd(72, 30) = gcd(30, 12). This is true. The gcd(72, 30) and gcd(30, 12) is 6.
How would we discover a proof? Lets try the usual approach: identify the hypothesis and
conclusion, and begin asking questions.
Hypothesis: a, b, q and r are integers such that a = qb + r.
Conclusion: gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, r).
It is often a good idea to start with the conclusion and works backward. What is a suitable
first question? How about How do we show that two integers are equal? There are lots
of possible answers: show that their difference is zero, their ratio is one, each is less than or
equal the other. However, here we are working with greatest common divisors rather than
generic integers so perhaps a better question would be How do we show that a number
is a greatest common divisor? The broad answer is relatively easy. Use the definition of
greatest common divisor. After all, right now it is the only thing we have! A specific answer
is less easy. Do we want to focus on gcd(a, b) or gcd(b, r)? Here is an easy way to do both.
Let d = gcd(a, b). Then show that d = gcd(b, r). That gets us two statements in our proof.
Proof in Progress
1. Let d = gcd(a, b).
2. To be completed.
3. Hence d = gcd(b, r).
But how do we show that d = gcd(b, r)? Use the definition. Our proof can expand to
Proof in Progress
2. We will show
(a) d | b and d | r, and

(b) if c | b and c | r then c d.
3. To be completed.

Section 17.2 Greatest Common Divisor 131
For the first part of the definition, we ask How do we show that one number divides another
number? Interestingly enough, there are two different answers - one for b and one for r,
though that is not obvious. For b there is already a connection between d and b in the first
sentence. Since d = gcd(a, b), we know from the definition of gcd that d | b.
What about r? Using the definition of divisibility seems problematic. What propositions
could we use? Transitivity of Divisibility doesnt seem to apply. How about using the
Divisibility of Integer Combinations? Recall
Proposition 2 (Divisibility of Integer Combinations (DIC))

Let a, b and c be integers. If a | b and a | c, then a | (bx + cy) for any x, y Z.
Observe that r = a qb. Since d | a and d | b, d divides any integer combination of a and
b by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations. That is, d | (a(1) + b(q)) so d | r. Lets
extend our proof in progress.
Proof in Progress
2. We will show

3. Since d = gcd(a, b), we know from the definition of gcd that d | b.
4. Observe that r = a qb. Since d | a and d | b, d | (a(1) + b(q)) by the Divisibility of

Integer Combinations, so d | r.
5. To be completed.
That leaves us with the greatest part of greatest common divisor. This second part of the
definition is itself an implication, so we assume that c | b and c | r and we must show c d.
How do we show one number is less than or equal to another number? There doesnt seem
to be anything obvious but ask Have I seen this anywhere before?. Yes, we have. In the
second part of the definition of gcd. But then you might ask Isnt that assuming what we
have to prove? Lets be precise about what we are saying. We can use d for one inequality.
Since d = gcd(a, b), for any c where c | a and c | b, c d.
What we need to show is: if c | b and c | r then c d.
These two statements are close, but not the same. Make sure that you see the difference.
In one, we are using the fact that d = gcd(a, b). In the other, we are showing that any
common factor of b and r is less than or equal to d.
If we assume that c | b and c | r, then c | (b(q)+r(1)) by Divisibility of Integer Combinations
(again). Since a = qb + r, c | a. Combining, d = gcd(a, b) and c | a and c | b, gives c d as
needed. Lets add that to our proof in progress.
Proof in Progress

2. We will show
3. Since d = gcd(a, b), we know from the definition of gcd that d | b.
4. Observe that r = a qb. Since d | a and d | b, d | (a(1) + b(q)) by the Divisibility of
Integer Combinations, so d | r.
5. Let c | b and c | r. Then c | (b(q) + r(1)) by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations.
Since a = qb + r, c | a. Combining d = gcd(a, b) and c | a and c | b, gives c d by the
second part of the definition of greatest common divisor.
Having discovered a proof, we should now write the proof. Notice that in our written proof
below, we begin by clearly making our audience aware of our plan.
Proof: Let d = gcd(a, b). We will use the definition of gcd to show that d = gcd(b, r).
Since d = gcd(a, b), d | b. Observe that r = a qb. Since d | a and d | b, d | (a qb) by the
Divisibility of Integer Combinations. Hence d | r, and d is a common divisor of b and r.
Let c be a divisor of b and r. Since c | b and c | r, c | (qb + r) by the Divisibility of Integer
Combinations. Now a = qb + r, so c | a. Since d = gcd(a, b) and c | a and c | b, we have
c d. Hence d = gcd(b, r).
REMARK
1. Notice that q and r are not restricted as in the statement of the Division Algorithm.
2. If a = b = 0 this proposition is also true since the only possible choices for b and r are
b = r = 0. As a result we name and use the following more general proposition.
Proposition 3 (GCD With Remainders (GCD WR))

If a, b, q and r are integers such that a = qb + r, then gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, r).
Example 3 Prove that for any integer a, gcd(22a + 7, 3a + 1) = 1.
Proof: Since 22a + 7 = 7 (3a + 1) + a, GCD With Remainders tells us that

gcd(22a + 7, 3a + 1) = gcd(3a + 1, a). Since 3a + 1 = 3 a + 1, GCD With Remainders
(again) tells us that gcd(3a + 1, a) = gcd(a, 1). Since gcd(a, 1) = 1,
gcd(22a + 7, 3a + 1) = 1.
Section 17.3 Certificate of Correctess 133
Example 4 Prove that for any integer a, gcd(a2 , a + 1) = 1.
Proof: Since a2 = (a 1) (a + 1) + 1, GCD With Remainders tells us that

gcd(a2 , a + 1) = gcd(a + 1, 1). Since gcd(a + 1, 1) = 1, gcd(a2 , a + 1) = 1.
17.3 Certificate of Correctess
Suppose we wanted to compute gcd(1386, 322). We could factor both numbers, find their
common factors and select the greatest. In general, this is very slow.
Repeated use of GCD With Remainders allows us to efficiently compute gcds. For example,
lets compute gcd(1386, 322).
Example 5
Since 1386 = 4 322 + 98, gcd(1386, 322) = gcd(322, 98).
Since 322 = 3 98 + 28, gcd(322, 98) = gcd(98, 28).
Since 98 = 3 28 + 14, gcd(98, 28) = gcd(28, 14).
Since 28 = 2 14 + 0, gcd(28, 14) = gcd(14, 0).
Since gcd(14, 0) = 14, the chain of equalities from the column on the right gives us
gcd(1386, 322) = gcd(322, 98) = gcd(98, 28) = gcd(28, 14) = gcd(14, 0) = 14.
This process is known as the Euclidean Algorithm.
Exercise 1 Randomly pick two positive integers and compute their gcd using the Euclidean Algorithm.
How do you know that you have the correct answer? Keep your work. Youll need it soon.
Because mistakes happen when performing arithmetic by hand, and mistakes happen when
programming computers, it would be very useful if there were a way to certify that an
answer is correct. Think of a certificate of correctness this way. You are a manager. You
ask one of your staff to solve a problem. The staff member comes back with the proposed
solution and a certificate of correctness that can be used to verify that the proposed solution
is, in fact, correct. The certificate has two parts: a theorem which you have already proved
and which relates to the problem in general, and data which relates to this specific problem.
For example, heres a proposition that allows us to produce a certificate for gcd(a, b).
Proposition 4 (GCD Characterization Theorem (GCD CT))

If d is a positive common divisor of the integers a and b, and there exist integers x and y
so that ax + by = d, then d = gcd(a, b).
Our certificate would consist of this theorem along with integers x and y. If our proposed
solution was d and d | a, d | b and ax + by = d, then we could conclude without doubt that
d = gcd(a, b).
In Example 5 above, the proposed greatest common divisor of 1386 and 322 is 14. Our
certificate of correctness consists of the GCD Characterization Theorem and the integers
d = 14, x = 10 and y = 43. Note that 14 | 1386 and 14 | 322 and 138610+322(43) =
14, so we can conclude that 14 = gcd(1386, 322).
Here is a proof of the GCD Characterization Theorem.
1. We will show that d satisfies the definition of gcd(a, b).
2. From the hypotheses, d | a and d | b.
3. Now let c | a and c | b.
4. By the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, c | (ax + by) so c | d.
5. By the Bounds by Divisibility, c d, and so d = gcd(a, b).
Lets do an analysis of the proof.
Analysis of Proof As usual, we will begin by explicitly identifying the hypothesis and
the conclusion.
Hypothesis: d is a positive common divisor of the integers a and b. There exist

integers x and y so that ax + by = d.
Conclusion: d = gcd(a, b).
Core Proof Technique: A direct proof recognizing an existential quantifier in the
hypothesis.
Preliminary Material: Definition of greatest common divisor. An integer d > 0 is
the gcd(a, b) if and only if
1. d | a and d | b, and
2. if c | a and c | b then c d.
Sentence 1 We will show that d satisfies the definition of gcd(a, b).

The author states the plan - always a good idea. The author is actually answering
the question How do I show that one number is the gcd of two other numbers?
Sentence 2 From the hypotheses, d | a and d | b.

The author is working forwards from the hypothesis. This handles the first part of
the definition of gcd.
Sentence 3 Now let c | a and c | b.

The second part of the definition of greatest common divisor is an implication with
hypothesis c | a and c | b. The author must show c d.
Section 17.3 Certificate of Correctess 135
Sentence 4 By the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, c | (ax + by) so c | d.

This is where the author uses an existential quantifier in the hypothesis. The author
assumes the existence of two integers x and y such that ax + by = d. The author does
not state this explicitly.
Having made this assumption, the author can use Sentence 3 to satisfy the hypotheses
of Divisibility of Integer Combinations and so invoke the conclusion, that is,
c | (ax + by).
Sentence 5 By the Bounds By Divisibility, c d, and so d = gcd(a, b).

Bounds by Divisibility concludes with a statement involving absolute values. Where
did the absolute vales signs go? From Sentence 4 we know that c | d and from the
hypothesis we know that d 6= 0 so Bounds by Divisibility implies that |c| |d|. From
the hypothesis we know more than d 6= 0. We know that d is positive, so |c| d.
Regardless of the sign of c, if |c| d, it must be the case that c d. Having
determined that c d, both parts of the definition of gcd are satisfied and so the
author can conclude that d = gcd(a, b).
Now the obvious questions is: How do we find x and y?

Chapter 18
The Extended Euclidean

Algorithm
18.1 Objectives
1. Compute the greatest common divisor of two integers and certificates using the Ex-
tended Euclidean Algorithm.
2. Understand and apply the statement of the Extended Euclidean Algorithm.
18.2 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm (EEA)
Given two positive integers, a and b, the EEA is an efficient way to compute not only
d = gcd(a, b) but the data x and y for the certificate. Well begin with an example and
then formally state the algorithm.
First though, we need to know what the floor of a number is.
Definition 18.2.1 The floor of x, written bxc, is the largest integer less than or equal to x.
floor
Example 1
1. b9.713c = 9.
2. b9.025c = 9.
3. b9c = 9.
4. b9.713c = 10. Since the floor of x is the largest integer less than or equal to x, 9
cannot be the floor of 9.713 since 9 > 9.713.

7
5. = 3.
2
136
Section 18.2 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm (EEA) 137
Lets compute gcd(1386, 322) using the EEA. We begin by creating four columns labelled
x, y, r (for remainder) and q (for quotient). We will construct a sequence of rows that will
tell us the gcd and provide a certificate. For the i-th row we will label the column entries
xi , yi , ri and qi . There is something very important to observe about the table. If we are
computing gcd(a, b), in each row of the table
axi + byi = ri
Where have you seen an expression like that before?

Assuming a > b, the first two rows are always
x y r q
1 0 a 0
0 1 b 0
so in our specific problem the first two rows are
x y r q
1 0 1386 0
0 1 322 0
We construct each of the remaining rows by using the two preceding rows. To generate the
third row we must first compute a quotient q3 using the formula

ri2
qi
ri1
Here we get
r1 1386
q3 = = =4
r2 322
To construct the next row we use the formula
Rowi = Rowi2 qi Rowi1
When i = 3 we get
Row3 = Row1 q3 Row2
With q3 = 4 we get
Row3 = Row1 4 Row2
Writing this in the table gives
x y r q
Row1 1 0 1386 0
4 Row2 0 1 322 0
= Row3 1 4 98 4
In a similar fashion we get the fourth row. To generate the fourth row we must first compute
a quotient q4 using the formula
ri2
qi
ri1
Here we get
r2 322
q4 = = =3
r3 98
138 Chapter 18 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm
To construct the next row we use the formula
Rowi Rowi2 qi Rowi1
When i = 4 we get
Row4 Row2 q4 Row3
With q4 = 3 we get
Row4 Row2 3 Row3
and so
x y r q
1 0 1386 0
Row2 0 1 322 0
3 Row3 1 4 98 4
= Row4 3 13 28 3
The completely worked out example follows.
x y r q
1 0 1386 0
0 1 322 0
1 4 98 4
3 13 28 3
10 43 14 3
23 99 0 2
We stop when the remainder is 0. The second last row provides the desired d, x and y. The
greatest common divisor d is the entry in the r column, x is the entry in the x column and
y is the entry in the y column. Hence, d = 14 (as before), and we can check the conditions
of the GCD Characterization Theorem to certify correctness. Since 14 | 1386 and 14 | 322
and 1386 10 + 322 (43) = 14, we can conclude that 14 = gcd(1386, 322).
If a or b is negative, apply the EEA to gcd(|a|, |b|) and then change the signs of x and y
after the EEA is complete. If a < b, simply swap their places in the algorithm. This works
because gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, a).
Section 18.2 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm (EEA) 139
Here is a formal statement of the algorithm.
Algorithm 1 Extended Euclidean Algorithm

Require: a > b > 0 are integers.
Ensure: The following conditions hold at the end of the algorithm.
rn+1 = 0.
rn = gcd(a, b).
ri2 = qi ri1 + ri where 0 ri < ri1 .
In every row, axi + byi = ri .
x = xn , y = yn is a solution to ax + by = gcd(a, b).
{Initialize}
Construct a table with four columns so that
The columns are labelled x, y, r and q.
The first row in the table is (1, 0, a, 0).
The second row in the table is (0, 1, b, 0).
{To produce the remaining rows (i 3)}
repeat j k
qi rri1
i2
Rowi Rowi2 qi Rowi1

until ri = 0
We treat the EEA as a proposition where the preconditions of the algorithm are the hy-
potheses and the postconditions of the algorithm are the conclusions. However, if a or b is
negative, we can apply the EEA with |a| and |b| and convert signs afterwards. Therefore,
the algorithm gives rise to a well known theorem for any integers a and b.
Proposition 1 (Bezouts Lemma (BL))

If a and b are integers, then d = gcd(a, b) can be computed and there exist integers x and
y so that ax + by = d.
Note that this also known as Bezouts Identity.

A proof of the correctness of the EEA and Bezouts Lemma is not included in these notes.
Example 2 Let d = gcd(231, 660).
1. Use the Extended Euclidean Algorithm to compute d and provide a certificate that d
is correct.
2. Using part (a) , find d1 = gcd(231, 660) and provide a certificate that d1 is correct.
3. Using part (a) of this question, find d2 = gcd(231, 660) and provide a certificate
that d2 is correct.
140 Chapter 18 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm
Solution:
1.
x y r q
1 0 660 0
0 1 231 0
1 2 198 2
1 3 33 1
7 20 0 6
By the EEA, d = 33. Our certificate consists of the GCD Characterization Theorem
together with d = 33 (d is positive and divides both 660 and 231), and the integers
1 and 3 (since 660(1) + 231(3) = 33).
2. Since gcd(231, 660) = gcd(231, 660), d1 = 33. Our certificate consists of the GCD
Characterization Theorem together with d1 = 33 (d1 is positive and divides both 660
and 231), and the integers 1 and 3 (since 660(1) + 231(3) = 33).
3. Since gcd(231, 660) = gcd(231, 660), d2 = 33. Our certificate consists of the GCD
Characterization Theorem together with d2 = 33 (d2 is positive and divides both 660
and 231), and the integers 1 and 3 (since 660(1) 231(3) = 33).
Example 3 Prove the following statement. Let a, b, c Z where a 6= 0 or b 6= 0. If c > 0, then

gcd(ac, bc) = c gcd(a, b).
Proof: Let d = gcd(a, b). We will use the GCD Characterization Theorem and Bezouts
Lemma.
First, we show that cd is a common divisor of ac and bc. Since d = gcd(a, b), d | a. By the
definition of divisibility, there exists an integer k so that dk = a. Multiplying this equation
by c gives cdk = ca. Since k is an integer, cd | ac. Similarly, cd | bc.
Next, we show that there exist integers x0 and y0 so that
acx0 + bcy0 = cd
Since d = gcd(a, b), by Bezouts Lemma, there exist integers x1 and y1 so that
ax1 + by1 = d
Multiplying this equation by c gives
acx1 + bcy1 = cd
Letting x0 = x1 and y0 = y1 gives the required values for the GCD Characterization
Theorem.
Chapter 19
Properties Of GCDs
19.1 Objectives
1. Define coprime.
2. Discover a proof of Coprimeness and Divisibility.
3. Give the statement of Primes and Divisibility.
4. See proofs of GCD of One and Division by the GCD.
19.2 Some Useful Propositions
We begin with a proposition on coprimeness and divisibility.
Definition 19.2.1 Two integers a and b are coprime if gcd(a, b) = 1.

Coprime
Proposition 1 (Coprimeness and Divisibility (CAD))

If a, b and c are integers and c | ab and gcd(a, c) = 1, then c | b.
This proposition has two implicit existential quantifiers, one in the hypothesis and one in
the conclusion. You might object and ask Where? They are hidden - in the definition of
divides. Recall the definition. An integer m divides an integer n if there exists an integer k
so that n = km.
We treat an existential quantifier in the hypothesis differently from an existential quantifier
in the conclusion. Recall the following remarks from the chapter on quantifiers.
141
142 Chapter 19 Properties Of GCDs
REMARK
When proving that A implies B and A uses an existential quantifier, use the
object method.
1. Identify the four parts of the quantified statement there exists an x in the set S such
that P (x) is true.
2. Assume that a mathematical object x exists within the domain S so that the statement
P (x) is true.
3. Make use of this information to generate another statement.
When proving that A implies B and B uses an existential quantifier, use the
construct method.
1. Identify the four parts of the quantified statement. there exists an x in the set S
such that P (x) is true.
2. Construct a mathematical object x.
3. Show that x S.
4. Show that P (x) is true.
With all of this in mind, how do we go about discovering a proof for Coprimeness and
Divisibility? As usual, we will begin by explicitly identifying the hypothesis, the conclusion,
the core proof technique and any preliminary material we think we might need.
Hypothesis: a, b and c are integers and c | ab and gcd(a, c) = 1.
Conclusion: c | b.
Core Proof Technique: We use the object method because of the existential quantifier
in the hypothesis, and the construct method because of the existential quantifier in
the conclusion.
Preliminary Material: Definition of divides and greatest common divisor.
Lets work backwards from the conclusion by asking the question How do we show that
one integer divides another? We can answer with the definition of divisibility. We must
construct an integer k so that b = ck. We will record this as follows.
Proof in Progress
1. To be completed.
2. Since b = kc, c | b.
Section 19.2 Some Useful Propositions 143
The problem is that it is not at all clear what k should be. Lets work forwards from the
hypothesis.
Somehow we need an equation with a b alone on one side of the equality sign. We cant
start there but we can get an equation with a b. Since gcd(a, c) = 1, Bezouts Lemma tells
us we can find integers x and y so that ax + cy = 1. We could multiply this equation by b.
Lets record these forward statements.
Proof in Progress
1. Since gcd(a, c) = 1, Bezouts Lemma guarantees that we can find integers x and y so
that ax + cy = 1. Call this equation (1).
2. Multiplying (1) by b gives abx + cby = b. Call this equation (2).
3. To be completed.
If we could factor the left hand side of (2), wed be able to get a c and other stuff that we
could treat as our k. But the first term has no c. Or maybe it does. Since c | ab there exists
an integer h so that ch = ab. Substituting ch for ab in (2) gives chx + cby = b. We record
this as
Proof in Progress
3. Since c | ab there exists an integer h so that ch = ab. Substituting ch for ab in (2)

gives chx + cby = b.
4. To be completed.
Now factor.
Proof in Progress
3. Since c | ab there exists an integer h so that ch = ab. Substituting ch for ab in (2)

gives chx + cby = b.
4. This gives c(hx + by) = b.
5. But then if we let k = hx + by we have an integer k so that ck = b.
Here is a proof.
Proof: By Bezouts Lemma and the hypothesis gcd(a, c) = 1, there exist integers x and
y so that ax + cy = 1. Multiplying by b gives abx + cby = b. Since c | ab there exists an
integer h so that ch = ab. Substituting ch for ab gives chx + cby = b. Lastly, factoring
produces (hx + by)c = b. Since hx + by is an integer, c | b.
As a corollary of Coprimeness and Divisibility we have the following proposition.
Corollary 2 (Euclids Lemma (EL))

If p is a prime and p | ab, then p | a or p | b.
Exercise 1 Prove Primes and Divisibility. Because of the or in the conclusion, you may want to use
the elimination method.
Let us consider more properties of the greatest common divisor.
Proposition 3 (GCD of One (GCD OO))

Let a and b be integers. Then gcd(a, b) = 1 if and only if there are integers x and y with
ax + by = 1.
This proposition has similar elements to the one we just proved, so it wont be a surprise if
we use similar reasoning.
REMARK
The important difference is that this statement is an if and only if statement. To prove
A if and only if B we must prove two statements:
1. If A, then B.
2. If B, then A.
Symbolically, we write A if and only if B as A B. We established the equivalence

of A B and (A B) (B A) in the chapter Truth Tables.
We can restate the proposition as
Proposition 4 (GCD of One (GCD OO))

Let a and b be integers.
1. If gcd(a, b) = 1, then there are integers x and y with ax + by = 1.
2. If there are integers x and y with ax + by = 1, then gcd(a, b) = 1.

Section 19.2 Some Useful Propositions 145
In statement (1), there is an existential quantifier in the conclusion, so we would expect to

use the construction method. The problem is Where do we get x and y? In the previous
proof, we used Bezouts Lemma and it makes sense to use it here as well. By Bezouts
Lemma and the hypothesis gcd(a, b) = 1, there exist integers x and y so that ax + by = 1.
In statement (2), an existential quantifier occurs in the hypothesis so we use the object
method and assume the existence of integers x and y so that ax + by = 1. Also, 1 | a and
1 | b. These are exactly the hypotheses of the GCD Characterization Theorem, so we can
conclude that gcd(a, b) = 1.
Here is a proof of the GCD of One proposition.
Proof: Since gcd(a, b) = 1, Bezouts Lemma assures the existence of integers x and y so
that ax + by = 1. Statement 1 is proved.
Now, 1 | a and 1 | b. Also, by the hypothesis of Statement 2, there exist integers x and y so
that ax + by = 1. These are exactly the hypotheses of the GCD Characterization Theorem,
so we can conclude that gcd(a, b) = 1 and Statement 2 is proved.
REMARK
This proof illustrates the connection between the GCD Characterization Theorem and
Bezouts Lemma. Both assume integers a and b. The GCD Characterization Theorem
starts with an integer d where d | a, d | b and integers x and y so that ax + by = d and
concludes that d = gcd(a, b). Bezouts Lemma gives a d so that d | a and d | b, namely
d = gcd(a, b), and also hands us integers x and y so that ax + by = d.
So, if we encounter a greatest common divisor in the conclusion, we can try the GCD
Characterization Theorem. If we encounter a greatest common divisor in the hypothesis,
we can try using Bezouts Lemma.
Here is another property of greatest common divisors.
Proposition 5 (Division by the GCD (DB GCD))

a b
Let a and b be integers. If gcd(a, b) = d 6= 0, then gcd , = 1.
d d
As we often do, lets get a sense of the proposition by using numeric examples.

a b a b
Example 1 First, observe that gcd , is meaningful. Since d | a and d | b, both and are
d d d d
integers.
Now gcd(18, 24) = 6. By the proposition Division by the GCD,

18 24
gcd , =1
6 6
which is exactly what we would expect from gcd(3, 4).

Now take minute to read the proof.
Proof: We will use the GCD Characterization Theorem. Since gcd(a, b) = d, Bezouts
Lemma assures the existence of integers x and y so that ax + by = d. Dividing by d gives
a b
x+ y =1
d d
a b
Since 1 divides both and and 1 is positive, the GCD Characterization Theorem implies
d d
that
a b
gcd , = 1.
d d
19.3 Using Properties of GCD
We have now built up a collection of useful results that we can build upon to increase our
understanding of the greatest common divisor.
Example 2 Prove the following proposition. Let a, b Z. For every integer n N, if gcd(a, b) = 1,
then gcd(a, bn ) = 1.
Proof: We begin by formally writing out our inductive statement P (n):
If gcd(a, b) = 1, then gcd(a, bn ) = 1.
Base Case The statement
If gcd(a, b) = 1, then gcd(a, b) = 1.
is trivially true.
That is, we assume
If gcd(a, b) = 1, then gcd(a, bk ) = 1.
Inductive Conclusion Now we show that the statement P (k + 1) is true, namely
If gcd(a, b) = 1, then gcd(a, bk+1 ) = 1.
Since gcd(a, b) = 1, Bezouts Lemma tells us that there exist integers x and y so that
ax + by = 1
Since gcd(a, bk ) = 1 by the Inductive Hypothesis, Bezouts Lemma tells us that there
exist integers x0 and y 0 so that
ax0 + bk y 0 = 1
Multiplying the two equations together gives
a2 xx0 + abk xy 0 + abx0 y + bk+1 yy 0 = 1

Section 19.3 Using Properties of GCD 147
which we can rewrite as
a(axx0 + bk xy 0 + bx0 y) + bk+1 (yy 0 ) = 1
Let x00 = axx0 + bk xy 0 + bx0 y and y 00 = yy 0 . Since there exist integers x00 and y 00 so
that
ax00 + bk+1 y 00 = 1
we can invoke GCD of One to assert that gcd(a, bk+1 ) = 1.
Example 3 Prove the following proposition. Given any rational number r, prove that there exist coprime
p
integers p and q, with q 6= 0, so that r = .
q
a
Proof: Since r is rational, we can write r as r = where a, b Z and b 6= 0. Let
b
a b
d = gcd(a, b). Since b 6= 0, d 6= 0. Let p = and q = . Since d is a divisor of a and
d d
b, both p and q are integers. Moreover, the proposition Division by GCD assures us that
p
gcd(p, q) = 1. Thus, there exist coprime integers p and q, with q 6= 0, so that r = .
q
Chapter 20
GCD from Prime Factorization
20.1 Objectives
1. State the Unique Factorization Theorem and the proof of uniqueness.
2. Read a proof of Finding A Prime Factor.
3. State and use Divisors from Prime Factorization.
4. State and use GCD from Prime Factorization.
Many of us are familiar with a method for calculating the GCD of positive integers with
the help of prime factorization. For example, given
252 = 22 32 7 and 630 = 2 32 5 7,
you may know that you can take the minimum exponent for each prime factor to determine
that gcd(252, 630) = 2 32 7 = 126. In this chapter, we investigate prime numbers
towards formalizing this result.
20.2 Introduction to Primes
Recall our definition of prime number.
Prime, Composite Otherwise, p is called composite.
Example 1 The integers 2, 3, 5 and 7 are primes. The integers 4 = 2 2, 6 = 2 3 and 8 = 2 2 2

are composite. Note, that by definition, 1 is not a prime.
We have already proved three propositions about primes, one of which is a consequence of
Coprimeness and Divisibility, and the other two were proved in the chapter on contradiction.
148
Section 20.3 Unique Factorization Theorem (UFT) 149
Proposition 1 (Euclids Lemma (EL))

If p is a prime and p | ab, then p | a or p | b.
Proposition 2 (Prime Factorization (PF))

If n is an integer greater than 1, then n can be written as a product of prime factors.
Proposition 3 (Euclids Theorem (ET))

The number of primes is infinite.
20.3 Unique Factorization Theorem (UFT)
In grade school you used prime numbers to write the prime factorization of any positive
integer greater than one. You probably never worried about the possibility that there might
be more than one way to do this. However, in some sets prime factorization is not unique.

Consider the set S = {a + b 5 | a, b Z}. In S, the
number 4 = 4 + 0 5 can be factored

in two different ways, 4 = 2 2 and 4 = ( 5 + 1)( 5 1). Moreover, 2, 5 + 1 and 5 1
are all prime numbers in S!
Since multiplication in the integers is commutative, the prime factorizations can be written
in any order. For example 12 = 2 2 3 = 2 3 2 = 3 2 2. However, up to the
order of the factors, the factorization of integers is unique. This property is so basic it is
referred to as the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. It is also referred to as the Unique
Factorization Theorem.
Theorem 4 (Unique Factorization Theorem (UFT))

If n > 1 is an integer, then n can be written as a product of prime factors and, apart from
the order of factors, this factorization is unique.
Recall that a single prime number is considered a product.

This theorem is also well known as the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
How can this important result be proved? First, observe that the conclusion contains two
parts:
1. n can be written as a product of prime factors (which we proved earlier), and
2. apart from the order of factors, this factorization is unique.
That n can be written as a product of prime factors follows is precisely the proposition
Prime Factorization. The key new part of the statement is that apart from the order of
factors, this factorization is unique. What follows is an outline of the proof of uniqueness.
150 Chapter 20 GCD from Prime Factorization
Sketch of Proof:
1. Suppose that n is factored into primes in two ways,
n = p1 p2 . . . pk = q1 q2 . . . q` (20.1)
where all of the ps and qs are primes.
2. Since p1 | n, p1 | q1 q2 . . . q` .
3. By repeatedly applying Euclids Lemma, p1 must divide one of the qs. If necessary,
rearrange the qs so that p1 | q1 .
4. Since q1 is prime, and p1 > 1, it must be the case that p1 = q1 .
5. Dividing Equation 20.1 by p1 = q1 gives
p2 p3 . . . pk = q2 q3 . . . q` (20.2)
6. By continuing in this way, we see that each p must be paired off with one of the qs
until there are no factors on either side.
7. Hence k = ` and, apart from the order of the factors, the two expressions for n are
the same.
This is a classic use of the uniqueness method. We assume that there are two representations
of the same object, and show that the two representations are, in fact, identical. Why,
however, is the argument labelled as a sketch of a proof? What is not as rock solid as we
would like it to be?
The author is waving his or her hands when writing repeatedly applying and continuing
in this way. How do we know that Euclids Lemma can be applied indefinitely? Are we
sure that we can always continue pairing factors? It may seem obvious to you and some
mathematicians might be lazy and leave the argument as stated above. However, induction
can be used to be fully convincing and meet our standards of rigour.
Self Check 1 Use induction to prove the following generalization of Euclids Lemma for all natural num-
bers n.
If p is prime and p | (m1 m2 mn ) , then p | mi for some i {1, 2, . . . , n}.
Self Check 2 Write a formal rigorous proof of the Unique Factorization Theorem (UFT).
20.4 Finding a Prime Factor
The previous proposition does not provide an algorithm for finding the prime factors of a
positive integer n. The next proposition shows that we do not have to check all of the prime
factors less than n, only those less than or equal to the square root of n.
Section 20.4 Finding a Prime Factor 151
Proposition 5 (Finding a Prime Factor (FPF))

An integer n > 1 is either prime or contains a prime factor less than or equal to n.
Lets begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: n is an integer and n > 1.

Conclusion: n is either prime or contains a prime factor less than or equal to n.
Before we see a proof, lets do an example.
Example 2 Is 73 a prime number?

Solution: Using
Finding
a Prime
Factor, we can check for divisibility by primes less than
or equal to 73. Now 73 < 81 = 9 so any possible prime factor must be less than or
equal to 8. The only candidates to check are 2, 3, 5 and 7. Since none of these divide 73,
73 must be prime.
1. Suppose that n is not prime.
2. Let p be the smallest prime factor of n.
3. Since n is composite we can write n = ab where a and b are integers such that
1 < a, b < n.
4. Since p is the smallest prime factor, p a and p b and so p2 = p p a b = n.

That is p n.
Analysis of Proof Since or appears in the conclusion, we will use proof by elimination.
The equivalent statement that is proved is:
If n is an integer greater than 1 and n is not prime, then n contains a prime

factor less than or equal to n.
The word a should alert us to the presence of an existential quantifier. We could

reword the statement as
If n is an integer greater than 1 and n is not prime, then there exists a

prime factor of n which is less than or equal to n.
This is the statement that will actually be proved.
Hypothesis: n is an integer greater than 1 and n is not prime.

Conclusion: There exists a prime factor of n which is less than or equal to n.
Core Proof Technique: There is an existential quantifier in the conclusion so the

author uses the construct method.
Sentence 1 Suppose that n is not prime.

This sentence tells us that the author is going to use proof by elimination.
Sentence 2 Let p be the smallest prime factor of n.

The conclusion has an existential quantifier and so the author uses the construct
method. The prime p will be the desired prime factor though it is not clear yet why
smallest is important. The proposition on Prime Factorization guarantees us that
a prime factor exists.
Sentence 3 Since n is composite we can write n = ab where a and b are integers such that
1 < a, b < n.
By the hypotheses of the restated proposition, n > 1 and n is not prime, so n is
composite and can be factored.
Sentence 4 Since p is the smallest prime factor, p a and p b and so p2 = p p

a b = n. That is p n.
This is where smallest is used. The conclusion follows from arithmetic and the fact
that p is the smallest prime factor.
20.5 Working With Prime Factorizations
The Unique Factorization Theorem tells us that for any integer n 2, if p1 , p2 , . . . , pk are
all the distinct primes that divide n, then we may express
n = p1 1 p2 2 pk k ,
where 1 , 2 , . . . , k N. For example, the prime divisors of 80262 are 2, 3, 7 and 13, and,
in particular, 80262 = 21 32 73 131 .
Note that in the unique prime factorization of 80262, we cannot use primes such as 5, 11
or 17 as they do not divide 80262. However, if we are willing to give up on the uniqueness
of the factorization, then we may write 80262 = 21 32 50 73 110 131 170 . The
key here is that 50 , 110 and 170 are all equal to 1, so their inclusion in the product has not
changed the overall answer. Nevertheless, this has now allowed us to use a larger list of
primes in the factorization of 80262, at the cost of losing the guarantee that these primes
will divide 80262.
In general, given any integer n 2, if we have a large enough list of distinct primes
p1 , p2 , . . . , pm that includes all the prime divisors of n, but may also include primes that
dont divide n, then we are allowed to represent n using all the primes in this list by saying
n = p1 1 p2 2 pmm ,
where 1 , 2 , . . . , m are non-negative integers. The next proposition uses this idea to list
all of the positive divisors of a positive integer.
Section 20.5 Working With Prime Factorizations 153
Proposition 6 (Divisors From Prime Factorization (DFPF))

Let n > 1 be an integer and d N. If
n = p1 1 p2 2 pk k
is the unique prime factorization of n into powers of distinct primes p1 , p2 , . . . , pk , where the
integers 1 , 2 , . . . , k 1, then d is a positive divisor of n if and only if d can be written
as
d = pd11 pd22 pdkk where 0 di i for i = 1, 2, . . . , k.
Proof: Assume n = p1 1 p2 2 pk k , where p1 , p2 , . . . , pk are distinct primes and the integers

1 , 2 , . . . , k 1.
In the case when d = 1, we know d is a positive divisor of n and we have 1 = p01 p02 p0k , so
the proposition is true for d = 1.
Otherwise, suppose d 2. We will now prove the conclusion of the given proposition by
proving each direction of the if and only if statement.
= : We will use strong induction on n.
When n = 2, the prime factorization of n is 21 . The only positive divisors of 2 are 20 and
21 so the statement is true when n = 2.
Assume that the statement is true for all n k for some integer k 2.
Consider when n = k + 1. Assume d | n. By Prime Factorization, we know that d has a
prime factor. Moreover, by Transitivity of Divisibility, this prime factor divides n. Using
the generalization of Euclids Lemma, (after rearranging primes, if necessary), we can say
this prime is p1 . After dividing, we have that pd1 | pn1 . Now, if pn1 = 1, then d = p1 and
n = p1 so the claim holds. Otherwise, 2 pn1 < n, so by our inductive hypothesis, pd1 can
be written as
pd11 1 pd22 pdkk where 0 d1 1 1 1 and 0 di i for i = 2, . . . , k.
After multiplying by p1 , we complete the proof in this direction by the Principal of Strong
Induction.
= : Suppose we have the expression d = pd11 pd22 pdkk where 0 di i for

i = 1, 2, . . . , k. Since (i di ) 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , k, we know that
(1 d1 ) (2 d2 ) ( d )
q = p1 p2 pk k k .
is a positive integer. Exponent laws tell us that
(1 d1 ) (2 d2 ) ( d )
qd = (p1 p2 pk k k )(pd11 pd22 pdkk ) = p1 1 p2 2 pk k = n.
Therefore d | n as required.
Example 3 (Using Divisors From Prime Factorization)

What are the positive divisors of 72?
We will use Divisors From Prime Factorization. Since
72 = 23 32
the positive divisors of a are integers of the form
d = 2d1 3d2 where 0 d1 3 and 0 d2 2.
The possibilities are
20 30 = 1 21 30 = 2 22 30 = 4 23 30 = 8
20 31 = 3 21 31 = 6 22 31 = 12 23 31 = 24
20 32 = 9 21 32 = 18 22 32 = 36 23 32 = 72
Exercise 1 Using Divisors From Prime Factorization, list all of the positive factors of 45.
Exercise 2 Show that the number of positive divisors of an integer n, whose unique prime factorization
is
n = p1 1 p2 2 pk k ,
is given by (1 + 1)(2 + 1) (k + 1).
Now that we have a method to obtain all the positive divisors of any positive integer using
its prime factorization, we may expect to use this method to calculate the GCD of two
positive integers say a and b. First, note that given a, b N, since there are infinitely many
primes but only a finite number of prime factors of a and b, we may produce a large enough
list of distinct primes, say p1 , p2 , . . . , pk , that contain all the prime divisors of both a and
b. This provides us with ways to write both a and b, respectively, in terms of the primes
p1 , p2 , . . . , pk as
a = p1 1 p2 2 pk k , and
b = p1 1 p2 2 pk k ,
where 1 , 2 , . . . , k and 1 , 2 , . . . , k are non-negative integers.
Proposition 7 (GCD From Prime Factorization (GCD PF))

If
a = p1 1 p2 2 pk k
and
b = p1 1 p2 2 pk k
Section 20.5 Working With Prime Factorizations 155
are ways to express a and b as a product of primes, where the primes are distinct and some
of the exponents may be zero, then
gcd(a, b) = pd11 pd22 pdkk where di = min{i , i } for i = 1, 2, . . . , k.
Proof: Assume that a = p1 1 p2 2 pk k and b = p1 1 p2 2 pk k , where p1 , p2 , . . . , pk are

distinct primes and the exponents are non-negative integers.
Consider d N given by d = pd11 pd22 pdkk where di = min{i , i } for i = 1, 2, . . . , k. Since
min{i , i } i as well as min{i , i } i for each i = 1, 2, . . . , k, according to Divisors
From Prime Factorization (DFPF), d | a and d | b.
Consider some positive integer c such that c | a and c | b. According to DFPF, a prime
factorization of c is
c = p11 p22 pkk ,
where for each i = 1, 2, . . . , k, 0 i i as c | a and 0 i i as c | b. On the other
hand, for each i = 1, 2, . . . , k, di = i if i i , otherwise di = i , which means 0 i di .
Then, once again by DFPF, c | d, so Bounds By Divisibility (BBD) gives us c d. Note
that a similar analysis would apply to all negative common divisors of a and b.
Consequently, the definition of GCD, d = gcd(a, b).
Example 4 (Using GCD From Prime Factorization)

What is gcd(24750, 434511)?
Since
24750 = 21 32 53 111 = 21 32 53 70 111 190
and
434511 = 33 71 112 191 = 20 33 50 71 112 191 ,
gcd(24750, 434511) = 2min{1,0} 3min{2,3} 5min{3,0} 7min{0,1} 11min{1,2} 19min{0,1}

= 20 32 50 70 111 190
= 99
Though this method of finding the GCD works well enough on small examples, but for
larger numbers, this method is very slow and inefficient. Nevertheless, it is an important
theoretical tool that can be used to prove other propositions.
Exercise 3 Use GCD PF to compute gcd(33 51 74 131 , 52 77 131 232 ).

Chapter 21
Linear Diophantine Equations:

One Solution
21.1 Objectives
1. Define Diophantine equations.
2. Prove the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem (Part 1)
21.2 Linear Diophantine Equations
In high school, you studied how to find all the real solutions to systems of linear equations.
However, there are many applications where we only want to find the integer solutions. For
example, a variable might represent the number of trucks to use when shipping a product
over large distances.
Definition 21.2.1 Equations with integer coefficients for which integer solutions are sought, are called
Diophantine Diophantine equations after the Greek mathematician, Diophantus of Alexandria, who
Equations studied such equations. Diophantine equations are called linear if each term in the equation
is a constant or a constant times a single variable of degree 1.
The simplest linear Diophantine equation is

ax = b
To emphasize, a and b are given integers in Z where a 6= 0 and we want an x Z that
solves ax = b. From the definition of divisibility, we know that this equation has an integer
solution x if and only if a | b, and if a | b, then x = ab .
What about linear Diophantine equations with two variables?
Theorem 1 (Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 1 (LDET 1))

Let gcd(a, b) = d. The linear Diophantine equation
ax + by = c
has a solution if and only if d | c.
156
Section 21.2 Linear Diophantine Equations 157
Before we study a proof of this theorem, lets see how it works in practice.
Example 1 Which of the following linear Diophantine equations has a solution?
1. 33x + 18y = 10
2. 33x + 18y = 15
Solution:
1. Since gcd(33, 18) = 3, and 3 does not divide 10, the first equation has no integer
solutions.
2. Since gcd(33, 18) = 3, and 3 does divide 15, the second equation does have an integer
solution.
But how do we find a solution? Here are two simple steps that will allow us to find a
solution.
1. Use the Extended Euclidean Algorithm to find d = gcd(a, b) and x1 and y1 where
ax1 + by1 = d. (21.1)
c
2. Multiply Equation 21.1 by k = to get akx1 + bky1 = kd = c. A solution is x = kx1
d
and y = ky1 .
Applying these two steps to Part 2 of the example, the Extended Euclidean Algorithm gives
x y r q
1 0 33 0
0 1 18 0
1 1 15 1
1 2 3 1
6 11 0 5
hence
33 1 + 18 2 = 3
c 15
Multiplying by k = = = 5 gives
d 3
33 5 + 18 10 = 15
so one particular solution is x = 5 and y = 10.

But are there more solutions? Thats where part 2 of the Linear Diophantine Equation
Theorem comes in and we will cover it later. Lets prove part 1 first.
158 Chapter 21 Linear Diophantine Equations: One Solution
1. First, suppose that the linear Diophantine equation ax+by = c has an integer solution
x = x0 , y = y0 . That is, ax0 + by0 = c.
2. Since d = gcd(a, b), d | a and d | b.
3. But then, by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, d | (ax0 + by0 ). That is d | c.
4. Conversely, suppose that d | c.
5. Then there exists an integer k such that c = kd.
6. Now, by Bezouts Lemma, there exist integers x1 and y1 so that
ax1 + by1 = d.
c
7. Multiplying this equation by k = gives
d
akx1 + bky1 = kd = c
which, in turn, implies that x = kx1 and y = ky1 is a solution to ax + by = c.
Analysis of Proof This is an if and only if statement so we must prove two statements.
1. If the linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c has a solution, then d | c.

2. If d | c, then the linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c has a solution.
Core Proof Technique: Both statements contain an existential quantifier in the

hypothesis, so each will start with the object method. Though both statements
also contain an existential quantifier in the conclusion, only one uses the construct
method. The other uses a proposition we have already proved.
Sentence 1 First, suppose that the linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c has an integer
solution x = x0 , y = y0 . That is, ax0 + by0 = c.
The author does not explicitly rephrase the if and only if as two statements. Rather,
Sentence 1 indicates which of the two implicit statements will be proved by stating
the hypothesis of the first statement. Moreover, the first statement uses an existential
quantifier in the hypothesis. The hypothesis of the first statement could be restated
as
There exists an integer solution x0 , y0 to the linear Diophantine equation

ax + by = c.
The four parts are

Quantifier:
Variable: x0 , y0
Domain: Z
Open sentence: ax + by = c.
Section 21.2 Linear Diophantine Equations 159
Since the existential quantifier occurs in the hypothesis, the author uses the object
method. The author assumes the existence of the corresponding objects (x0 , y0 ) in a
suitable domain (Z) and assumes that these objects satisfy the related open sentence
(ax + by = c).
Sentence 2 Since d = gcd(a, b), d | a and d | b.

This follows from the definition of greatest common divisor.
Sentence 3 But then, by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, d | (ax0 + by0 ). That is
d | c.
Since the hypotheses of DIC (a, b and d are integers, and d | a and d | b) are satisfied,
the author can invoke the conclusion of DIC (d | (ax0 + by0 )). From Sentence 1,
ax0 + by0 = c so d | c.
Sentence 4 Conversely, suppose that d | c.

The conversely indicates that the author is about to prove the second statement.
Recall that an if and only if always consists of a statement and its converse. The
hypothesis of the converse is d | c. The definition of divides contains an existential
quantifier and so, in Sentence 5, the authors uses the object method. The conclusion
of Statement 2 contains an existential quantifier (there exists an integer solution to
the linear Diophantine equation), so the author uses the construct method to build a
suitable solution. Here are the parts of the existential quantifier in the conclusion.
Quantifier:
Variable: x, y
Domain: Z
Open sentence: ax + by = c.
Sentence 5 Then there exists an integer k such that c = kd.

This is the object method and follows from the definition of divisibility.
Sentence 6 Now, by Bezouts Lemma, there exist integers x1 and y1 so that
ax1 + by1 = d.
The author is making use of a previously proved proposition.

c
Sentence 7 Multiplying this equation by k = gives
d
akx1 + bky1 = kd = c
which, in turn, implies that x = kx1 and y = ky1 is a solution to ax + by = c.

This is where the solution is constructed, x = kx1 and y = ky1 , and where the
open sentence is verified. The author does not explicitly check that kx1 and kx2 are
integers, though we must when we analyse the proof.
Chapter 22
Linear Diophantine Equations: All

Solutions
22.1 Objectives
1. Discover a proof to the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem (Part 2).
2. Examples of the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem (Part 2).
22.2 Finding All Solutions to ax + by = c
LDET 1 tells us when solutions exist and how to construct a solution. It does not find all
of the solutions. That happens next.
Theorem 1 (Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 2, (LDET 2))

Let gcd(a, b) = d where both a and b are not zero. If x = x0 and y = y0 is one particular
integer solution to the linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c, then the complete integer
solution is
b a
x = x0 + n, y = y0 n, for all n Z.
d d
Before we discover a proof, lets make sure we understand the statement.
Example 1 Find all solutions to 33x + 18y = 15.

Solution: Since gcd(33, 18) = 3, and 3 does divide 15, this equation does have integer
solutions by the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 1. If we can find one solution,
we can use the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 2 to find all solutions. Since
we earlier found the solution x = 5 and y = 10 the complete solution is
x = 5 + 6n, y = 10 11n for all n Z.
You we can check that these are solutions by substitution.
160
Section 22.2 Finding All Solutions to ax + by = c 161
Check:
33x + 18y = 33(5 + 6n) + 18(10 11n) = 165 + 198n + 180 198n = 15
This check does not verify that we have found all solutions. It verifies that all of the pairs
of integers we have found are solutions.
REMARK
The use of for all in the statement of LDET 2 is common but it means something different
than the universal quantifier. It is arguably better to say as n ranges over all the integers.
In fact, complete integer solution is really hiding the use of sets. A formal solution to
the previous example can be written as {(x, y) : x = 5 + 6n, y = 10 11n, n Z}. This
makes it particularly clear that one solution consists of a value for x and also a value for y.
Moreover, the same n must be used for any one solution.
For the general equation, lets be explicit about what sets are lurking beneath the surface
and what we need to do with them. There are, in fact, two sets in the conclusion, the set
of solutions, and the set of x and y pairs. We define them formally as follows.
Complete solution Let S = {(x, y) : x, y Z, ax + by = c}
Proposed solution Let T = {(x, y) : x = x0 + db n, y = y0 ad n, n Z}
The conclusion of LDET 2 is S = T .

How do we show that two sets are equal? Two sets S and T are equal if and only if S T
and T S. That is, at the risk of being repetitive, to establish that S = T we must show
two things:
1. S T and
2. T S.
Normally one of the two is easy and the other is harder.

Suppose we want to show S T . How do universal quantifiers figure in? Showing that
S T is equivalent to the following statement.
S T if and only if, for every member s S, w have that s T .
If you prefer symbolic notation you could write s S, s T or alternatively s S s T .

What are the components of the universal quantifier?
Quantifier:
Variable: s
Domain: S
Open sentence: sT
162 Chapter 22 Linear Diophantine Equations: All Solutions
The select method works perfectly in these situations.

As frequently as sets are used, they are usually implicit and our first task is to discern what
sets exist and how they are used. Lets return to the proof of LDET 2 where our sets are:
Complete solution Let S = {(x, y) : x, y Z, ax + by = c}

Proposed solution Let T = {(x, y) : x = x0 + db n, y = y0 ad n, n Z}
Let us discover a proof. We must keep in mind that we have two things to prove
1. S T and
2. T S.
In this case, the second statement is easier so we will do it first. How do we show that
T S? We must show that for all x T, x S. We certainly dont want to individually
check every element of T so we choose a representative element of T , one that could be
replaced by any element of T and the subsequent argument would hold. This is just the
select method and it provides our first statement.

b a
Let n0 Z. Then x0 + n0 , y0 n0 T.
d d
To show that this element is in S we must show that the element satisfies the defining
property of S, that is, the element is a solution.

b a
ax + by = a x0 + n0 + b y0 n0
d d
ab ab
= ax0 + by0 + n0 n0
d d
= ax0 + by0
=c (by hypothesis, x = x0 and y = y0 is an integer solution)
And now we can conclude

b a
x0 + n0 , y0 n0 S.
d d
Now we consider the first statement. How do we show that S T ? We choose a represen-
tative element in S and show that it is in T , that is, that it satisfies the defining property
of T . Specifically, we must show that an arbitrary solution (x, y) has the form

b a
x0 + n, y0 n .
d d
Let (x, y) be an arbitrary solution. Then (x, y) S and we must show (x, y) T . Let
(x0 , y0 ) be a particular solution to the linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c. The
existence of (x0 , y0 ) is assured by the hypothesis. Lets do the obvious thing and substitute
both solutions into the equation:
ax + by = c
ax0 + by0 = c.
Section 22.2 Finding All Solutions to ax + by = c 163
Eliminating c and factoring gives
a(x x0 ) = b(y y0 ).
Now what? We are looking to show that (x, y) T and we see d = gcd(a, b) 6= 0 in the
denominator. This might remind you of Division by the GCD:
Proposition 2 (Division by the GCD (DB GCD))

a b
Let a and b be integers. If gcd(a, b) = d 6= 0, then gcd , =1
d d
So we divide the previous equation by d to get
a b
(x x0 ) = (y y0 ). (22.1)
d d

a b b a
Using Division by the GCD, gcd , = 1. Since divides (x x0 ) we know from
d d d d
Coprimeness and Divisibility that

b
(x x0 ).
d
By the definition of divisibility, there exists an n Z so that
b b
x x0 = n x = x0 + n.
d d
b
Substituting n for x x0 in Equation (22.1) yields
d
a
y = y0 n.
d
So every solution is of the form

b a
(x, y) = x0 + n, y0 n
d d
and so
(x, y) T.
A very condensed proof of Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 2 might look like
the following. Notice the lack of mention of sets.

Let gcd(a, b) = d 6= 0. If x = x0 and y = y0 is one particular integer solution to the linear
Diophantine equation ax + by = c, then the complete integer solution is
b a
x = x0 + n, y = y0 n, for all n Z.
d d
b a
Proof: Substitution shows that integers of the form x = x0 + n , y = y0 n, n Z are
d d
solutions.
Now, let (x, y) be an arbitrary solution and let (x0 , y0 ) be a particular solution to the linear
Diophantine equation ax + by = c. Then
ax + by = c
ax0 + by0 = c.
Eliminating c and factoring gives a(x x0 ) = b(y y0 ) (1). Dividing

by d and using
b
Division by the GCD and Coprimeness and Divisibility we have (x x0 ). Hence, there
d
b a
exists an n Z so that x = x0 + n (2). Substituting (2) in (1) gives y = y0 n as
d d
needed.
Exercise 1 Find all solutions to
1. 35x + 21y = 28
2. 35x 21y = 28
22.3 More Examples
1. (a) Find all integer solutions to the linear Diophantine equation 36x + 48y = 18.
Solution: Since gcd(36, 48) = 12 and 12 - 18, no solutions exists by LDET 1.
(b) Find all integer solutions to the linear Diophantine equation 36x + 438y = 18.
Solution: First, we apply the EEA to 36 and 438.
y x r q
1 0 438 0
0 1 36 0
1 12 6 12
6 73 0 6
By the EEA, gcd(36, 438) = 6 and
36 (12) + 438 1 = 6.
Section 22.3 More Examples 165
Multiplying by 3 gives
36 (36) + 438 3 = 18
and so x0 = 36 and y0 = 3 is one particular solution to 36x + 438y = 18.
By LDET 2, the complete solution is x = 36 + 73n, y = 3 6n, for all n Z.
(c) Find all positive integer solutions to the linear Diophantine equation 36x+438y =
18.
Solution: Following on from part (b), we are looking for values of n so that
x > 0 and y > 0. That is,
36 + 73n > 0 and 3 6n > 0.
Now
36
36 + 73n > 0 = n > .
73
Since n is an integer, this gives n 1. Also,
3
3 6n > 0 = n < .
6
Since n is an integer, this gives n 0.
There are no integers that simultaneously satisfy n 1 and n 0, so no positive
integer solutions to 36x + 438y = 18 exist.
2. What is the complete solution to the linear Diophantine equation 1950x 770y = 30?
We begin with the EEA applied to 1950 and 770. We will adjust the signs later.
x y r q
1 0 1950 0
0 1 770 0
1 2 410 2
1 3 360 1
2 5 50 1
15 38 10 7
77 195 0 5
Now we see that

1950(15) 770(38) = 10.
Multiplying by 3 gives one particular solution, x0 = 45, y0 = 114 to
1950x 770y = 30. The complete solution is x = 45 77n, y = 114 195n for all
n Z.
Check:
1950x 770y = 1950(45 77n) 770(114 195n)

= 1950(45) 1950(77n) + 770(114) + 770(195n)
= 1950(45) + 770(114)
= 87750 + 87780
= 30
3. (From a collection attributed to Alcuin of York in 775 who is known to have sent a
collection of similar problems to Charlemagne.)
One hundred bushels of grain are distributed among one hundred people in such a way
that every man receives three bushels, every woman receives two bushels and every
child receives half a bushel. How many men, women and children are there? (Give all
possible solutions if more than one exists.)
Solution: Let m represent the number of men, w the number of women and c the
number of children. The statement of the problem implies that
m + w + c = 100
3m + 2w + 0.5c = 100.
Multiplying the second equation by 2 and eliminating the c gives
5m + 3w = 100. (22.2)
One obvious solution to Equation 22.2 is m = 20 and w = 0 and the complete solution
to Equation 22.2 is
m = 20 + 3n
nZ
y = 0 5n
The complete set of solutions for the problem where m, w and c are each non-negative
is enumerated in the table below.
n m w c
0 20 0 80
1 17 5 78
2 14 10 76
3 11 15 74
4 8 20 72
5 5 25 70
6 2 30 68
Chapter 23
Congruence
23.1 Objectives
1. Define a is congruent to b modulo m.
2. Read a proof of Congruence is an Equivalence Relation.
3. Discover the proof of Properties of Congruence.
4. Give a proof of Congruence Division.
23.2 Congruences
23.2.1 Definition of Congruences
One of the difficulties in working out properties of divisibility is that we dont have an
arithmetic of divisibility. Wouldnt it be nice if we could solve problems about divisibility
in much the same way that we usually do arithmetic: add, subtract, multiply and divide?
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 1855) was the greatest mathematician of the last two cen-
turies. In a landmark work, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, published when Gauss was 23,
he introduced congruence notation and provided a mechanism to treat divisibility with
arithmetic.
Definition 23.2.1 Let m be a fixed positive integer. If a, b Z we say that a is congruent to b modulo m,
Congruent and write
a b (mod m)
if and only if m | (a b). If m - (a b), we write a 6 b (mod m).
REMARK
The three bars used for congruence is the same notation that is used for logical equivalence
even though there is no connection. Unfortunately, mathematicians often use the same
symbol to mean very different things.
167
168 Chapter 23 Congruence
Example 1 Verify each of the following
1. 20 2 (mod 6)
2. 2 20 (mod 6)
3. 20 8 (mod 6)
4. 20 4 (mod 6)
5. 24 0 (mod 6)
6. 5 6 3 (mod 7)
REMARK
One already useful trait of this definition is the number of equivalent ways we have to work
with it.
a b (mod m)
m | (a b)
k Z such that a b = km
k Z such that a = km + b
Example 2 In each of the following cases, find all values of a, 0 a < m where m is the modulus, that
satisfy the congruence relation.
1. a 52 (mod 12)
2. 14 a (mod 15)
3. 2a 5 (mod 7)
4. 2a 5 (mod 8)
5. 2a 4 (mod 8)
6. a2 1 (mod 7)
Solution:
1. a = 4
2. a = 1
3. a = 6
4. No solution exists
5. a {2, 6}
6. a {1, 6}
Section 23.3 Elementary Properties 169
23.3 Elementary Properties
Another extraordinarily useful trait of this definition is that it behaves a lot like equality.
Equality is an equivalence relation. That is, it has the following three properties:
1. reflexivity, a = a.
2. symmetry, If a = b then b = a.
3. transitivity, If a = b and b = c, then a = c.
Most relationships that you can think of do not have these three properties. The relation
greater than fails reflexivity. The relation divides fails symmetry. The non-mathematical
relation is a parent of fails transitivity. However, logical equivalence and similarity of
triangles do satisfy this.
Proposition 1 (Congruence Is an Equivalence Relation (CER))

Let a, b, c Z. Then
1. a a (mod m).
2. If a b (mod m), then b a (mod m).
3. If a b (mod m) and b c (mod m), then a c (mod m).
These may seem obvious but as the earlier examples showed, many relations do not have
these properties. So, a proof is needed. We will give a proof for all of them, and then an
analysis for part 3.
Proof: We show each part in turn.
1. Because a a = 0 and m | 0, the definition of congruence gives a a (mod m).
2. Since a b (mod m), m | (a b). Now, b a = (a b) so (a b) | (b a). By

Transitivity of Divisibility, m | (b a) and thus by the definition of congruence, b a
(mod m).
3. Since a b (mod m), m | (a b). Since b c (mod m), m | (b c). Now, by the
Divisibility of Integer Combinations, m | ((1)(a b) + (1)(b c)) so m | (a c). By
the definition of congruence, a c (mod m).
Analysis of Proof We will prove part 3 of the proposition Congruence Is an Equivalence

Relation.
Hypothesis: a, b, c Z, a b (mod m) and b c (mod m).

Conclusion: a c (mod m).
Sentence 1 Since a b (mod m), m | (a b).

The author is working forward from the hypothesis using the definition of congruence.
Sentence 2 Since b c (mod m), m | (b c).

The author is working forward from the hypothesis using the definition of congruence.
Sentence 3 Now, by the Divisibility of Integer Combinations, m | ((1)(a b) + (1)(b c))

so m | (a c).
Here it is useful to keep in mind where the author is going. The question How do
I show that one number is congruent to another number? has the answer, in this
case, of showing that m | (a c) so the author needs to find a way of generating
a c. This value a c follows nicely from an application of the Divisibility of Integer
Combinations.
Sentence 4 By the definition of congruence, a c (mod m).

The author is working forward from m | (a c) using the definition of congruence.
Proposition 2 (Properties of Congruence (PC))

Let a, a0 , b, b0 Z. If a a0 (mod m) and b b0 (mod m), then
1. a + b a0 + b0 (mod m)
2. a b a0 b0 (mod m)
3. ab a0 b0 (mod m).
This proposition allows us to perform substitutions of congruent values. We will discover a

proof of the third part and leave the first two parts as exercises.
As usual we begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: a a0 (mod m) and b b0 (mod m).
Conclusion: ab a0 b0 (mod m).
Lets consider the question How do we show that two numbers are congruent to one
another? The obvious abstract answer is Use the definition of congruence. We may
want to keep in mind, however, that there are several equivalent forms.
a b (mod m)
m | (a b)
k Z such that a b = km
k Z such that a = km + b
It is not at all clear which is best or whether, in fact, several could work. Since the
conclusion of part three involves the arithmetic operation of multiplication, and we dont
have multiplication properties for equivalence or divisibility, it makes sense to consider
either the third or fourth of the equivalent forms. There isnt much to separate them. Lets
choose the last form and see how it works. So, the answer to How do we show that two
numbers are congruent to one another? in the notation of this proof is We must find an
integer k so that ab = km + a0 b0 . Lets record that.
Proof in Progress
1. To be completed.
2. Since there exists k so that ab = km + a0 b0 , ab a0 b0 (mod m).
The problem is how to find k. There is no obvious way backwards here so lets start working
forward. The two hypotheses a a0 (mod m) and b b0 (mod m) can be restated in any
of their equivalent forms. Since we have already decided that we would work backwards
with the fourth form, it makes sense to use the same form working forwards. That gives
two statements.
Proof in Progress
1. Since a a0 (mod m), there exists an integer j such that a = mj + a0 (1).
2. Since b b0 (mod m), there exists an integer h such that b = mh + b0 (2).
3. To be completed.
But now there seems to be a rather direct way to produce an ab and an a0 b0 which we want
for the conclusion. Just multiply equations (1) and (2) together. Doing that produces
ab = m2 jh + mjb0 + a0 mh + a0 b0 = (mjh + jb0 + a0 h)m + a0 b0
If we let k = mjh + jb0 + a0 h then k is an integer and satisfies the property we needed in
the last line of the proof, that is ab = km + a0 b0 . Lets record this.
Proof in Progress
1. Since a a0 (mod m), there exists an integer j such that a = mj + a0 (1).
2. Since b b0 (mod m), there exists an integer h such that b = mh + b0 (2).
3. Multiplying (1) by (2) gives ab = m2 jh+mjb0 +a0 mh+a0 b0 = (mjh+jb0 +a0 h)m+a0 b0 .
Lastly, we write a proof. Note that the reader of the proof is expected to be familiar with
the equivalent forms.
Proof: Since a a0 (mod m), there exists an integer j such that a = mj + a0 (1). Since
b b0 (mod m), there exists an integer h such that b = mh + b0 (2). Multiplying (1) by (2)
gives
ab = m2 jh + mjb0 + a0 mh + a0 b0 = (mjh + jb0 + a0 h)m + a0 b0 .
Since mjh + jb0 + a0 h is an integer, ab a0 b0 (mod m).
REMARK
The preceding proof goes back to first principles by relying on the definition of divisibility.
This is okay and something that should definitely be attempted before admitting defeat.
However, we have built some useful results on divisibility and it makes sense to see if we
can use these powerful tools to discover an alternative proof. Below we describe how you
might come up with a more elegant argument.
Recall the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: a a0 (mod m) and b b0 (mod m).
Conclusion: ab a0 b0 (mod m).
We know that m | (a a0 ) and m | (b b0 ). We need to show that ab a0 b0 (mod m) or

equivalently, m | (ab a0 b0 ). How do we do this?
Our go-to theorem is DIC. Lets try to use it here. To get the terms ab a0 b0 from
(a a0 )x + (b b0 )y
it seems like we could pick x = b to get ab, but then we also get an a0 b term which we need
to cancel. Setting y = a0 will do this and also gives us the a0 b0 term we need. This leads
us to the following proof.
Proof: Since a a0 (mod m) and b b0 (mod m), by definition of congruence, we have

that m | (a a0 ) and b | (b b0 ). By Divisibility of Integer Combinations,
m | [(a a0 )b + (b b0 )a0 ].
Expanding and simplifying gives m | (ab a0 b0 ) and hence ab a0 b0 by the definition of

congruence.
Exercise 1 Prove the remainder of the Properties of Congruence proposition.
Exercise 2 Use induction to prove the following corollary of Properties of Congruence.
Let a, b Z. If a b (mod m), then an bn (mod m) for all n N.

There are four arithmetic operations with integers, but analogues to only three have been
given. It turns out that division is problematic. A statement of the form
ab ab0 (mod m) b b0 (mod m)
seems natural enough, simply divide by a. This works with the integer equation ab = ab0 .
But consider the case where m = 12, a = 6, b = 3 and b0 = 5. It is indeed true that
18 30 (mod 12)
and so
6365 (mod 12)
But dividing by 6 gives the false statement
35 (mod 12).
Division works only under the specific conditions of the next proposition.
Proposition 3 (Congruence Division (CD))

If ac bc (mod m) and gcd(c, m) = 1, then a b (mod m).
Before we read the proof, lets look at an example.
Example 3 Examples of division in congruence relations.
1. 8 7 17 7 (mod 3) 8 17 (mod 3)
2. For 6 3 6 5 (mod 12), CD cannot be invoked. Why?

Because gcd(c, m) = gcd(6, 12) = 6 6= 1, the hypotheses of CD are not satisfied and
so the conclusion of CD cannot be invoked.
1. Since ac bc (mod m), m | (ac bc). That is, m | c(a b).
2. By the proposition Coprimeness and Divisibility, m | (a b).
3. Hence, by the definition of congruence a b (mod m).

Chapter 24
Congruence and Remainders
24.1 Objectives
1. Read the proof of Congruent Iff Same Remainder.
2. Apply Congruent Iff Same Remainder.
24.2 Congruence and Remainders
We now give one more statement that is equivalent to a b (mod m).
Proposition 1 (Congruent Iff Same Remainder (CISR))

a b (mod m) if and only if a and b have the same remainder when divided by m.
Because this proposition is an if and only if proposition, there are two parts to the proof:
a statement and its converse. We can restate the proposition to make the two parts more
explicit.
Proposition 2 (Congruent Iff Same Remainder (CISR))
1. If a b (mod m), then a and b have the same remainder when divided by m.
2. If a and b have the same remainder when divided by m, then a b (mod m).
In practice, the two statements are not usually written out separately. The author assumes
that you do that whenever you read if and only if. Many if and only if proofs begin
with some preliminary material that will help both parts of the proof. For example, they
often introduce notation that will be used in both parts.
Lets look at a proof of Congruent Iff Same Remainder. Before we do an analysis, make
sure that you can identify
174
Section 24.2 Congruence and Remainders 175
1. preliminary material (if any exists),
2. the proof of a statement, and
3. the proof of the converse of the statement.
Proof: The Division Algorithm applied to a and m gives
a = q1 m + r1 , where 0 r1 < m.
The Division Algorithm applied to b and m gives
b = q2 m + r2 , where 0 r2 < m.
Subtracting the second equation from the first gives
a b = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 ), where m < r1 r2 < m.
If a b (mod m), then m | (a b) and there exists an integer h so that hm = a b. Hence
a b = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 ) = hm = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 )

= r1 r2 = m(h q1 + q2 )
which implies m | (r1 r2 ). But, m < r1 r2 < m so r1 r2 = 0.

Conversely, if a and b have the same remainder when divided by m, then r1 = r2 and
a b = (q1 q2 )m so a b (mod m).
The preliminary material is quoted below.
The Division Algorithm applied to a and m gives
a = q1 m + r1 , where 0 r1 < m.
The Division Algorithm applied to b and m gives
b = q2 m + r2 , where 0 r2 < m.
Subtracting the second equation from the first gives
a b = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 ), where m < r1 r2 < m.
The proof of Statement 1 is
If a b (mod m), then m | (a b) and there exists an integer h so that

hm = a b. Hence
ab = (q1 q2 )m+(r1 r2 ) hm = (q1 q2 )m+(r1 r2 ) r1 r2 = m(hq1 +q2 )
which implies m | (r1 r2 ). But, m < r1 r2 < m so r1 r2 = 0.
The proof of the converse of Statement 1, Statement 2, is

176 Chapter 24 Congruence and Remainders
Conversely, if a and b have the same remainder when divided by m, then r1 = r2

and a b = (q1 q2 )m so a b (mod m).
We will do an analysis of the proof of Statement 1. An analysis of the proof of Statement

2 is left as an exercise.
Analysis of Proof In many if and only if statements one direction is much easier than
the other. In this particular case, we are starting with the harder of the two directions.
Hypothesis: a b (mod m).

Conclusion: a and b have the same remainder when divided by m.
Sentence 1 If a b (mod m), then m | (a b) and there exists an integer h so that

hm = a b.
Here the author is working forwards using two definitions. The definition of congru-
ence allows the author to assert that If a b (mod m), then m | (a b). The
definition of divisibility allows the author to assert that m | (a b) [implies that]
there exists an integer h so that hm = a b.
Sentence 2 Hence
a b = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 ) = hm = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 )

= r1 r2 = m(h q1 + q2 )
which implies m | (r1 r2 ).

This is mostly arithmetic. The author begins with a b = (q1 q2 )m + (r1 r2 ) from
the preliminary paragraph, substitutes hm for a b, isolates r1 r2 and factors out
an m from the remaining terms. Since h q1 + q2 is an integer, the author deduces
that m | (r1 r2 ).
Sentence 3 But, m < r1 r2 < m so r1 r2 = 0.

This part is not so obvious. The author is working with two pieces of information.
The prefatory material provides m < r1 r2 < m. Lets take a minute to think
about why this statement is true. Sentence 2 provides m | (r1 r2 ). Now, what are
the possible values of r1 r2 ? Certainly r1 r2 can be zero but are there any other
possible choices? If there were another choice it would be of the form mx with x 6= 0.
But that would make r1 r2 = xm m or r1 r2 = xm m both of which are
impossible because m < r1 r2 < m. Hence, r1 r2 = 0.
The conclusion does not say r1 r2 = 0. It says that a and b have the same remainder
when divided by m. Since r1 and r2 are those remainders, and r1 r2 = 0 r1 = r2 ,
the author leaves it to the reader to deduce the conclusion.
Exercise 1 Perform an analysis of the proof of Statement 2.

Section 24.2 Congruence and Remainders 177
REMARK
The proposition Congruent Iff Same Remainder gives us another part to our chain of equiv-
alent statements:
a b (mod m)
m | (a b)
k Z 3 a b = km
k Z 3 a = km + b
a and b have the same remainder when divided by m.
The propositions covered in this lecture are surprisingly powerful. Consider the following
example.
Example 1 What is the remainder when 347 is divided by 7?

Solution: You could attempt to compute 347 with your calculator but it might explode.
Here is a simpler way. By the Division Algorithm,
347 = 7q + r where 0 r < 7.
If we reduce this expression modulo 7 we get
347 7q + r (mod 7)
r (mod 7).
Thus, the remainder when 347 is divided by 7 is just 347 (mod 7). Now observe that
32 2 (mod 7) and 33 27 6 1 (mod 7). But then
347 345 32 (mod 7) arithmetic

(33 )15 32 (mod 7) arithmetic
15
(1) (2) (mod 7) Properties of Congruence (3), twice
(1)(2) (mod 7) arithmetic
2 (mod 7) arithmetic
5 (mod 7) since 0 r < 7.
Hence, the remainder when 347 is divided by 7 is 5.

178 Chapter 24 Congruence and Remainders
Example 2 Is 347 521 (mod 7)?

Solution: By Congruences Iff the Same Remainder 347 521 (mod 7) if and only if 347
and 521 have the same remainder when divided by 7. The previous example showed that 5
is the remainder when 347 is divided by 7. We only need to compute the remainder when
521 is divided by 7.
By the Division Algorithm,
521 = 7q + r where 0 r < 7.
If we reduce this expression modulo 7 we get
521 7q + r (mod 7)
r (mod 7).
Since 5 2 (mod 7) and 23 8 1 (mod 7), we know 53 1 (mod 7) hence
521 (53 )7 (1)7 1 6 (mod 7).
Thus,
347 6 521 (mod 7).
Example 3
What is the remainder when 2271 3314 is divided by 7? Provide justification for your work.
Solution: First, observe that 23 1 (mod 7) and 33 1 (mod 7) and so by the propo-
sition and corollary to Properties of Congruence,
2271 3314 (23 )90 21 (33 )104 32 (1)90 21 (1)104 32 2 9 18 4 (mod 7).
Thus, by the proposition Congruent Iff Same Remainder, 2271 3314 has remainder 4 when
divided by 7.
Chapter 25
Linear Congruences
25.1 Objectives
1. Define a linear congruence in the variable x.
2. State and prove the Linear Congruence Theorem.
3. Apply the Linear Congruence Theorem.
25.2 The Problem
One of the advantages of congruence over divisibility is that we have an arithmetic of

congruence. This allows us to solve new kinds of equations.
Definition 25.2.1 A relation of the form

Linear Congruence ax c (mod m)
is called a linear congruence in the variable x. A solution to such a linear congruence
is an integer x0 so that
ax0 c (mod m).
The problem for this lecture is to determine when linear congruences have solutions and
how to find them.
Recalling our table of statements equivalent to a b (mod m) we see that
179
180 Chapter 25 Linear Congruences
REMARK
ax c (mod m) has a solution

there exists an integer x0 such that ax0 c (mod m)
there exist integers x0 , y0 such that ax0 + my0 = c
gcd(a, m) | c (by the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 1).
Moreover, the Linear Diophantine Equation Theorem, Part 2 tells us what the solutions to
ax + by = c look like.

Let gcd(a, m) = d 6= 0.
If x = x0 and y = y0 is one particular integer solution to the linear Diophantine equation
ax + my = c, then the complete integer solution is
m a
x = x0 + n, y = y0 n, n Z.
d d
But then, if x0 Z is one solution to ax c (mod m) the complete solution will be

m
x x0 (mod ) where d = gcd(a, m).
d
Lets think about why that is. If we reduce the solution given in LDET 2 above modulo
m m m
, then the term involving evaluates to 0 leaving x x0 (mod ).
d d d
Notice that since m is a natural number, we know that d > 0 so we can safely divide by d.
Since the original problem was posed modulo m, we might like to give solutions modulo m.
m
In which case, x x0 (mod ) is equivalent to
d
m m m
x x0 , x0 + , x0 + 2 , , x0 + (d 1) (mod m).
d d d
m
Note that there are d = gcd(a, m) distinct solutions modulo m and one solution modulo .
d
We record this discussion as the following theorem.
Section 25.3 Examples 181
Theorem 2 (Linear Congruence Theorem, Version 1, (LCT 1))

Let gcd(a, m) = d.
The linear congruence
ax c (mod m)
Moreover, if x = x0 is one particular solution, then the complete solution is
m
x x0 (mod )
d
or, equivalently,
m m m
x x0 , x0 + , x0 + 2 , , x0 + (d 1) (mod m).
d d d
25.3 Examples
Example 1 If possible, solve the linear congruence
3x 5 (mod 6).
Solution: Since gcd(3, 6) = 3 and 3 - 5, there is no solution to 3x 5 (mod 6) by the

Linear Congruence Theorem, Version 1.
4x 6 (mod 10).
Solution: Since gcd(4, 10) = 2 and 2 | 6, we would expect to find two solutions to 4x 6
(mod 10). Since ten is a small modulus, we can simply test all possibilities modulo 10.
x (mod 10) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4x (mod 10) 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6
Hence, x 4 or 9 (mod 10).
REMARK
Why are there only 10 possibilities? Make sure you understand why this follows from
Congruent Iff Same Remainder. Going forward, we wont be explicit about this.
182 Chapter 25 Linear Congruences
3x 5 (mod 76).
Solution: Since gcd(3, 76) = 1 and 1 | 5, we would expect to find one solution to 3x 5
(mod 76). We could try all 76 possibilities but there is a more efficient way. Thinking of
our list of equivalencies, solving 3x 5 (mod 76) is equivalent to solving 3x + 76y = 5 and
that we know how to do that using the Extended Euclidean Algorithm:
x y r q
1 0 76 0
0 1 3 0
1 25 1 25
3 76 0 3
From the second last row, 76(1) + 3(25) = 1, or to match up with the order of the original
equation, 3(25) + 76(1) = 1. Multiplying the equation by 5 gives 3(125) + 76(5) = 5.
Hence
x 125 27 (mod 76).
We can check our work by substitution. 3 27 81 5 (mod 76).
25.4 Non-Linear Congruences
Though we have efficient means to solve linear congruences, we have no equivalent means
to solve polynomial congruences.
Example 4 Solve x2 1 (mod 8) by substitution.

Your first reaction might be that there are zero, one or two solutions as there would be
when working with real numbers.
Solution: We use a table to test all possible values of x.
x (mod 8) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x2 (mod 8) 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 1
Hence, the solution is x 1, 3, 5 or 7 (mod 8).

Chapter 26
Modular Arithmetic
26.1 Objectives
1. Define the congruence class modulo m.
2. Construct Zm and perform modular arithmetic. Highlight the role of additive and
multiplicative identities, and additive and multiplicative inverses.
26.2 Modular Arithmetic
In this section we will see the creation of a number system which will likely be new to you.
Definition 26.2.1 The congruence class modulo m of the integer a is the set of integers
Congruence Class
[a] = {x Z | x a (mod m)}
Example 1 For example, when m = 4
[0] = {x Z | x 0 (mod m)} = {. . . , 8, 4, 0, 4, 8, . . .} = {4k | k Z}

[1] = {x Z | x 1 (mod m)} = {. . . , 7, 3, 1, 5, 9, . . .} = {4k + 1 | k Z}
[2] = {x Z | x 2 (mod m)} = {. . . , 6, 2, 2, 6, 10, . . .} = {4k + 2 | k Z}
[3] = {x Z | x 3 (mod m)} = {. . . , 5, 1, 3, 7, 11, . . .} = {4k + 3 | k Z}.
REMARK
Note that congruence classes have more than one representation. In the example above
[0] = [4] = [8] and, in fact [0] has infinitely many representations. If this seems strange to
you, remember that fractions are another example of where one number has infinitely many
representations. For example 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = .
183
184 Chapter 26 Modular Arithmetic
Definition 26.2.2 We define Zm to be the set of m congruence classes

Zm
Zm = {[0], [1], [2], . . . , [m 1]}
and we define two operations on Zm , addition and multiplication, as follows:
[a] + [b] = [a + b]
[a] [b] = [a b].
Though the definition of these operations may seem obvious there is a fair amount going
on here.
1. Sets are being treated as individual numbers. Modular addition and multiplication
are being performed on congruence classes which are sets.
2. The addition and multiplication symbols on the left of the equals signs are in Zm and
those on the right are operations in the integers.
3. We are assuming that the operations are well-defined. That is, we are assuming
that these operations make sense even when there are multiple representatives of a
congruence class. For example, in Z6 , [2] = [8] and [3] = [9]. Further, we can verify
that [2] + [3] = [8] + [9].
REMARK
Since
[a] = {x Z | x a (mod m)}
we can extend our list of equivalent statements to
[a] = [b] in Zm
a b (mod m)
m | (a b)
k Z 3 a b = km
k Z 3 a = km + b
a and b have the same remainder when divided by m.
Just as there were addition and multiplication tables in grade school for the integers, we
have addition and multiplication tables in Zm .
Example 2 Addition and multiplication tables in Z4
Note that all of the entries have representatives between 0 and 3. Even though there are
many representatives for each congruence class, we usually choose a representative between
0 and m 1.
Section 26.2 Modular Arithmetic 185
+ [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] [1] [2] [3]

[0] [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0]
[1] [1] [2] [3] [0] [1] [0] [1] [2] [3]
[2] [2] [3] [0] [1] [2] [0] [2] [0] [2]
[3] [3] [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] [3] [2] [1]
Exercise 1 Write out the addition and multiplication tables in Z5
26.2.1 [0] Zm
By looking at the tables for Z4 and Z5 it seems that [0] Zm behaves just like 0 Z. In Z
a Z, a + 0 = a
a Z, a 0 = 0
and in Zm
[a] Zm , [a] + [0] = [a]

[a] Zm , [a] [0] = [0].
This actually follows from our definition of addition and multiplication in Zm .
[a] Zm , [a] + [0] = [a + 0] = [a]

[a] Zm , [a] [0] = [a 0] = [0].
26.2.2 [1] Zm
In a similar fashion, by looking at the multiplication tables for Z4 and Z5 it seems that
[1] Zm behaves just like 1 Z. In Z
a Z, a 1 = a
and in Zm
[a] Zm , [a] [1] = [a].
This follows from our definition of multiplication in Zm .
[a] Zm , [a] [1] = [a 1] = [a]
26.2.3 Identities and Inverses in Zm
Many of us think of subtraction and division as independent from the other arithmetic
operations of addition and multiplication. In fact, subtraction is just addition of the inverse.
Now, whats an inverse? To answer that question we must first define an identity.
Definition 26.2.3 Given a set and an operation, an identity is, informally, something that does nothing.
Identity More formally, given a set S and an operation designated by , an identity is an element
e S so that
a S, a e = a
The element e has no effect. Having something that does nothing is extremely useful
though parents might not say that of teenagers.
Example 3 Here are examples of sets, operations and identities.
The set of integers with the operation of addition has the identity 0.
The set of rational numbers excluding 0 with the operation of multiplication has the
identity 1.
The set of real valued functions with the operation of function composition has the
identity f (x) = x.
The set of integers modulo m with the operation of modular addition has the identity
[0].
Definition 26.2.4 The element b S is an inverse of a S if a b = b a = e.

Inverse
Example 4 Here are examples of inverses.
Under the operation of addition, the integer 3 has inverse 3 since 3 + (3) = (3) +
3 = 0.
3 4
Under the operation of multiplication, the rational number 4 has inverse 3 since
3 4 4 3
4 3 = 3 4 = 1.
Under the operation of function composition ln x has the inverse ex since ln(ex ) =
eln x = x
Under the operation of modular addition, [3] has the inverse [3] in Z7 since [3] +
[3] = [3] + [3] = [0].
When the operation is addition, we usually denote the inverse by a. Otherwise, we

typically denote the inverse of a by a1 . This does cause confusion. Many students interpret
a1 as the reciprocal. This works for real or rational multiplication but fails in other contexts
like function composition. We will use a to mean the inverse of a under addition and a1
to mean the inverse under all other operations.
Section 26.2 Modular Arithmetic 187
26.2.4 Subtraction in Zm
Lets return to Zm . The identity under addition in Zm is [0] since
[a] Zm , [a] + [0] = [a].
Given any [a] Zm , [a] exists and
[a] + [a] = [a a] = [0].
That is, every element [a] Zm has an additive inverse, [a]. This allows us to define
subtraction in Zm .
Definition 26.2.5 We will define subtraction as addition of the inverse. Thus

Subtraction
[a] [b] = [a] + [b] = [a b]
26.2.5 Division in Zm
Division is related to multiplication in the same way that subtraction is related to addition.
So first, we must identify the multiplicative identity in Zm . Since
[a] Zm , [a][1] = [a]
we know that [1] is the identity under multiplication in Zm .

Inverses are more problematic with multiplication. Looking at the multiplication table for
Z5 we see that [2]1 = [3] since [2][3] = [6] = [1]. But what is the inverse of [2] in Z4 ? It
doesnt exist! Looking at the row containing [2] in the multiplication table for Z4 we cannot
find [1]. Unlike addition in Zm where every element has an additive inverse, it is not always
the case that a non-zero element in Zm has a multiplicative inverse.
We define division analogously to subtraction.
Definition 26.2.6 Division by a Zm is defined as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse of a Zm ,

Division assuming that the multiplicative inverse exists.
REMARK
In a later chapter we will determine when multiplicative inverses do and do not exist in Zm .
With this deeper understanding, we can compare Zm to other algebraic systems like the
integers, rationals and real numbers. By the end of this course we will be able to include
complex numbers and polynomials on this list. Mathematicians classify these systems by
studying the commonalities and differences between them. Common examples that you
might encounter in future courses are groups, rings, and vector spaces. We will touch on
the importance of fields at the end of MATH 135.
26.3 More Examples

1. Construct addition and multiplication tables for Z6 . Which elements of Z6 have
multiplicative inverses?
Solution:
+ [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[0] [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0]
[1] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0] [1] [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[2] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0] [1] [2] [0] [2] [4] [0] [2] [4]
[3] [3] [4] [5] [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] [3] [0] [3] [0] [3]
[4] [4] [5] [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [0] [4] [2] [0] [4] [2]
[5] [5] [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0] [5] [4] [3] [2] [1]
The elements [1] and [5] are the only elements with an inverse in Z6 .
2. In each of the following cases, find all values of [x] Zm , 0 x < m, that satisfy the
equation.
(a) [4][3] + [5] = [x] Z10
(b) [7]1 [2] = [x] Z10
(c) [2][x] = [4] Z8
(d) [3][x] = [9] Z11
Solution:
(a) x = [7]
(b) x = [1]
(c) x {[2], [6]}
(d) x = [3]
3. Solve the following system of equations in Z11 ,
[2][x] + [7][y] = [4] (26.1)
[3][x] + [2][y] = [9]. (26.2)
There are several ways to solve this. We will use elimination just as you would have
used in high school. In Z11 , [3] times equation (1) minus [2] times equation (2) gives
[17][y] = [6] = [6][y] = [6] = [y] = [1] = [y] = [10].
Substituting [y] = [10] into Equation (1) gives
[2][x] + [7][10] = [4] = [2][x] = [0] = [x] = [0].
Thus, the solution is [x] = [0], [y] = [10].
(Notice that we used CD when dividing by 6 and then again when dividing by 2.)
Check
[2][x] + [7][y] = [2][0] + [7][10] = [70] = [4]
[3][x] + [2][y] = [3][0] + [2][10] = [20] = [9]
Section 26.5 Linear Congruences and Modular Classes 189
26.4 Linear Congruences and Modular Classes
Recall that a linear congruence is a relation of the form
ax c (mod m).
Another way of considering the same problem is to reframe it in Zm . Since
[a] = {x Z | x a (mod m)}
solving
ax c (mod m)
is equivalent to finding a congruence class [x0 ] Zm that solves
[a][x] = [c] in Zm .
Thus
Theorem 1 (Linear Congruence Theorem, Version 2, (LCT 2))

Let gcd(a, m) = d.
The equation
[a][x] = [c] in Zm
Moreover, if [x] = [x0 ] is one particular solution, then the complete solution is
n h mi h mi h m io
[x0 ] , x0 + , x0 + 2 , , x0 + (d 1) in Zm
d d d
26.5 Extending Equivalencies
Putting all of this together we have several views of the same problem.
REMARK
[a][x] = [c] has a solution in Zm

ax c (mod m) has a solution
there exists an integer x0 such that ax0 c (mod m)
there exist integers x0 , y0 such that ax0 + my0 = c
gcd(a, m) | c.
Moreover, if x0 , y0 is a particular integer solution to ax + my = c then

m a
the complete solution to ax + my = c is x = x0 + n, y = y0 n, n Z
d d
m
the complete solution to ax c (mod m) is x x0 (mod )
d
the complete solution to ax c (mod m) is
m m m
x x0 , x0 + , x0 + 2 , , x0 + (d 1) (mod m)
d d d
the complete solution to [a][x] = [c] in Zm is
n h mi h mi h m io
[x0 ] , x0 + , x0 + 2 , , x0 + (d 1) in Zm .
d d d
Example 5
1. For each of the given elements, determine its inverse, if an inverse exists. Express the
inverse as [b] where 1 b < m.
(a) [5] Z10

(b) [5] Z47
Solution:
(a) Finding [5]1 Z10 is equivalent to solving [5][b] = [1] in Z10 . Since gcd(5, 10) =
5 and 5 - 1, this equation has no solution by LCT 2.
(b) Finding [5]1 Z47 is equivalent to solving [5][b] = [1] in Z47 . Since gcd(5, 47) =
1 and 1 | 1, this equation has a solution by LCT 2. Now, solving [5][b] = [1] in
Z47 is equivalent to solving 5b + 47y = 1. We can use the EEA to find a solution.
y b r q
1 0 47 0
0 1 5 0
1 9 2 9
2 19 1 2
5 47 0 2
(Note that the x of the EEA has been written as b to be consistent with the linear
Diophantine equation.) The table gives 5(19) + 47(2) = 1 and so [5]1 = [19]
in Z47 .
2. Find the inverse of [13] in Z29 .

Solution: By definition, the inverse of [13] in Z29 is the congruence class [x] so
that [13][x] = [1] in Z29 . Since gcd(13, 29) = 1, we know by the Linear Congruence
Theorem, Version 2 that there is exactly one solution. We could try all 29 possibilities
or recall that solving
[13][x] = [1] in Z29
is equivalent to solving
13x + 29y = 1
Section 26.5 Extending Equivalencies 191
and that we know how to do using the Extended Euclidean Algorithm.
y x r q
1 0 29 0
0 1 13 0
1 2 3 2
4 9 1 4
13 29 0 3
From the second last row, 29(4) + 13(9) = 1, or to match up with the order of the
original equation, 13(9) + 29(4) = 1. Hence
[13]1 = [9] in Z29 .
We can check our work by substitution. [13][9] = [117] = [1] in Z29 .

Congruence Division
Chapter 27
Fermats Little Theorem
27.1 Objectives
1. State Fermats Little Theorem.
2. Read a proof of Fermats Little Theorem.
3. Read a proof to a corollary of Fermats Little Theorem.
4. Discover a proof to the Existence of Inverses in Zp .
27.2 Fermats Little Theorem
Pierre de Fermat proved a useful result called Fermats Little Theorem. This should not
be confused with one of the great conjectures, now theorem, of the last 400 years, Fermats
Last Theorem.
Theorem 1 (Fermats Little Theorem (F`T))

If p is a prime number that does not divide the integer a, then
ap1 1 (mod p).
Lets begin by understanding what the theorem is saying by using a numeric example.
Example 1 Suppose p = 29 and a = 18. Computing 1828 and reducing it modulo 29 is difficult without
the aid of a computer. However, by Fermats Little Theorem we know that
1828 1 (mod 29).
Take a minute to read the rather complicated proof.
193
194 Chapter 27 Fermats Little Theorem
1. If p - a, we first show that all of the integers
a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a
are all distinct modulo p.
2. Suppose that ra sa (mod p) where 1 r < s p 1.
3. Since gcd(a, p) = 1, Congruence Division tells us that r s (mod p), but this is not
possible when 1 r < s p 1.
4. Because a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a are all distinct and non-zero modulo p, it must be the
case that these integers are equivalent to the integers 1, 2, 3, . . . , p 1 in some order.
5. Multiplying these integers together gives
a 2a 3a (p 1)a 1 2 3 (p 1) (mod p)
(p 1)!ap1 (p 1)! (mod p).
6. Since gcd(p, (p 1)!) = 1, Congruence Division (again) tells us that
ap1 1 (mod p).
Lets analyze the proof. As usual, we begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: p is a prime number and p - a.
Conclusion: ap1 1 (mod p).
Analysis of Proof This is the most complicated proof in the course so far, so we will be
very thorough. In fact, this proof contains a proof within a proof.
Sentence 1 If p - a, we first show that the integers a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a are all distinct
modulo p.
The reason for this sentence is not at all obvious. The sentence is needed, but not
until Sentence 4. The word distinct should alert us to a need to prove uniqueness.
Sentence 2 Suppose that ra sa (mod p) where 1 r < s p 1.

The author treats Sentence 1 as a mini-proposition and begins a proof of the distinct-
ness of the integers a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a. How? The author assumes that two of the
integers, ra and sa with r 6= s, are the same modulo p and looks for a contradiction.
The expression 1 r < s p 1 is needed to make clear that ra and sa come from
the integers under consideration, and that r 6= s. Since r and s are not the same, one
is less than the other. Without any loss of generality, we can assume r < s.
Section 27.2 Fermats Little Theorem 195
Sentence 3 Since gcd(a, p) = 1, Congruence Division tells us that r s (mod p), but this
is not possible when 1 r < s p 1.
The statement gcd(a, p) = 1 is not one of the hypotheses. Where did it come from?
Since p is a prime and p - a, it must be the case that gcd(a, p) = 1. It is always useful
to identify where the hypotheses of a proposition are used in a proof. The hypotheses
of Fermats Little Theorem are used right here.
To invoke Congruence Division, we must show that its hypotheses are satisfied. One
of those hypotheses is ra sa (mod p). The other is gcd(a, p) = 1. Invoking CD gives
r s (mod p). But r and s are distinct, positive integers less than p, so this is not
possible. This concludes the proof of distinctness of the integers a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a.
Sentence 4 Because a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a are all distinct and non-zero modulo p, it must
be the case that these integers are equivalent to the integers 1, 2, 3, . . . , p 1 in some
order.
The set {a, 2a, 3a, . . . , (p 1)a} is a set of p 1 integers all distinct and non-zero
modulo p and also coprime to p. (Can you see why?) This is also true for the set of
p 1 integers {1, 2, 3, . . . , p 1}. Thus, the two sets must be the same modulo p.
Sentence 5 Multiplying these integers together gives
a 2a 3a (p 1)a 1 2 3 (p 1) (mod p)
p1
(p 1)!a (p 1)! (mod p)
This is another sentence whose purpose is not yet clear.

Sentence 6 Since gcd(p, (p 1)!) = 1, Congruence Division (again) tells us that ap1 1
(mod p).
The second of the congruences above is almost what we need. If we could divide out
the (p 1)! we would be done. But Congruence Division allows us to do exactly that.
Try to justify that gcd(p, (p 1)!) = 1.
Example 2
What is the remainder when 31412001 is divided by 17?
We are looking for an r that satisfies the Division Algorithm. That is
31412001 = 17q + r where 0 r < 17.
Reducing the above equation modulo 17 indicates that we must find r satisfying
31412001 r (mod 17) where 0 r < 17.
Observe that
3141 13 (mod 17)
and that by Fermats Little Theorem
1316 1 (mod 17)
when 17 - 13. Putting all of this together with Properties of Congruence gives
31412001 132001 1312516+1 (1316 )125 131 1125 13 13 (mod 17).

Example 3 Solve 36x47 + 5x9 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5) where x Z5 . Reduce terms and use
Fermats Little Theorem or its corollaries before substitution.
Solution: Since 36 1 (mod 5) the term 36x47 reduces to x47 (mod 5).
Since 5 0 (mod 5) the term 5x9 reduces to 0 (mod 5). Thus,
36x47 + 5x9 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5)
reduces to
x47 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5)
Now observe that x 0 (mod 5) cannot be a solution, otherwise we have 1 2 (mod 5)
by substitution in the preceding equation. Since 5 is a prime and 5 - x, we can use Fermats
Little Theorem which implies that x4 1 (mod 5) and so
x47 x44 x3 (x4 )11 x3 111 x3 x3 (mod 5)
and the polynomial congruence further reduces to
x3 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5)
or, more simply,

2x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5)
Now we can use a table.
x (mod 5) 0 1 2 3 4
2x3 x2
+ + x + 1 (mod 5) 1 0 3 2 4
Hence, the only solution to
36x47 + 5x9 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 2 (mod 5)
is
x3 (mod 5)
Now we examine two corollaries of Fermats Little Theorem.
Corollary 2 For any integer a and any prime p
ap a (mod p).
Proof: Let a Z and let p be a prime. If p - a, then ap1 1 (mod p). Multiplying both
sides of the equivalence by a gives ap a (mod p). If p | a, then a 0 (mod p) and ap 0
(mod p). Thus ap a (mod p).
Lets make sure we understand the proof.

Analysis of Proof There are two important items to note: the use of nested quantifiers
and the use of cases.
Sentence 1 Let a Z and let p be a prime.

The corollary begins with two universal quantifiers, so we use the select method twice,
once for integers and once for primes.
Sentence 2 If p - a, then ap1 1 (mod p).

The author breaks up the proof into two parts depending on whether or not p divides
a. The author will need two distinct cases because the approach differs based on the
case. In the case where p does not divide a, the author uses Fermats Little Theorem.
Sentence 3 Multiplying both sides of the equivalence by a gives ap a (mod p).

This is just modular arithmetic.
Sentence 4 If p | a, then a 0 (mod p) and ap 0 (mod p). Thus ap a (mod p).

This is the second case where p does divide a. Both ap and a are congruent to zero mod
p so they are congruent to each other by the transitivity of the congruence relation.
Corollary 3 (Existence of Inverses in Zp (INV Zp ))

Let p be a prime number. If [a] is any non-zero element in Zp , then there exists an element
[b] Zp so that [a] [b] = [1]
This corollary is equivalent to stating that every non-zero element of Zp has an inverse.
Lets discover a proof. As usual, we begin by identifying the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: p is a prime number. [a] is any non-zero element in Zp .
Conclusion: There exists an element [b] Zp so that [a] [b] = [1].
Two points are salient. First, the corollary only states that an inverse exists. It doesnt tell
us what the inverse is or how to compute the inverse. Second, there are three quantifiers.
1. Let p be a prime number is equivalent to for all primes p. Since this is an instance of
a universal quantifier we would expect to use the select method.
2. [a] is any non-zero element in Zp is another instance of a universal quantifier so we

would expect to use the select method again.
3. There is an existential quantifier in the conclusion so we would expect to use the

construct method.
Together these give us the following.

Proof in Progress
1. Let p be a prime number.
2. Let [a] be a non-zero element in Zp .

3. Construct [b] as follows.
4. To be completed.
Now Fermats Little Theorem uses congruences, not congruence classes. But we could
restate Fermats Little Theorem with congruence classes as
Theorem 4 (Fermats Little Theorem (F`T))

If p is a prime number that does not divide the integer a, then
[ap1 ] = [1] in Zp .
Now an analogy to real numbers provides the final step. In the reals ap1 = a ap2 so why
not let [b] = [ap2 ]? This would give
Proof in Progress
3. Consider [b] = [ap2 ].
4. To be completed.
Now we can invoke Fermats Little Theorem but first we need to make sure the hypotheses
are satisfied.
Proof in Progress
3. Consider [b] = [ap2 ].
4. Since [a] 6= [0] in Zp , p - a and so by F`T
[a][b] = [a][ap2 ] = [ap1 ] = [1].
A proof might look as follows.
Proof: Let p be a prime number. Let [a] be a non-zero element in Zp . Consider [b] = [ap2 ].
Since [a] 6= [0] in Zp , p - a and so by Fermats Little Theorem
[a][b] = [a][ap2 ] = [ap1 ] = [1].

REMARK
In summary, if p is a prime number and [a] is any non-zero element in Zp , then
[a]1 = [ap2 ].
Exercise 1 What is [3]1 in Z7 ?

Chapter 28
Chinese Remainder Theorem
28.1 Objectives
1. Solve simultaneous linear congruences.
2. Discover a proof of the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
28.2 An Old Problem
The following problem was posed, likely in the third century CE, by Sun Zi in his Math-
ematical Manual and republished in 1247 by Qin Jiushao in the Mathematical Treatise in
Nine Sections.
There are certain things whose number is unknown. Repeatedly divided by 3,

the remainder is 2; by 5 the remainder is 3; and by 7 the remainder is 2. What
will be the number?
The word problem asks us to find an integer n that simultaneously satisfies the following
three linear congruences.
n2 (mod 3)
n3 (mod 5)
n2 (mod 7)
As when faced with linear Diophantine equations, we first want to determine if there is a
solution. When a solution exists, we want to know how to find a solution and, in fact, all the
solutions. We cannot simply plug one congruence into the other. Instead, we will use our
theory on single linear congruences and their connection to linear Diophantine equations to
try and express the complete solution in terms of a single modulus.
Before we solve the word problem above with three simultaneous linear congruences, we
will begin with two simultaneous congruences whose moduli are coprime.
200
Section 28.3 Chinese Remainder Theorem 201
28.3 Chinese Remainder Theorem
Example 1 Solve
n2 (mod 5)
n9 (mod 11).
Solution: Suppose n is an integer such that n 2 (mod 5) and n 9 (mod 11). From
the first congruence, we know
n = 5x + 2 for some x Z. (28.1)
Substituting this into the second congruence we get
5x + 2 9 (mod 11) = 5x 7 (mod 11).
As in a previous chapter, we can use inspection and Linear Congruence Theorem 1 to solve
this and get
x 8 (mod 11)
which can be written as
x = 11y + 8 for some y Z. (28.2)
Substituting Equation 28.2 into Equation 28.1 gives
n = 5(11y + 8) + 2 = 55y + 42.
Thus
n 42 (mod 55).
Conversely, if n = 55y + 42, then n 2 (mod 5) and n 9 (mod 11).

Therefore the complete solution is n 42 (mod 55).
REMARK
Suppose we try and solve
log2 (x + 3) + log2 (x 3) = 4.
We can use logarithm rules to get log2 (x2 9) = 4 = 24 = x2 9 = x = 5.
However, we cant stop there. We need to check our final answers and reject x = 5
because log2 (x 3) requires x > 3.
How is this related to solving simultaneous linear congruences?
In the solution to Example 1, we carefully included a last checking step. The ultimate goal
was to describe {n Z : n 2 (mod 5) and n 9 (mod 11)} in another more helpful
way. This means our solution is essentially a proof that two sets are equal requiring an
argument in two directions. Now, in practice, we typically cite the following formalization
of this process instead of including the last checking step.
202 Chapter 28 Chinese Remainder Theorem
Theorem 1 (Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT))

Let a1 , a2 Z. If gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1, then the simultaneous linear congruences
n a1 (mod m1 )
n a2 (mod m2 )
have a unique solution modulo m1 m2 . Thus, if n = n0 is one integer solution, then the
complete solution is
n n0 (mod m1 m2 )
Lets identify, as usual, the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: a1 , a2 Z. gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1.
Conclusion: The simultaneous linear congruences
n a1 (mod m1 )
n a2 (mod m2 )
have a unique solution modulo m1 m2 .
Since there is an existential quantifier in the conclusion, we use the construct method and
construct a solution. There is nothing obvious from the statement of the theorem that will
help us, but we have already solved such a problem once in Example 1. Perhaps we could
mimic what we did there.
From the first linear congruence
The integer n satisfies n a1 (mod m1 ) if and only if
n = a1 + m1 x for some x Z
The next thing we did was substitute this expression into the second congruence.
The number n satisfies the second congruence if and only if
a1 + m1 x a2 (mod m2 )
m1 x a2 a1 (mod m2 ).
Have we seen anything like this before? Of course, this is just a linear congruence!
Since gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1, the Linear Congruence Theorem tells us that this con-
gruence has a solution, say x = b and that the complete solution can be written:
x = b + m2 y for some y Z.
Section 28.3 Chinese Remainder Theorem 203
Substituting this expression for x into n = a1 + m1 x gives
n = a1 + m1 x = a1 + m1 (b + m2 y) = (a1 + m1 b) + m1 m2 y.
This implies
n a1 + m1 b (mod m1 m2 ).
Conversely, we can write this as
n = a1 + m1 b + m1 m2 k for some k Z
and we need to check that all integers of this form satisfy both congruences.
Exercise 1 Using the analysis above, write a proof for the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
Example 2 Solve
n2 (mod 3)
n3 (mod 5).
Solution: The first congruence is equivalent to
n = 3x + 2 for some x Z. (28.3)
3x + 2 3 (mod 5) = 3x 1 (mod 5).
Using inspection and Linear Congruence Theorem 1, the solution to this is
x2 (mod 5).
Now, x 2 (mod 5) is equivalent to
x = 5y + 2 for some y Z. (28.4)
Substituting Equation (28.4) into Equation (28.3) gives
n = 3(5y + 2) + 2 = 15y + 8.
Thus
n8 (mod 15)
and since gcd(3, 5) = 1, by the Chinese Remainder Theorem, this is the complete solution.
Example 3 Solve
3x 2 (mod 8)
4x 9 (mod 11).
Weve seen how to determine by Linear Congruence Theorem 1 that this system of congru-
ences is equivalent to
x6 (mod 8)
x5 (mod 11).
Since gcd(8, 11) = 1, we know by the Chinese Remainder Theorem that a solution to this
pair of linear congruences exists. Rewriting x 6 (mod 8) as x = 8y + 6 (1) for some
y Z and substituting into the second linear congruence gives 8y + 6 5 (mod 11). This
reduces to 8y 10 (mod 11) and the solution is y 4 (mod 11) by inspection and Linear
Congruence Theorem 1. Rewriting y 4 (mod 11) as y = 11z+4 for z Z and substituting
in Equation 1 gives x = 8(11z + 4) + 6 = 38 + 88z for some z Z, or, equivalently,
x 38 (mod 88).
Check: 3 38 114 14 8 + 2 2 (mod 8) and 4 38 152 13 11 + 9 9 (mod 11).
Example 4 Solve
n2 (mod 3)
n3 (mod 5)
n4 (mod 11).
Solution: The first two of the three linear congruences were solved above so we can replace
n2 (mod 3)
n3 (mod 5)
by
n8 (mod 15).
This reduces a problem of three linear congruences to a problem in two linear congruences.
n8 (mod 15)
n4 (mod 11).
We leave the remainder of the exercise to the reader.
The previous exercise makes it clear that we can solve more than two simultaneous linear
congruences simply by solving pairs of linear congruences successively. We record this as
Section 28.4 Splitting a Modulus 205
Theorem 2 (Generalized Chinese Remainder Theorem (GCRT))

If m1 , m2 , . . . , mk N and gcd(mi , mj ) = 1 whenever i 6= j, then for any choice of integers
a1 , a2 , . . . , ak , there exists a solution to the simultaneous congruences
n a1 (mod m1 )
n a2 (mod m2 )
..
.
n ak (mod mk )
Moreover, if n = n0 is one integer solution, then the complete solution is
n n0 (mod m1 m2 . . . mk )
You should ask yourself What happens if the moduli are not coprime? That investigation
is left as an exercise.
Exercise 2 Solve the problem posed by Sun Zi that began this lecture.
28.4 Splitting a Modulus
We may now prove the following theorem.
Theorem 3 (Splitting Modulus (SM))

Let m1 and m2 be coprime positive integers. Then for any two integers x and a,
(
x a (mod m1 )
(simultaneously) x a (mod m1 m2 ).
x a (mod m2 )
Proof: Assuming x a (mod m1 m2 ), we get m1 m2 | (x a). By the definition of di-

visibility, we get m1 | (x a) and m2 | (x a). Therefore x a (mod m1 ) and x a
(mod m2 ).
On the other hand, starting with the simultaneous congruences x a (mod m1 ) and x a
(mod m2 ), since gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1, we may use the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) to
get x a (mod m1 m2 ).
Example 5 Find all integers n such that n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 35).
Solution: We could try all 35 possibilities but even then, computing something like 2037
is a problem. Perhaps there is another way. Observing that 35 = 5 7 and both factors
are relatively prime, we will use the Splitting Modulus (SM) theorem and split the problem
into two linear congruences and then apply the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Can you see
why this is okay even though the polynomial is not linear?
We split
n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 35)
into
n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 5) (28.5)

n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 7). (28.6)
Well, have we seen anything like these before? Indeed, we have. The previous example
solved congruences just like these. Well solve each of the polynomial congruences individ-
ually. As in the previous example, we can reduce terms and use Fermats Little Theorem
or its corollaries to simplify the congruence before substitution. Lets start with Equation
(28.5).
Since 10 0 (mod 5) the term 10n8 reduces to 0 (mod 5).
Since 14 4 (mod 5) the term 14n7 reduces to 4n7 (mod 5).
Finally, since 5 0 (mod 5), the right hand side constant reduces to 0 (mod 5).
Thus,
n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 5)
reduces to
n37 + 4n7 + 1 0 (mod 5).
This looks like progress! Now observe that n0 0 (mod 5) cannot be a solution, otherwise
we have 1 0 (mod 5) by substitution in the preceding equation. Since 5 is a prime and
5 - n0 , we use Fermats Little Theorem to get n4 1 (mod 5). Hence
n37 n36 n (n4 )9 n 19 n n (mod 5)
and
n7 n4 n3 n3 (mod 5)
and so the polynomial congruence further reduces to
n + 4n3 + 1 0 (mod 5).
Now we can use a table.
n (mod 5) 0 1 2 3 4
n + 4n3 + 1 (mod 5) 1 1 0 2 1
n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 5)
is
n2 (mod 5).
This is a linear congruence so that supports the idea of using the Chinese Remainder
Theorem. Now lets examine Equation (28.6) (repeated below).
n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 7).

Section 28.4 Splitting a Modulus 207
Reducing each term modulo 7 gives

n37 + 3n8 + 1 5 (mod 7).
Since n0 0 (mod 7) cannot be a solution, otherwise 1 5 (mod 7), and 7 is a prime, we
can use Fermats Little Theorem to assert n6 1 (mod 7). This allows us to say
n37 n36 n (n6 )6 n 16 n n (mod 7)
and
n8 n6 n2 n2 (mod 7).
Thus, Equation (28.6) reduces to
n + 3n2 + 1 5 (mod 7).
This is a good time to use a table.
n (mod 7) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
n + 3n2 + 1 (mod 7) 1 5 1 3 4 4 3

n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 7)
is
n1 (mod 7).
But now we have two simultaneous linear congruences

n2 (mod 5)
n1 (mod 7)
Since the moduli are coprime, we know by the Chinese Remainder Theorem that a solution
exists. The proof of CRT gave us a way to solve two simultaneous linear congruences.
The first congruence is equivalent to
n = 5x + 2 for some x Z. (28.7)
5x + 2 1 (mod 7) = 5x 6 (mod 7).
Solving this linear congruence gives
x4 (mod 7).
Now x 4 (mod 7) is equivalent to
x = 7y + 4 for some y Z. (28.8)
Substituting Equation (28.8) into Equation (28.7) gives the solution
n = 5(7y + 4) + 2 = 35y + 22 for some y Z
which is equivalent to
n 22 (mod 35).
Thus, by the CRT, the solution to

n37 + 10n8 + 14n7 + 1 5 (mod 35)
is
n 22 (mod 35).
REMARK
Lets summarize what we have learned from all of our examples.
By the Linear Congruence Theorem, all linear congruences can be solved.
There is no efficient means to solving a general polynomial congruence but sometimes

Fermats Little Theorem can help simplify the congruence.
Simultaneous linear congruences can be solved using the Chinese Remainder Theorem
if the moduli are coprime.
A single congruence can be split into simultaneous congruences by splitting the mod-
ulus into coprime factors and using the Chinese Remainder Theorem to combine
solutions to the individual congruences.
Chapter 29
The RSA Scheme
29.1 Objectives
1. Illustrate the use of RSA.
2. Prove that the message sent will be the message received.
29.2 Public Key Cryptography
The need for secret communications has been known for millenia. In the modern world, the
need for secret communication is much larger than it was even in the recent past. Certainly
the traditional requirements of military and diplomatic secrecy continue, but the credit card,
debit card and web transactions of modern commerce, as well as privacy concerns for health,
citizenship and other electronic records, have raised the need for secure communications and
storage dramatically.
In its most elemental form, the objective of any secret communication scheme is to allow
two parties, usually referred to as Alice (for person A) and Bob (for person B), to commu-
nicate over an insecure channel so that an opponent, often called Oscar, cannot understand
what is being communicated. The information Alice wishes to communicate is called the
message or the plaintext. The act of transforming the plaintext into a ciphertext is
called enciphering or encryption. The rules for enciphering make use of a key, which
is an input to the algorithm. The act of transforming the ciphertext to plaintext using the
key is called deciphering or decryption.
In a private key cryptographic scheme, Alice and Bob both must share some secret key
to be able communicate using cryptography. This raises the problem of how to distribute a
large number of keys between users, especially if these keys need to be changed frequently.
For example, there are almost 200 countries in the world. If Canada maintains an embassy
in each country and allows Canadian embassies to communicate with one another, the
embassies
must exchange a common key between each pair of embassies. That means there
are 200
2 = 19, 900 keys to exchange. Worse yet, for security reasons, keys should be changed
frequently and so 19, 900 keys might need to be exchanged daily.
In a public key cryptographic scheme, keys are divided into two parts: a private
decryption key held secretly by each participant, and a public encryption key, derived from
the private key, which is shared in an open repository of some sort. For user A to send a
209
210 Chapter 29 The RSA Scheme
private message to user B, A would look up Bs public key, encrypt the message and send
it to B. Since B is the only person who possesses the secret key required for decryption,
only B can read the message.
Such an arrangement solves the key distribution problem. The public keys do not need to
be kept secret and only one per participant needs to be available. Thus, in our embassy
example previously, only 200 keys need to be published.
The possibility of public key cryptography was first published in 1976 in a paper by Diffie,
Hellman and Merkle. The RSA scheme, named after its discoverers Rivest, Shamir and
Adleman is an example of a commercially implemented public key scheme.
RSA is now widely deployed. The following protocols and products, which embed RSA, are
used by many of us daily. SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is the most commonly used protocol
for secure communication over the web. It is frequently used to encrypt payment data
before sending that data to a server. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is used by individuals
and businesses to encrypt and authenticate messages. It was originally intended for email
messages and attachments but is now also used for encrypting files, folders or entire hard
drives. EMV (Europay, MasterCard and VISA) is a global standard for authenticating
credit and debit card transactions at point of sale (POS) or automated teller machines
(ATM).
In the next section, we will introduce the RSA scheme and then prove that it works. The
security of the RSA scheme is a widely studied subject, but we will not address that here.
29.3 Implementing RSA
In RSA, messages are integers. How does one get an integer from plaintext? We assign
a number to each letter of the alphabet and then concatenate the digits together. If the
message is too long, it may need to be broken into parts so that M < n (see Sending a
Message below).
29.3.1 Setting up RSA
1. Choose two large, distinct primes p and q and let n = pq.
2. Select an integer e so that gcd(e, (p 1)(q 1)) = 1 and 1 < e < (p 1)(q 1).
3. Solve
ed 1 (mod (p 1)(q 1))
for an integer d where 1 < d < (p 1)(q 1).
4. Publish the public encryption key (e, n).
5. Keep secure the private decryption key (d, n).

Section 29.3 Implementing RSA 211
29.3.2 Sending a Message
To send a message:
1. Look up the recipients public key (e, n).
2. Generate the integer message M so that 0 M < n.
3. Compute the ciphertext C as follows:
Me C (mod n) where 0 C < n.
4. Send C.
29.3.3 Receiving a Message
To decrypt a message:
1. Use your private key (d, n).
2. Compute the plaintext R from the ciphertext C as follows:
Cd R (mod n) where 0 R < n.
3. R is the original message.
29.3.4 Example
All of the computations in this part were done in Maple.
Setting up RSA
1. Choose two large, distinct primes p and q and let n = pq.

Let p be
9026694843 0929817462 4847943076 6619417461
5791443937,
and let q be
7138718791 1693596343 0802517103 2405888327
6844736583
so n is
6443903609 8539423089 8003779070 0502485677
1034536315 4526254586 6290164606 1990955188
1922989980 3977447271.
2. Select an integer e so that gcd(e, (p 1)(q 1)) = 1 and 1 < e < (p 1)(q 1).
Now (p 1)(q 1) is
6443903609 8539423089 8003779070 0502485677
1034536313 8360840952 3666750800 6340495008
2897684191 1341266752.
Choose e as
9573596212 0300597326 2950869579 7174556955
8757345310 2344121731.
It is indeed the case that gcd(e, (p 1)(q 1)) = 1 and 1 < e < (p 1)(q 1).
3. Solve
ed 1 (mod (p 1)(q 1))
for an integer d where 1 < d < (p 1)(q 1). Solving this LDE gives d as
5587652122 6351022927 9795248536 5522717791
7285682675 6100082011 1849030646 3274981250
2583120946 4072548779.
4. Publish the public encryption key (e, n).
5. Keep secure the private decryption key (d, n).
Sending a Message
To send a message:
1. Look up the recipients public key (e, n).

2. Generate the integer message M so that 0 M < n.
We will let M = 3141592653.
3. Compute the ciphertext C as follows:
Me C (mod n) where 0 C < n.
Computing gives C
4006696554 3080815610 2814019838 8509626485
8151054441 5245547382 5506759308 1333888622
4491394825 3742205367.
4. Send C.
Receiving a Message
To decrypt a message:
1. Use your private key (d, n).

2. Compute the plaintext R from the ciphertext C as follows:
Cd R (mod n) where 0 R < n.
3. This value R = 3141592653 is the original message.

Section 29.3 Implementing RSA 213
29.3.5 RSA calculations without using computers
When the value of n is small and can be easily factored into n = pq for distinct primes p and
q, we can carry out the calculations without using computers. For this, we need to recall
the theorem about splitting a congruence modulo n into multiple simultaneous congruences
using the factors of n.
Theorem 1 (Splitting Modulus (SM))

Let p and q be coprime positive integers. Then for any two integers x and a,
(
x a (mod p)
(simultaneously) x a (mod pq).
x a (mod q)
Even though the end results of an RSA calculation is presented modulo n, the Splitting
Modulus (SM) theorem allows us to carry out the intermediate modulo p and modulo q
separately, and combine the results using the Chinese Remainder Theorem(CRT) to get the
final answer in (mod n).
The advantage of using p and q is that these numbers are prime, so we can use Fermats
Little Theorem (F`T) and its corollaries.
Example 1 Let us carry out some RSA calculations.
1. Given p = 5, and q = 11, and e = 3, find the private key (d, n) for an RSA scheme.
Solution: In this case, n = 5 11 = 55 and (p 1)(q 1) = 4 10 = 40. To find d,
we solve
3d 1 (mod 40).
Set up the Linear Diophantine Equation
40x + 3d = 1
and use the Extended Euclidean Algorithm
x y r q Division Algorithm
1 0 40 0 40 = 0(3) + 40
0 1 3 0 23 = 0(40) + 3
1 -13 1 13 40 = 13(3) + 1
So so our solution for d is

d 13 (mod 40).
How many solutions do we expect for d? Since gcd(3, 40) = 1, by the Linear Congru-
ence Theorem(LCT), there is only one solution modulo 40.
As d must satisfy 1 < d < 40, the answer is d = (40 13) = 27.
Note that we could have solved for d simply from the observation that 3 27 = 81,
which leaves a remainder of 1 when divided by 40.
The private key is the pair (d, n) = (27, 55)
2. Suppose you receive the cipher-text C = 47. Decrypt the message using your private
key (27, 55).
Solution: So we will compute
R = (47)27 (mod 55).
The Splitting Modulus (SM) theorem allows us to instead solve the simultaneous
congruences
R (47)27 (mod 5)
27
and R (47) (mod 11).
We know 47 2 (mod 5) and 47 3 (mod 11), which provides us with slightly

simpler congruences
R 227 (mod 5)
27
and R 3 (mod 11).
Since 5 and 11 are both prime numbers, we may now use Fermats litte Theorem
(F`T), which tells us 24 1 (mod 5) and 310 1 (mod 11).
Using 27 = (6)(4) + 3, we get R (24 )6 23 23 8 3 (mod 5). Similarly, from
27 = 2(10) + 7 , we get that R (310 )2 (3)7 (37 ) 9 (mod 11). Finally, we have to
solve the simultaneous system of equations given by
R3 (mod 5)
and R 9 (mod 11).
A quick check shows that R 3 53 (mod 5) and R 9 53 (mod 1)1 and so by

SM, R 53 (mod 55).
REMARK
Notice that the Splitting Modulus theorem simplified our work in the example above. How-
ever, this is not something that an adversary can do because p and q are not part of the
public key!
29.4 Does M = R?
Are we confident that the message sent is the message received?

Section 29.4 Does M = R? 215
Theorem 2 (RSA)
If
1. p and q are distinct primes,
2. n = pq
3. e and d are positive integers such that ed 1 (mod (p 1)(q 1)),
4. 0 M < n
5. M e C (mod n)
6. C d R (mod n) where 0 R < n
then R = M .
The proof is long and can appear intimidating but, in fact, it is structurally straightforward
if we break it into pieces. The proof is done in four parts.
1. Write R as a function of M , specifically
R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod n).
2. Show that R M (mod p). We will do this in two cases: (i) p - M and (ii) p | M .
3. Show that R M (mod q).
4. Use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to deduce that R = M .
Proof: First, we will show that
R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod n).
Since ed 1 (mod (p 1)(q 1)), there exists an integer k so that
ed = 1 + k(p 1)(q 1).
Now
R Cd (mod n)
e d
(M ) (mod n)
ed
M (mod n)
1+k(p1)(q1)
M (mod n)
M M k(p1)(q1) (mod n).
Second, we will show that R M (mod p). Suppose that p - M . By Fermats Little
Theorem,
M p1 1 (mod p).
Hence
M k(p1)(q1) (M p1 )k(q1) (mod p)

k(q1)
1 (mod p)
1 (mod p).
Multiplying both sides by M gives
M M k(p1)(q1) M (mod p).
Since
R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod n) = R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod p).
we have
RM (mod p).
Now suppose that p | M . But then M 0 (mod p) and so M M k(p1)(q1) 0 (mod p).
That is,
M M k(p1)(q1) M (mod p).
Again, since
R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod n) = R M M k(p1)(q1) (mod p)
we have
RM (mod p).
In either case, we have R M (mod p).

Third, we will show that R M (mod q). But this is very similar to R M (mod p).
Fourth and last, we will show that R = M . So far we have generated two linear congruences
that have to be satisfied simultaneously, namely:
RM (mod p)
RM (mod q).
Since gcd(p, q) = 1 we can invoke the Chinese Remainder Theorem and conclude that
RM (mod pq).
Since pq = n we have
RM (mod n).
Now, R and M are both integers congruent to each other modulo n, and both lie between
0 and n 1, so R = M .
Part V
Complex Numbers and Eulers

Formula
217
Chapter 30
Complex Numbers
30.1 Objectives
1. Define complex number, C, real part, and imaginary part.
2. Perform complex addition and complex multiplication.
3. State and prove properties of complex numbers.
30.2 Different Equations Require Different Number Systems
When humans first counted, we tallied. We literally made notches on sticks, stones and
bones. Thus the natural numbers, N, were born. But it wouldnt be long before the
necessity of fractions became obvious. One animal to be shared by four people (we will
assume uniformly) meant that we had to develop the notion of 1/4. Though it would not
have been expressed this way, the equation
4x = 1
does not have a solution in N and so we would have had to extend our notion of numbers
to include fractions, the rationals.
na o
Q= : a, b Z, b 6= 0
b
This is an overstatement historically, because recognition of zero and negative numbers
which are permitted in Q were very slow to come. But even these new numbers would not
help solve equations of the form
x2 = 2
which would arise naturally from isosceles right angled triangles. For this, the notion
of number had to be extended to include irrational numbers, which combined with the
rationals, give us the real numbers.
Eventually, via Hindu and Islamic scholars, western mathematics began to recognize and
accept both zero and negative numbers. Otherwise, equations like
3x = 5x
218
Section 30.3 Complex Numbers 219
or
2x + 4 = 0
have no solution. Thus, mathematicians recognized that
N(Z(Q(R
but even R was inadequate because equations of the form
x2 + 1 = 0
had no real solutions.

So once again, our number system was extended again.
30.3 Complex Numbers
Definition 30.3.1 A complex number z in standard form is an expression of the form x+yi where x, y R.
Complex Number The set of all complex numbers is denoted by
C = {x + yi : x, y R}
Example 1 Some examples are 3 + 4i, 0 + 5i (usually written 5i), 7 0i (usually written 7) and 0 + 0i
(usually written 0).
Definition 30.3.2 For a complex number z = x + yi, the real number x is called the real part and is written
Real Part, Re(z) or <(z) and the real number y is called the imaginary part and is written Im(z) or
Imaginary Part =(z).
So Re(3 + 4i) = 3 and Im(3 + 4i) = 4. If z is a complex number where Im(z) = 0, we

will treat z as a real number and we will not write the term containing i. For example,
z = 3 + 0i will be treated as a real number and will be written as z = 3. Thus
R(C
and so
N(Z(Q(R(C
One has to wonder how much further the number system needs to be extended!
Definition 30.3.3 The complex numbers z = x + yi and w = u + vi are equal if and only if x = u and y = v.
Equality
Definition 30.3.4 Addition is defined as

Addition
(a + bi) + (c + di) = (a + c) + (b + d)i
220 Chapter 30 Complex Numbers
Example 2
(1 + 7i) + (2 3i) = (1 + 2) + (7 3)i = 3 + 4i
Definition 30.3.5 Multiplication is defined as

Multiplication
(a + bi) (c + di) = (ac bd) + (ad + cb)i
Example 3
(1 + 7i) (2 3i) = (1 2 7 (3)) + (1 (3) + 7 2)i = 23 + 11i
REMARK
Lets square i.
i i = (0 + 1i) (0 + 1i) = (0 0 1 1) + (0 1 + 0 1)i = 1
The fact that i2 = 1 is what gives complex numbers their strangeness and their strength.
Together with properties of real numbers, it allows us to avoid use of the cumbersome
formal definition of complex multiplication when doing numerical computations. Instead,
we can expand the binomial and replace i2 by 1. So for the above example, we can more
familiarly write
(1 + 7i) (2 3i) = 2 3i + 14i 21i2 = 23 + 11i.
The multiplication symbol is usually omitted and we write zw or (a + bi)(c + di).
Definition 30.3.6 Subtraction is defined as

Subtraction
(a + bi) (c + di) = (a c) + (b d)i
Exercise 1 Verify that if z and w are complex numbers, then z w = z + (1 + 0i)w.
Example 4 Let u = 3 + i and v = 2 7i. Compute
1. u + v
2. u v
3. uv
4. u3
Solution:
1. u + v = (3 + i) + (2 7i) = 5 6i
2. u v = (3 + i) (2 7i) = 1 + 8i
3. uv = (3 + i)(2 7i) = (6 (7)) + (21 + 2)i = 13 19i
4. u3 = (3 + i)3 = (3 + i)2 (3 + i) = (8 + 6i)(3 + i) = 18 + 26i
You probably didnt even question the use of exponents in the previous example. Techni-
cally, we havent defined u2 and u3 for a complex number yet. However, we do this in the
usual way. That is, if z is a complex number and n > 1 is an integer, we write z n to mean
the multiplication of n copies of z. We stick to the convention that z 0 = 1 and z 1 = z.
However, we wont take sides in the debate over what 00 is or means.
Exercise 2 Compute
1. i4k for any non-negative integer k
2. i4k+1 for any non-negative integer k
3 + 4i
What about division? Consider . What does this mean?
1 + 2i
Let z = 1 + 2i. As with real numbers and integers modulo a prime, we want to write
3 + 4i
= (3 + 4i)z 1
z
where if z 1 = (x + yi) for real numbers x and y, then (1 + 2i)(x + yi) = 1. If this is true,
(x 2y) + (2x + y)i = 1 + 0i.

1 2
We can equate real and imaginary parts and solve for x and y to determine that z 1 = i.
5 5
Then
3 + 4i 1 2 11 2
= (3 + 4i)z 1 = (3 + 4i) i = i.
z 5 5 5 5
Notice that assuming the left-hand side (below) is also well-defined,

3 + 4i 1 2i 11 2i 11 2
= 2 2
= i.
1 + 2i 1 2i 1 +2 5 5
Definition 30.3.7 Division is defined as

(a + bi) ac + bd bc ad
Division = 2 + i
(c + di) c + d2 c2 + d2
222 Chapter 30 Complex Numbers
v
Example 5 Let u = 3 + i and v = 2 7i. Compute and write the answer standard form.
u
Solution: Using the definition, we get
v 6 7 2 + 21 1 23
= + i= + i.
u 9+1 9+1 10 10
Alternatively,
v 2 7i 2 7i 3 i 1 23i 1 23
= = = = + i.
u 3+i 3+i 3i 10 10 10
We will now also allow negative integer exponents. That is, if z is a complex number and
n is a positive integer, then z n simply means z1n . Things get interesting and especially
strange when we explore rational, real and even complex exponents!
The usual properties of associativity, commutativity, identities, inverses and distributivity
that we associate with rational and real numbers also apply to complex numbers.
Proposition 1 Let u, v, z C. Then
1. Associativity of addition: (u + v) + z = u + (v + z)
2. Commutativity of addition: u + v = v + u
3. Additive identity: 0 = 0 + 0i has the property that z + 0 = z
4. Additive inverses: If z = x + yi then there exists an additive inverse of z, written z

with the property that z+(z) = 0. The additive inverse of z = x+yi is z = xyi.
5. Associativity of multiplication: (u v) z = u (v z)
6. Commutativity of multiplication: u v = v u
7. Multiplicative identity: 1 = 1 + 0i has the property that z 1 = z.
8. Multiplicative inverses: If z = x + yi 6= 0 then there exists a multiplicative inverse

of z, written z 1 , with the property that z z 1 = 1. The multiplicative inverse of
z = x + yi 6= 0 is z 1 = xxyi
2 +y 2 .
9. Distributivity: z (u + v) = z u + z v
Example 6 Let u = 3 + i and v = 2 7i as before. Verify that (u2 )v = u(uv).

Solution: We compute
(u2 )v = (3 + i)2 (2 7i) = (8 + 6i)(2 7i) = 58 44i
and
u(uv) = (3 + i)((3 + i)(2 7i)) = (3 + i)(13 19i) = 58 44i.
Self Check 1 Prove that the properties of associativity, commutativity, identities, inverses and distribu-
tivity are true for complex numbers.
REMARK
You may wonder if the quadratic formula still works for complex numbers. If you were
introduced to complex numbers in high school, this may have been the motivation. It turns
out that complex numbers allow us to find two (not necessarily distinct) solutions to any
real quadratic equation. It also works if the coefficients are complex numbers. However,
we need a reinterpretation of some of the terms in the formula. We will get to this in later
chapters.
Chapter 31
Properties Of Complex Numbers
31.1 Objectives
1. Define conjugate and modulus.
2. State and prove several properties of complex numbers.
31.2 Conjugate
Definition 31.2.1 The complex conjugate of z = x + yi is the complex number

Conjugate
z = x yi.
The conjugate of z = 2 + 3i is z = 2 3i.
Example 1 Find all z C which satisfy z 2 + 2z + 1 = 0.

Solution: Let z = x + yi where x, y R. Then
z 2 + 2z + 1 = 0 (x2 y 2 + 2xyi) + 2(x yi) + 1 = 0
or
(x2 y 2 + 2x + 1) + (2xy 2y)i = 0
Equating real and imaginary parts we have
x2 y 2 + 2x + 1 = 0.
2xy 2y = 0.
From the second equation we get
2xy 2y = 0 2y(x 1) = 0 y = 0 or x = 1
If y = 0 then the first equation gives
x2 + 2x + 1 = 0 x = 1
224
Section 31.2 Conjugate 225
If x = 1 then the first equation gives
1 y 2 + 2 + 1 = 0 y 2 = 4 y = 2
Thus, the solutions are

1, 1 + 2i, 1 2i
Proposition 1 (Properties of Conjugates (PCJ))

If z and w are complex numbers, then
1. z + w = z + w
2. zw = z w
3. z = z
4. z + z = 2Re(z)
5. z z = 2Im(z)i
We will prove the first of these properties and leave the remainder as exercises.
Proof: Let z = x + yi and w = u + vi. Then
z + w = (x + yi) + (u + vi) (substitution)

= (x + u) + (y + v)i (defn of addition)
= (x + u) (y + v)i (defn of conjugate)
= (x yi) + (u vi) (Properties of Addn and Mult)
=z+w (defn of conjugate)
Exercise 1 Prove each of the remaining parts of the Properties of Conjugates proposition.
Example 2 Prove: Let z C. The complex number z is a real number if and only if z = z.
Solution: Let z = x + yi.
z is real Im(z) = 0 (from the previous chapter)

y = 0
x + 0i = x 0i
z = z
226 Chapter 31 Properties Of Complex Numbers
Exercise 2 Prove: Let z C and z 6= 0. The complex number z is purely imaginary (Re(z) = 0) if and
only if z = z.
REMARK
Note that zero is both real and purely imaginary.
Exercise 3 Let w and z be complex numbers in standard form. Prove that

1 1
=
w w
and hence z z

=
w w
Example 3 For z 6= i define

z+i
w=
zi
Prove that w is a real number if and only if z is purely imaginary.
Solution:
w is real w = w

z+i z+i
=
zi zi
z+i zi
= by Properties of Conjugates
zi z+i
zz 1 + (z + z)i = zz 1 (z + z)i
2i(z + z) = 0
z + z = 0
2Re(z) = 0 by Properties of Conjugates
Re(z) = 0
z is purely imaginary.
31.3 Modulus
Given two real numbers, say x1 and x2 , we can write either x1 x2 or x2 x1 . However,
given two complex numbers, z1 and z2 , we cannot meaningfully write z1 z2 or z2 z1 .
This is one reason why we associate each complex number with a non-negative real number.
Section 31.3 Modulus 227
Definition 31.3.1 The modulus of the complex number z = x + yi is the non-negative real number
Modulus p
|z| = |x + yi| = x2 + y 2 .
p
Example 4 The modulus of z = 2 5i is |z| = (22 ) + (5)2 = 29.
Since the modulus of a complex number is a real number, we can meaningfully write |z1 |
|z2 |. The modulus gives us a means to compare the magnitude of two complex numbers,
but not compare the numbers themselves.
If Im(z) = 0, the modulus corresponds to the absolute values of real numbers. If we think
of |x| for a real number x as the distance from x to zero, then this matches a geometric
intepretation of |z| we will introduce for complex numbers in the next chapter.
Proposition 2 (Properties of Modulus (PM))

If z and w are complex numbers, then
1. |z| = 0 if and only if z = 0
2. |z| = |z|
3. zz = |z|2
4. |zw| = |z||w|
5. |z + w| |z| + |w|. This is the triangle inequality.
Exercise 4 Prove each of the parts of the Properties of Modulus proposition.
REMARK
Squaring both sides of an equation or inequality and the using zz = |z|2 from Properties
of Modulus often allows us to avoid introducing the real an imaginary parts of a complex
number z. This often leads to a shorter and more elegant proof. How did you prove the
fourth part of Properties of Modulus?
z+i
Example 5 For z C, z 6= i define w = . Prove that |w| < 1 if and only if Im(z) < 0.
zi
228 Chapter 31 Properties Of Complex Numbers
Solution: Let z = x + yi with x, y R. Then,

z + i
|w| < 1 <1
z i
|z + i|
<1
|z i|
|z + i| < |z i|
|x + (y + 1)i| < |x + (y 1)i|
p p
x2 + (y + 1)2 < x2 + (y 1)2
x2 + (y + 1)2 < x2 + (y 1)2
2y < 2y
4y < 0
y < 0
Im(z) < 0
Example 6 One of the dangers in working in a new mathematical system is the temptation to invent
new but incorrect rules.
For each step of the following argument that purports to show that |z| = 1 for all complex
numbers z, provide justification (by citing an appropriate proposition, for example) or state
that the logic is incorrect and give a reason why.
Let z be any complex number.
0 = |1| 1 (31.1)
1
= |zz |1 (31.2)
1
= |z||z |1 (31.3)
1
= |(z + 1) 1||z |1 (31.4)
1
= (|z + 1| + | 1|)|z |1 (31.5)
1
= (|z + 1| + 1)|z |1 (31.6)
1 1
= |z + 1||z | + |z |1 (31.7)
= |z + 1||z| + |z| 1 (31.8)
= (|z| + |1|)|z| + |z| 1 (31.9)
= (|z| + 1)|z| + |z| 1 (31.10)
2
= |z| + 2|z| 1 (31.11)
2
= (|z| 1) (31.12)
Therefore |z| = 1 for all complex numbers z.

Chapter 32
Graphical Representations of
Complex Numbers
32.1 Objectives
1. Define complex plane, polar coordinates, polar form.
2. Convert between Cartesian and polar form.
3. Multiplication in polar form.
32.2 The Complex Plane
32.2.1 Cartesian Coordinates (x, y)
Definition 32.2.1 The notation z = x + yi suggests a non-algebraic representation. Each complex number
Complex Plane z = x + yi can be thought of as a point (x, y) in a plane with orthogonal axes. Label one
axis the real axis and the other axis the imaginary axis. The complex number z = x + yi
then corresponds to the point (x, y) in the plane. This interpretation of the plane is called
the complex plane or the Argand plane.
Figure 32.2.1: The Complex Plane
229
230 Chapter 32 Graphical Representations of Complex Numbers
Exercise 1 Plot the following points in the complex plane.
1. 4 i
2. 2 + 3i
32.2.2 Modulus
Recall that the modulus of the complex number z = x + yi is the non-negative real number
p
|z| = |x + yi| = x2 + y 2
There are a couple of geometric points to note about the modulus of z = x + yi. The
Pythagorean Theorem is enough to prove that |z| is the distance from the origin to z in
the complex plane, and that the distance between z and w = u + vi is just |z w| =
p
(x u)2 + (y v)2 .
Exercise 2 Sketch all of the points in the complex plane with modulus 1.
32.3 Polar Representation
There is another way to represent points in a plane which is very useful when working with
complex numbers. Instead of beginning with the origin and two orthogonal axes, we begin
with the origin O and a polar axis which is a ray leaving from the origin. The point P (r, )
is plotted so that the distance OP is r, and the counter clockwise angle of rotation from
the polar axis, measured in radians, is .
Figure 32.3.1: Polar Representation
Note that this allows for multiple representations since (r, ) identifies the same point as
(r, + 2k) for any integer k.
The obvious problem is how to go from one to the other.
Section 32.4 Converting Between Representations 231
Figure 32.4.1: Connecting Polar and Cartesian Representations
32.4 Converting Between Representations
Simple trigonometry allows us to convert between polar and Cartesian coordinates.

Given the polar coordinates (r, ), the corresponding Cartesian coordinates (x, y) are
x = r cos
y = r sin .
Given the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), the corresponding polar coordinates are determined
by
p
r = x2 + y 2
x
cos =
r
y
sin = .
r
Example 1 Here are points in standard form, Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates.
Standard Form Cartesian Coordinates Polar Coordinates

1 (1, 0) (1, 0)
1 +i (1, 1) ( 2, 3/4)
1 3i (1, 3) (2, 4/3)
Exercise 3 Below are polar coordinates of points. Plot the points and convert to Cartesian coordinates.
1. (1, 0)
2. (2, 7/2)
3. (4, 4/3)
Next are Cartesian coordinates of points. Plot the points and convert to polar coordinates.
1. (1, 0)
2. (1, 1)

3. (2, 2 3)
232 Chapter 32 Graphical Representations of Complex Numbers
From our earlier description of conversions, we can write the complex number
z = x + yi
as
z = r cos + ri sin = r(cos + i sin ).
Definition 32.4.1 The polar form of a complex number z is

Polar Form
z = r(cos + i sin )
where r is the modulus of z and the angle is called an argument of z.
REMARK
Some people shorten cos + i sin using the notation cis .
Example 2 The following are representations of complex numbers in both standard and polar form.
1. 1 = cos 0 + i sin 0

3 3
2. 1 + i = 2 cos + i sin
4 4

4 4
3. 1 3i = 2 cos + i sin
3 3
9+i
Example 3 Write z = in the form r(cos + i sin ) with r 0 and 0 < 2.
5 4i
Solution:
9+i (9 + i)(5 + 4i) 41 + 41i
z= = = 2 2
= 1 + i = 2(cos /4 + i sin /4).
5 4i (5 4i)(5 + 4i) 5 +4
One of the advantages of polar representation is that multiplication becomes very straight-
forward.
Proposition 1 (Polar Multiplication of Complex Numbers (PMCN))

If z1 = r1 (cos 1 + i sin 1 ) and z2 = r2 (cos 2 + i sin 2 ) are two complex numbers in polar
form, then
z1 z2 = r1 r2 (cos(1 + 2 ) + i sin(1 + 2 ))
Section 32.4 Converting Between Representations 233
Proof:
z1 z2 = r1 (cos 1 + i sin 1 ) r2 (cos 2 + i sin 2 )

= r1 r2 ((cos 1 cos 2 sin 1 sin 2 ) + i(cos 1 sin 2 + sin 1 cos 2 ))
= r1 r2 (cos(1 + 2 ) + i sin(1 + 2 ))
Example 4

3 3 4 4
2 cos + i sin 2 cos + i sin
4 4 3 3

3 4 3 4
= 2 2 cos + + i sin +
4 3 4 3

25 25
= 2 2 cos + i sin
12 12

= 2 2 cos + i sin
12 12
Chapter 33
De Moivres Theorem
33.1 Objectives
1. State and prove De Moivres Theorem and do examples.
2. Derive Eulers Formula.
33.2 De Moivres Theorem
De Moivres Theorem dramatically simplifies exponentiation of complex numbers.
Theorem 1 (De Moivres Theorem (DMT))

If R and n Z, then
(cos + i sin )n = cos n + i sin n.
Example 1 Consider the complex number

z = 1/ 2 + i/ 2
which, in polar form is
z = cos /4 + i sin /4.
By De Moivres Theorem,
z 10 = (cos /4 + i sin /4)10 = cos 10/4 + i sin 10/4 = cos /2 + i sin /2 = i.
234
Section 33.2 De Moivres Theorem 235
Proof: We will prove DeMoivres Theorem using three cases:
1. n = 0
2. n > 0
3. n < 0.
For the case n = 0, DeMoivres Theorem reduces to (cos + i sin )0 = cos 0 + i sin 0. By
convention z 0 = 1 so the left hand side of the equation is 1. Since cos 0 = 1 and sin 0 = 0,
the right hand side also evaluates to 1.
For the case n > 0 we will use induction. Let P (n) be the statement
(cos + i sin )n = cos n + i sin n.
(cos + i sin )1 = cos 1 + i sin 1.
This is trivially true.
Inductive Hypothesis We assume that the statement P (k) is true for some k 1. That
is, we assume
(cos + i sin )k = cos k + i sin k.
(cos + i sin )k+1 = cos(k + 1) + i sin(k + 1).
Beginning with the left-hand side,
(cos + i sin )k+1 = (cos + i sin )k (cos + i sin ) (by separating out one factor)
= (cos k + i sin k)(cos + i sin ) (by the Inductive Hypothesis)
= cos(k + 1) + i sin(k + 1) (Polar Multiplication)
Since P (k+1) is true, P (n) is true for all natural numbers n by the Principle of Mathematical
Induction.
Lastly, for the case n < 0 we will use complex arithmetic. Since n < 0, n = m for some
m N.
(cos + i sin )n = (cos + i sin )m
1
=
(cos + i sin )m
1
=
(cos m + i sin m)
cos m i sin m
=
(cos2 m + i sin2 m)
= cos m i sin m
= cos(m) + i(sin(m))
= cos n + i sin n
236 Chapter 33 De Moivres Theorem
Corollary 2 If z = r(cos + i sin ) and n is an integer,
z n = rn (cos n + i sin n)

Example 2 Calculate (1 + 3i)17 .

Solution: We use De Moivres Theorem. The polar form of 1 + 3i is
z = 2(cos 2/3 + i sin 2/3)
By De Moivres Theorem,

(1 + 3i)17 = 217 (cos 2/3 + i sin 2/3)17
= 217 (cos 34/3 + i sin 34/3)
= 217 (cos 4/3 + i sin 4/3)

17 1 3
= 2 ( i)
2 2
= 216 (1 3i)
Example 3 Use De Moivres Theorem to show that
cos 3 = 4 cos3 3 cos

sin 3 = 3 sin 4 sin3 .
Solution: By De Moivres Theorem
(cos + i sin )3 = cos 3 + i sin 3.
By expanding
(cos + i sin )3 = cos3 + 3i cos2 sin 3 cos sin2 i sin3 .
Equating the right and left sides gives
cos 3 + i sin 3 = cos3 + 3i cos2 sin 3 cos sin2 i sin3 .
Equating real and imaginary parts gives
cos 3 = cos3 3 cos sin2

sin 3 = 3 cos2 sin sin3 .
Now using the identity sin2 + cos2 = 1 we have
cos 3 = cos3 3 cos sin2 = cos3 3 cos (1 cos2 ) = 4 cos3 3 cos

sin 3 = 3 cos2 sin sin3 = 3(1 sin2 ) sin sin3 = 3 sin 4 sin3
as required.
Section 33.3 Complex Exponentials 237
Example 4 Using the fact that = 52 satisfies cos 2 = cos 3, calculate cos 25 .
Solution: From the previous example and substituting 1 cos2 for sin2 we have
cos 3 = 4 cos3 3 cos
Now, by the hint, we get
cos 2 = 4 cos3 3 cos = 2 cos2 1 = 4 cos3 3 cos
by the double angle formula for the cosine. Rearranging this and letting X = cos , we get
4X 3 2X 2 3X + 1 = 0
Note that X = 1 is a solution (extraneous) to this polynomial: that would mean that
= 2k for some integer k, contrary to assumption. So, divide the polynomial by X 1 to
get
(X 1)(4X 2 + 2X 1) = 0
The real value of cos is one of the roots of this polynomial, and it is not 1. Now apply the
quadratic formula taking the positive root since 0 < and = 25 < 21 to get

2 20 1 + 5
X= and X > 0 = X =
8 4

1+ 5
Therefore, cos 25 = 4 .
33.3 Complex Exponentials
If you were asked to find a real-valued function y with the property that
dy
= ky and y = 1 when x = 0
dx
for some constant k, you would choose
y = ekx .
If you were asked to find the derivative of f () = cos + i sin where i was treated as any
other constant you would almost certainly write
df
= sin + i cos
d
but then
df
= sin + i cos = i(cos + i sin ) = if ()
d
and so
df
= if () and f () = 1 when = 0.
d
238 Chapter 33 De Moivres Theorem
Definition 33.3.1 By analogy, we define the complex exponential function by

Complex
Exponential ei = cos + i sin .
As an exercise, prove the following.
Proposition 3 (Properties of Complex Exponentials (PCE))

If and are real numbers, then
ei ei = ei(+)
n
ei = ein n Z.
The polar form of a complex number z can now be written as
z = rei
where r = |z| and is an argument of z.

Out of this arises one of the most stunning formulas in mathematics. Setting r = 1 and
= we get
ei = cos + i sin = 1 + 0i = 1,
that is,
ei + 1 = 0.
Who would have believed that e, i, , 1 and 0 would have such a wonderful connection!
!6
ei5/12
Example 5 How do we write z = in the form x + iy with x, y R?
3
!6
ei5/12
z= = ( 3)6 (ei5/12 )6 = 33 ei5/2 = 27(ei/2 ) = 27i.
3
Chapter 34
Roots of Complex Numbers
34.1 Objectives
1. State, prove and apply the Complex n-th Roots Theorem.
34.2 Complex n-th Roots
Definition 34.2.1 If a is a complex number, then the complex numbers that solve
Complex Roots
zn = a
are called the complex n-th roots.
De Moivres Theorem gives us a straightforward way to find complex n-th roots of a.
Theorem 1 (Complex n-th Roots Theorem (CNRT))

Let n be a natural number. If r(cos + i sin ) is the polar form of a complex number a,
then the solutions to z n = a are

n
+ 2k + 2k
r cos + i sin for k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n 1.
n n

The modulus n r is the unique non-negative n-th root of r. This theorem asserts that any
non-zero complex number, including the reals, has exactly n different complex n-th roots.
239
240 Chapter 34 Roots of Complex Numbers
Example 1 Find all the complex fourth roots of 16.

Solution: We will use the Complex n-th Roots Theorem. First, we write 16 in polar
form as
16 = 16(cos + i sin )
Using the Complex n-th Roots Theorem the solutions are

4 + 2k + 2k
16 cos + i sin
4 4

k k
= 2 cos + + i sin + for k = 0, 1, 2, 3.
4 2 4 2
The four distinct roots are given below

1 i
When k = 0, z0 = 2 cos + i sin =2 + = 2 + i 2.
4 4 2 2

3 3 1 i
When k = 1, z1 = 2 cos + i sin =2 + = 2 + i 2.
4 4 2 2

5 5 1 i
When k = 2, z2 = 2 cos + i sin =2 + = 2 i 2.
4 4 2 2

7 7 1 i
When k = 3, z3 = 2 cos + i sin =2 + = 2 i 2.
4 4 2 2
Graphing these solutions is illuminating.
Figure 34.2.1: The Fourth Roots of -16

4
Note that the solutions are uniformly distributed around a circle whose radius is 16.
Section 34.2 Complex n-th Roots 241
Proof: As usual, when showing that a complete solution exists we work with two sets: the
set S of solutions and the set T of specific representations of the solution. We then show
that S = T by mutual inclusion. Our two sets are
S = {z C : z n = a}
and

n
+ 2k + 2k
T = r cos + i sin : k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n 1
n n
where a = r(cos + i sin ).

We begin by showing that T S. Let t = n r cos +2k + i sin +2k

n n be an element
of T . Now
n

n n
n + 2k + 2k
t = r cos + i sin
n n
= r(cos( + 2k) + i sin( + 2k)) using De Moivres Theorem
= r(cos + i sin )
=a
Hence, t is a solution of z n = a, that is, t S.

Now we show that S T . Let w = s(cos + i sin ) be an n-th root of a.
Since a = r(cos + i sin ) we have
wn = a
(s(cos + i sin ))n = r(cos + i sin )
sn (cos n + i sin n) = r(cos + i sin ) by De Moivres Theorem.
Now two complex numbers in polar form are equal if and only if their moduli are equal and
their arguments differ by an integer multiple of 2. So

sn = r = s = n r
and
+ 2k
n = 2k = =
n
where k Z. Hence, the n-th roots of a are of the form

n
+ 2k + 2k
r cos + i sin for k Z.
n n
But this is k Z, not k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n 1. Since w is an n-th root of a, there exists an

integer k0 so that

n
+ 2k0 + 2k0
w = r cos + i sin .
n n
If we can show that

n
+ 2k1 + 2k1
w= r cos + i sin
n n
if and only if k0 k1 (mod n) whenever r 6= 0, then w T . Now
k0 k1 (mod n) k0 k1 = n` for some ` Z

2k0 2k1 = 2n` for some ` Z
2k0 2k1
= 2` for some ` Z
n n
+ 2k0 + 2k1
= 2` for some ` Z.
n n
Example 2 Find all the cube roots of i.

Solution: We will use the Complex n-th Roots Theorem. First, we write i in polar form
as
i = cos /2 + i sin /2

2 + 2k 2 + 2k
cos + i sin
3 3

+ 4k + 4k
= cos + i sin for k = 0, 1, 2.
6 6
The three distinct roots are given below.

3 i
When k = 0, z0 = cos + i sin = + .
6 6 2 2

5 5 3 i
When k = 1, z1 = cos + i sin = + .
6 6 2 2

3 3
When k = 2, z2 = cos + i sin = i.
2 2
Example 3 Find all of the cube roots of 2. Express your answers in standard form and plot these
solutions in the complex plane.
Solution: We will use the Complex n-th Roots Theorem to solve z 3 = 2. First, we write
2 in polar form as
2 = 2(cos 0 + i sin 0).

3 2k 2k
2 cos + i sin for k = 0, 1, 2.
3 3
Section 34.3 Square Roots 243
The three distinct roots are given below

3
3
When k = 0, z0 = 2 (cos (0) + i sin (0)) = 2.
!

3 2 2 3 1 i 3 1 3
When k = 1, z1 = 2 cos + i sin = 2. + = 3
+3
i.
3 3 2 2 4 4
!

3 4 4 3 1 i 3 1 3
When k = 2, z1 = 2 cos + i sin = 2 =
3

3
i.
3 3 2 2 4 4
The diagram is omitted.
Example 4 Solve z 6 z 3 2 = 0.
Solution: Since z 6 z 3 2 = (z 3 2)(z 3 + 1) it is enough to solve z 3 2 = 0 and z 3 + 1 = 0.
The roots of z 3 2 = 0 are given
by the previous
example. The roots of z 3 + 1 = 0 can also
1 3 1 3
be calculated to yield 2 + i 2 , 1 and 2 i 2 .
Exercise 1 An n-th root of unity is a complex number that solves z n = 1. Find all of the sixth roots
of unity. Express them in standard form and graph them in the complex plane.
34.3 Square Roots
The Complex n-th Roots Theorem (CNRT) tells us that for a complex number a 6= 0, there
are exactly two complex numbers z such that z 2 = a. It is common to call these the square
roots of a and CNRT gives them to us in polar form. However, the quadratic formula can
also be used.
Proposition 2 (Quadratic Formula)

Let a, b, c C. The two (not necessarily distinct) solutions to ax2 + bx + c = 0 are
b w
2a
where w is a solution to z 2 = b2 4ac.

Notice that this is not written using the notation b2 4ac. What does b2 4ac even
mean when b2 4ac is not a non-negative real number? Remember that we dont have the
notions of positive and negative for arbitrary complex numbers. Square root is not a
well-defined function over the complex numbers.
Nevertheless, if w2 = a for complex numbers w and a, then (w)2 = a as well. So in some
sense the plus/minus sign inthe quadratic formula means it does not matter which square
root we select as a value for b2 4ac. This is why some people still safely use the notation

r even if they do not know whether or not r is a non-negative real number.
Exercise 2 Prove that the quadratic formula holds for any complex quadratic equation.
Exercise 3 Find the square roots of 2i and graph them in the complex plane.
Example 5 Express the solutions to 2x2 + 3x + 2 = 0 in standard form.

Solution: Using the quadratic formula, we get
3 w
x= where w2 = 9 4(4) = 7.
4

By inspection, we see that ( 7i)2 = 7i2 = 7 so the two solutions are

3 7
i.
4 4
Example 6 Express the solutions to ix2 + 3x 2i = 0 in standard form.

Solution: Using the quadratic formula, we get
3 w
x= where w2 = 9 4i(2i) = 9 8 = 1.
2i
We certainly know how to solve z 2 = 1. Thus the two solutions are

3 1 3 1 2i
= = 2i or i.
2i 2i 2i
Example 7 The equation x3 x2 + x 1 = 0 has one real solution but it also has two non-real complex
solutions. What are the three solutions?
Solution: Observe that
x3 x2 + x 1 = x2 (x 1) + 1(x 1) = (x2 + 1)(x 1)
so solutions to x3 x2 + x 1 = 0 exist when
(x2 + 1) = 0 or (x 1) = 0.
The second factor yields the real root x = 1 and the first factor yields the two non-real
complex roots i.
You may know that if the sum of the coefficients is zero as in this example, then x 1 is a
factor. Can you explain why? This relates to the material in the next chapter.
Part VI
Factoring Polynomials
245
Chapter 35
An Introduction to Polynomials
35.1 Objectives
1. Define polynomial and key polynomial terminology.
2. Define operations on polynomials.
3. State the Division Algorithm for Polynomials.
35.2 Polynomials
Our number systems were developed in response to the need to find solutions to equations.
We are now able to solve all equations of the form
a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 = 0
or
xn a0 = 0
whether a0 , a1 and a2 are real or complex numbers and n is a natural number. In fact, a
great deal more is known.
Consider the left hand side of the equations above. They are expressions built using a
symbol x and coefficients taken from some set. The choice of set is important.
In MATH 135, when we use the term field, we mean
the rational numbers, Q,

the real numbers, R,
the complex numbers, C, or
the integers modulo a prime Zp .
You may see a more general definition in a future course and it is important to know there
are many more examples of fields! Roughly speaking, a field is a set of numbers equipped
with operations addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
The integers are not a field because, for example, we do not get an integer when dividing
11 by 3. Similarly, Z6 is not a field since [3] does not have a multiplicative inverse in Z6 .
Recall that division is just multiplication by an inverse so we cannot divide by [3] in Z6 .
246
Section 35.2 Polynomials 247
REMARK
One of the most critical properties of a field is the following.
Let F be a field. Let a, b F. If ab = 0, then a = 0 or b = 0.
Convince yourself that this statement is true when F is Q, R, C or Zp where p is a prime.

Although the integers are not a field, this property is also true for integers. However, it is
not true in Z6 . Notice that in Z6 , we have [2][3] = [0] but [2] 6= [0] and [3] 6= [0].
Definition 35.2.1 A polynomial in x over the field F is an expression of the form

Polynomial
an xn + an1 xn1 + + a1 x + a0 ,
where n 0 is an integer, and
x is a symbol called an indeterminate, and
a0 , a1 , . . . , an are elements of F and called the coefficients of the polynomial.
Each individual expression of the form ai xi is called a term of the polynomial.

We use the notation F[x] to denote the set of all polynomials over the field F.
Most often we will work with polynomials over the rational numbers, real numbers or com-
plex numbers. These are called real polynomials, rational polynomials and complex
polynomials respectively.
Example 1 Here are some examples of polynomials.

1. 2x3 + ( 2 i)x2 7
2 ix + (5 2i) is in C[x]. Here a3 = 2, a2 = 2 i, a1 = 7
2 i and
a0 = 5 2i. Notice that these are all complex numbers.

2. x2 + 7x1 is in R[x]. Note that since R ( C, all real polynomials are also polynomials
2
over C. So x + 7x 1 is also in C[x].
1 5 5 4 3 2 3
3. 2 x 13 x + x x + 5x + 2 is in Q[x]. This is also a polynomial in R[x] and in C[x].
4. 5x4 +0x3 1x2 +0x2 is in Q[x] (also in R[x] and C[x]). We would usually express the
term 1x2 simply as x2 , and omit the terms 0x3 and 0x from the polynomial expression,
and simplify the polynomial as 5x4 x2 2.

Finally, note that 2x3 + x2 7
2 ix + 5
/ R[x] as at least one of the coefficients is not a
real number. In fact, as we have
Q ( R ( C,
we also get a similar relationship for polynomials:
Q[x] ( R[x] ( C[x].
248 Chapter 35 An Introduction to Polynomials
This means we should always clearly specify the field when working with polynomials.
Example 2 The polynomial [2]x3 +[4]x2 +[1] can be viewed as a polynomial over Z5 but it is cumbersome
to write all these square brackets and hence people often write this element of Z5 [x] as
2x3 + 4x + 1 making sure to do all of our coefficient arithmetic modulo 5.
35.2.1 Comparing Polynomials

4
Are the two polynomials x3 x + 21 and ln(1)x4 + tan
x3 sin () x2 e0 x +

4 4 the
same? How would we compare two polynomials?
Definition 35.2.2 Let n 0 be an integer. If an 6= 0 in the polynomial

Degree of
Polynomial an xn + an1 xn1 + + a1 x + a0
then the polynomial is said to have degree n. In other words, the degree of a polynomial
is the largest power of x that has a non-zero coefficient.
The zero polynomial has all of its coefficients equal to zero and its degree is not defined.
The reason for this might be explained in future courses where you may alternatively see the
degree of the zero polynomial defined to be . A constant polynomial is a polynomial
that is either the zero polynomial or a polynomial of degree 1. Polynomials of degree 1
are called linear polynomials, of degree 2, quadratic polynomials, and of degree 3, cubic
polynomials.
Example 3 Using some of the polynomials from the previous example,

1. 2x3 + ( 2 i)x2 7
2 ix + (5 2i) is a cubic polynomial.

2. x2 + 7x 1 is a quadratic polynomial.
1 5 5 4 3
3. 2x 13 x + x3 x2 + 5x + 2 is a polynomial of degree 5.
Note that the polynomial 0x3 + 0x2 + 1x + 0 is actually linear as the largest exponent of x
with a non-zero coefficient is 1.
In the following discussion, we will sometimes use both function notation and summation
notation. That is, we will frequently use f (x) to denote an element of F[x] and write
n
X
f (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + + a1 x + a0 = ak xk .
k=0
Definition 35.2.3 Let f (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + + a1 x + a0 , and g(x) = bn xn + bn1 xn1 + + b1 x + b0
Equal both be polynomials in F[x].
The polynomials f (x) and g(x) are equal if and only if ak = bk for all k.

Thus, x3 x + 21 and ln(1)x4 + tan 4 x3 sin () x2 e0 x + 44 are indeed the same

polynomial. As another example, in Z2 [x], [4]x5 + [1]x equals [3]x.

Section 35.3 Operations on Polynomials 249
REMARK
Do not mistake polynomial equality with function equality. For example, consider
f (x) = [1]x2 and g(x) = [1]x4 .
When viewed as polynomials, f (x) and g(x) are not equal. However they are equal when
viewed as functions mapping elements of Z3 to Z3 . That is, both functions map [0] to [0],
[1] to [1], and [2] to [1].
35.3 Operations on Polynomials
Polynomials can be added, subtracted and multiplied as algebraic expressions exactly as

you have done in high school.
Example 4 (Polynomial Addtion)

Polynomials are added term-by-term, that is, we add the coefficients of the same powers
of x.
1. In R[x], if f (x) = x2 + 7x 1 and g(x) = 3x4 x3 + 4x2 x + 5 then

f (x) + g(x) = 3x4 x3 + 5x2 + 6x + 4.
2. In C[x], if f (x) = x3 7ix + (5 2i) and g(x) = (4 + 3i)x + (7 + 7i) then

f (x) + g(x) = x3 + (4 4i)x + (12 + 5i).
Definition 35.3.1 The sum of the polynomials f (x) and g(x) is defined as
Sum
max(n,m)
X
f (x) + g(x) = (ak + bk )xk
k=0
where deg(f (x)) = n, deg(g(x)) = m, and any missing terms have coefficient zero.
Definition 35.3.2 The difference of the polynomials f (x) and g(x) is defined as
Difference
max(n,m)
X
f (x) g(x) = (ak bk )xk
k=0
where deg(f (x)) = n, deg(g(x)) = m, and any missing terms have coefficient zero.
Example 5 In Z7 [x], if f (x) = [3]x5 + [2]x3 + [5] and g(x) = [2]x4 + [2]x3 + [3]x2 + [6] then
f (x) g(x) = [3]x5 + [5]x4 + [4]x2 + [6].
Exercise 1 Find the difference of each of the pairs of polynomials given in Example 4.
Example 6 (Polynomial Multiplication)

Polynomials are multiplied in a distributive manner. We just collect all of the terms
containing xi that we would get through distributive multiplication.
In R[x], let f (x) = x2 + 7x 1 and g(x) = 3x + 2. We will compute the product f (x)g(x)
using long multiplication and see how it captures the description of multiplication just given.
x2 + 7x 1
3x + 2
2x2 + 14x 2
3x3 + 21x2 3x
3x3 + 23x2 + 11x 2
The x2 column simply displays the combinations of terms from f (x) and g(x) whose product
gives x2 , that is x2 2 and 7x 3x.
The formal definition of the product of two polynomials looks more complicated than it is.
Definition 35.3.3 The product of the polynomials f (x) and g(x) is defined as
Product
m+n
X
f (x)g(x) = ck xk
k=0
where
k
X
ck = a0 bk + a1 bk1 + + ak1 b1 + ak b0 = aj bkj .
j=0
Exercise 2 Find f (x)g(x) for the two polynomials given.
1. Let f (x) and g(x) be the real polynomials f (x) = 2x4 + 6x3 x + 4 and g(x) = x2 + 3.
2. Let f (z) and g(z) be the complex polynomials f (z) = iz 2 + (3 i)z + 2i and
g(z) = iz + (2 2i).
How do we divide polynomials? Although it makes sense to say that x 3 divides x2 9

since x2 9 = (x 3)(x + 3), what do we do when there is a remainder?
Section 35.3 Operations on Polynomials 251
Proposition 1 (Division Algorithm for Polynomials (DAP))

If f (x) and g(x) are polynomials in F[x] and g(x) is not the zero polynomial, then there
exist unique polynomials q(x) and r(x) in F[x] such that
f (x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x) where r(x) is the zero polynomial or deg r(x) < deg g(x).
Definition 35.3.4 The polynomial q(x) is called the quotient polynomial. The polynomial r(x) is called the
Quotient, remainder polynomial. We say that g(x) divides f (x) or g(x) is a factor of f (x) and
Remainder, Divides we write g(x) | f (x) if and only if there exists a polynomial q(x) such that f (x) = q(x)g(x).
That is, f (x) divides g(x) when f (x) and g(x) are both the zero polynomial or when the
remainder r(x) from the Division Algorithm for Polynomials is the zero polynomial.
We use the same notation as before with the division of integers. This is because of the
strong parallels between division of integers and division of polynomials.
We wont prove the Division Algorithm for Polynomials.
REMARK
This is a place where it is very important that the coefficients are taken from a field.
Consider
x2 = (2x + 1)( 12 x 12 ) + 21 .
Here we are dividing the quadratic rational polynomial x2 by the linear rational polynomial
2x + 1. While these polynomials have integer quotients, we get the quotient 12 x 12 and
remainder 21 which do not have integer coefficients. The statement of the Division Algorithm
for Polynomials would not be true if we tried to say f (x), g(x), q(x) and r(x) all have integer
coefficients. The integers are not a field! Similarly, think about what goes wrong if we try
to work over Z4 which is also not a field.
How do we find the quotient and remainder polynomials?
Example 7 (Long Division of Polynomials over R)

What are the quotient and remainder polynomials when f (x) = 3x4 + x3 4x2 x + 5 is
divided by g(x) = x2 + 1 in R[x]?
Before we begin, we would expect from the Division Algorithm for Polynomials a remainder
polynomial of degree at most one.
3x2 + x 7
x2 + 1 3x4 + x3 4x2 x + 5
3x4 + 3x2
x3 7x2 x
x3 + x
2
7x 2x + 5
7x2 7
2x + 12
Thus, the quotient polynomial is q(x) = 3x2 + x 7 and the remainder polynomial is
r(x) = 2x + 12 and f (x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x).
Example 8 (Long Division of Polynomials over C)

What are the quotient and remainder polynomials when
f (z) = iz 3 + (2 + 4i)z 2 + (3 i)z + (40 4i) is divided by g(z) = iz + (2 2i) in C[x]?
From the Division Algorithm for Polynomials, we would expect a constant remainder or the
zero polynomial.
z2 + 6z + (11 + 9i)
iz + (2 2i) iz 3 + (2 + 4i)z 2 + (3 i)z + (40 4i)
iz 3 + (2 2i)z 2
6iz 2 + (3 i)z
6iz 2 + (12 12i)z
(9 + 11i)z + (40 4i)
(9 + 11i)z + (40 4i)
0
Thus, the quotient polynomial is q(z) = z 2 + 6z + (11 + 9i) and the remainder is the zero
polynomial. Therefore, g(z) divides f (z).
Dont forget that when dividing f (x) by g(x), you can always check your work by multiplying
g(x) by the quotient and adding the remainder. You should get f (x)!
Exercise 3 For each f (x) and g(x), find the quotient and remainder polynomials.
1. f (x) = 2x4 + 6x3 + x + 4 and g(x) = x2 + 3 where f (x), g(x) Z7 [x].
2. Complex polynomials:
f (z) = iz 3 + z 2 (1 + i)z + 10 and g(z) = z + 2i.
Chapter 36
Factoring Polynomials
36.1 Objectives
1. Define polynomial equation, solution and root.
2. State the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.
3. State and prove the Rational Roots Theorem.
4. State and prove the Remainder Theorem and its corollaries.
5. State and prove the Conjugate Roots Theorem.
6. State and prove two propositions about factoring real polynomials.
36.2 Polynomial Equations
Definition 36.2.1 A polynomial equation is an equation of the form

Polynomial Equation
an xn + an1 xn1 + + a1 x + a0 = 0
which will often be written as f (x) = 0. An element c F is called a root or zero of the
polynomial f (x) if f (c) = 0, that is, if c is a solution of the polynomial equation f (x) = 0.
The history of mathematics is replete with exciting and sometimes bizarre stories of math-
ematicians as they looked, in vain, for an algorithm that would find a root of any arbitrary
polynomial. It is known, though, that every complex polynomial has at least one root. This
was proved in 1799 by the brilliant mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss.
Theorem 1 (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (FTA))

For all complex polynomials f (z) with deg(f (z)) 1, there exists a z0 C so that f (z0 ) = 0.
253
254 Chapter 36 Factoring Polynomials
Interestingly, we can prove a root exists, we just cant construct one in general. The proof
of this fact and the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra are both demanding and are left for
later courses.
Instead, we will study some consequences of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and
investigate some special cases. First, in this section we consider an arbitrary field and recall
the Division Algorithm for Polynomials.
Proposition 2 (Division Algorithm for Polynomials (DAP))

If f (x) and g(x) are polynomials in F[x] and g(x) is not the zero polynomial, then there
exist unique polynomials q(x) and r(x) in F[x] such that
f (x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x) where r(x) is the zero polynomial or deg r(x) < deg g(x).
We can use this to prove a very useful theorem.
Proposition 3 (Remainder Theorem (RT))

The remainder when the polynomial f (x) is divided by (x c) is f (c).
Example 1 Find the remainder when f (z) = 3z 12 8iz 5 + (4 + i)z 2 + z + 2 3i is divided by z + i.

Solution: We could do the painful thing and carry out long division. Another possibility
is to use the Remainder Theorem and compute f (i).
f (i) = 3(i)12 8i(i)5 + (4 + i)(i)2 + (i) + 2 3i

= 3 8i(i) + (4 + i)(1) i + 2 3i
= 3 8 4 i i + 2 3i
= 7 5i
The remainder is 7 5i.
Proof: By the Division Algorithm for Polynomials, there exist unique polynomials q(x)
and r(x) such that
f (x) = q(x)(x c) + r(x) where deg r(x) < deg(x c) = 1 or r(x) is the zero polynomial.
Therefore, the remainder r(x) is a constant (which could be zero) which we will write as
r0 . Hence
f (x) = q(x)(x c) + r0
Substituting x = c into this equation gives f (c) = r0 .
Corollary 4 (Factor Theorem (FT))

The linear polynomial (x c) is a factor of the polynomial f (x) if and only if f (c) = 0.
Section 36.2 Polynomial Equations 255
Equivalently,
Corollary 5 (Factor Theorem (FT))

The linear polynomial (x c) is a factor of the polynomial f (x) if and only if c is a root of
the polynomial f (x).
Self Check 1 Prove the Factor Theorem.
Next, we make note of a very handy little lemma.
Lemma 6 Let F be a field and let f (x), g(x) and h(x) be polynomials in F[x].
If h(x) = f (x)g(x), then deg h(x) = deg f (x) + deg g(x).
Exercise 1 Prove Lemma 6. Show that it is false if we extend the definition of polynomial to allow
coefficients to be taken from Z6 .
This lemma, induction, and the Factor Theorem, allow us to prove the following.
Proposition 7 If f (z) is a polynomial of degree n 1 over a field F, then f (z) has at most n roots in F.
Exercise 2 Prove the preceding proposition.
REMARK
We learned that when considering multiplication and division, the prime numbers are the
basic building blocks of the positive integers. What happens with polynomials? Can we
always factor a polynomial? Is there an analogy of prime numbers for polynomials? We
will move towards answering this question as the course winds down.
The Remainder Theorem and Factor Theorem give us a connection between roots and linear
factors. What about factors of higher degree? It turns out that sometimes we can factor
polynomials (into non-linear factors) even if the polynomial does not have any roots. All of
this only makes sense with respect to a specific field.
Definition 36.2.2 Let F be a field. We say a polynomial of positive degree in F[x] is reducible in F[x] when
Reducible, it can be written as the product of two polynomials in F[x] of positive degree. Otherwise,
Irreducible we say that the polynomial is irreducible in F[x].
Lemma 6 tells us that all linear polynomials are irreducible over any field. However, the
next example shows that not all irreducible polynomials are linear.
Example 2 Consider the polynomial f (x) = x2 + 1. It is reducible in C[x] because f (x) = (x i)(x + i).
However, it is irreducible in R[x]. Why? Using Lemma 6, the only possible way to write
f (x) as a product of irreducible polynomials in R[x] is as a product of two real linear factors.
However, we know that x2 + 1 does not have a real root so the Factor Theorem tells us this
is impossible.
Polynomials of degree higher than two can also be irreducible.
Exercise 3 Prove that x3 + x + 1 is irreducible in Q[x].
As another example, consider

x4 5x2 + 6 = (x2 2)(x2 3)
which is reducible in R[x] and also reducible in Q[x]. Its factor x2 2 is reducible in R[x]
but irreducible in Q[x].
A quartic polynomial (degree 4) can be irreducible, written as a product of irreducible
quadratic factors, or written as the product of a linear irreducible polynomial and a cubic
irreducible polynomial over a field F. This follows from Lemma 6 and the idea generalizes
to any polynomial of higher degree.
REMARK
In future courses, you might also encounter polynomial analogies of greatest common divisor
and the Euclidean Algorithm.
36.3 Factoring in Special Cases
The Division Algorithm for Polynomials, Remainder Theorem, Factor Theorem are true for
any field. We also saw that the degree of a polynomial is an upper bound on the number
of roots of the polynomial.
For complex polynomials, we have the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and can use it to
prove a particularly close connection between roots and factorization of complex polynomi-
als.
Proposition 8 (Complex Polynomials of Degree n Have n Roots (CPN))

If f (z) is a complex polynomial of degree n 1, then there exist complex numbers
c1 , c2 , . . . , cn and c 6= 0 such that
f (z) = c(z c1 )(z c2 ) (z cn ).
Moreover, the roots of f (z) are c1 , c2 , . . . , cn .

Section 36.3 Factoring in Special Cases 257
Proof: We proceed by induction on n, the degree of the polynomial.

If n = 1, then f (z) = az + b for complex numbers a and b with a 6= 0. In this case, we can
write f (z) = c(z c1 ) where c = a and c1 = ab . Now, f (w) = 0 for a complex number w
if and only if c(w c1 ) = 0 and thus since c 6= 0, w is a root of f (z) if and only if w = c1 .
That is, c1 is the one and only root of f (z).
Now assume that the result holds for all polynomials of degree k 1 where k 2.
Consider a complex polynomial f (z) of degree k + 1. By the Fundamental Theorem of
Algebra, f (z) has a complex root. Call this root c1 . By the Factor Theorem, we know that
f (z) = (z c1 )q(z) for some complex polynomial q(z). This quotient q(z) must have degree
k 1 by Lemma 6 and therefore by our inductive hypothesis, there exist complex numbers
c2 , c3 , . . . , ck and c 6= 0 such that
q(z) = c(z c2 )(z c3 ) (z ck ).
Moreover, the roots of q(z) are c2 , c3 , . . . , ck . Substitution gives us
f (z) = c(z c1 )(z c2 ) (z ck ).
Since f (z) = (z c1 )q(z), then a complex number w is a root of f (z) if and only if
(w c1 )q(w) = 0 if and only if w = c1 or q(w) = 0. That is, the roots of f (z) are precisely
c1 and c2 , c3 , . . . , ck , the roots of q(z).
Therefore the statement is true when n = k and the result is true by the Principal of
Mathematical Induction.
Of course, the n roots of a complex polynomial of degree n may not be distinct. Put
another way, a number c can be a root of a polynomial more than once in which case the
corresponding linear polynomial (x c) will appear more than once in a full factorization
of the polynomial.
Definition 36.3.1 The multiplicity of a root c of a polynomial f (x) is the largest positive integer k such that
Multiplicity of a (x c)k is a factor of f (x).
Root
Example 3 The complex number 1 i is a root of multiplicity 2 of the complex polynomial
z 3 (2 3i)z 2 (2 + 4i)z + 2 = (z (1 i))2 (z + i).
How do we go about actually factoring polynomials? In general, this is hard to do. If the
polynomial has degree five or more, there are no formulas for the exact values its roots using
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. However, if the polynomial has integer
coefficients, we have a good starting point.
Theorem 9 (Rational Roots Theorem (RRT))

Let f (x) = an xn +an1 xn1 + +a2 x2 +a1 x+a0 be a polynomial with integer coefficients.
If pq is a rational root of f (x) with gcd(p, q) = 1, then p | a0 and q | an .
In order to find a rational root of f (x), we only need to examine a finite set of rational
numbers, those whose numerator divides the constant term and whose denominator divides
the leading coefficient. Note that the theorem only suggests the rational numbers that might
be roots. It does not guarantee that any of these numbers are roots.
Example 4 If possible, find a rational root of f (x) = 2x4 + x3 + 6x + 3.

Solution: We will use the Rational Roots Theorem. The divisors of 2 are 1 and 2. The
divisors of 3 are 1 and 3. Hence, the candidates for rational roots are
1, 21 , 3, 32 .
Now test each of these candidates.

1
x 1 1 2 12 3 3 3
2 23
25 51 3
f (x) 12 2 4 0 210 120 2 4
1
Thus, the only rational root is 2 .
p
Proof: If q is a root of f (x) then
n n1 2
p p p p
an q + an1 q + + a2 q + a1 q + a0 = 0.
Multiplying by q n gives
an pn + an1 pn1 q + + a2 p2 q n2 + a1 pq n1 + a0 q n = 0
and
an pn = q an1 pn1 + + a2 p2 q n3 + a1 pq n2 + a0 q n1 .

Since all of the symbols in this equation are integers, both the right hand side and left hand
side are integers. Since q divides the the right hand side, q divides the left hand side, that
is
q | an pn .
Since gcd(p, q) = 1 we can repeatedly use the proposition on Coprimeness and Divisibility
to show that q | an . In a similar way, we can show that p | a0 .
Section 36.3 Factoring in Special Cases 259
REMARK
The phrase we can repeatedly use is a sign that the author is cheating a bit here. It
would be better to use a generalized form of Coprimeness and Divisibility and prove this
generalization by induction.
Exercise 4 Is x + 1 a factor of x10 + 1, or of x9 + 1? When does x + 1 divide (or not divide) x2n + 1
for n a positive integer? When does x + 1 divide (or not divide) x2n+1 + 1 for n a positive
integer?

Exercise 5 Prove that if p is a prime, then n p is irrational for any integer n > 1.
The next, very useful theorem is like a two for one special. If you find one non-real
complex root of a real polynomial, you get another one for free.
Theorem 10 (Conjugate Roots Theorem (CJRT))

Let f (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + + a0 be a polynomial with real coefficients.
If c C is a root of f (x), then c C is a root of f (x).
Example 5 Let f (x) = x4 x3 5x2 x 6. Given that i is a root of f (x), factor f (x).
Solution: Since f (x) is a polynomial with real coefficients, we can use the Conjugate Roots
Theorem. Thus, i and i are both roots and, by the Factor Theorem, (x i) and (x + i)
are factors of f (x). The product of these two factors is x2 + 1. Dividing f (x) by x2 + 1
yields a quotient of x2 x 6 which factors as (x 3)(x + 2). Thus
f (x) = (x i)(x + i)(x 3)(x + 2)
Proof: Since c is a root of f (x)

an cn + an1 cn1 + + a1 c + a0 = 0.
Taking the complex conjugate of both sides gives
an cn + an1 cn1 + + a1 c + a0 = 0
and using Properties of Conjugates
an cn + an1 cn1 + + a1 c + a0 = 0.
Since a = a whenever a is real, we now have
an cn + an1 cn1 + + a1 c + a0 = 0.
That is,
f (c) = 0
and so c is a root of f (x).
Exercise 6 Given that x + (2 + i) is a factor of f (x) = x4 + 4x3 + 2x2 12x 15, write f (x) as a product
of irreducible real polynomials and also as a product of irreducible complex polynomials.
The Conjugate Roots Theorem has a very useful corollary.
Corollary 11 (Real Quadratic Factors (RQF))

Let f (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + + a0 be a polynomial with real coefficients. If c C is a
root of f (x) and Im(c) 6= 0, then there exists a real quadratic polynomial g(x) and a real
polynomial q(x) such that f (x) = g(x)q(x).
Proof: Let c C be a root of f (x) where Im(c) 6= 0. Then by the Factor Theorem,
f (x) = (x c)q1 (x) for some q1 (x) C[x].
Now, by the Conjugate Roots Theorem, c is also a root of f (x). Hence
f (c) = (c c)q1 (c) = 0.
Since Im(c) 6= 0, then c 6= c, or c c 6= 0 which in turn means q1 (c) = 0. That is, c is a root
of q1 (x) and so by using the Factor Theorem again, we get that
q1 (x) = (x c)q2 (x) where q2 (x) C[x].
We substitute to get
f (x) = (x c)(x c)q2 (x) = g(x)q2 (x)
where g(x) = (x c)(x c). By Properties of Conjugates and Properties of Modulus,
g(x) = x2 (c + c)x + cc = x2 2Re(c)x + |c|2 .
Since 2Re(c) R and |c|2 R, g(x) is a real quadratic polynomial. All that remains is to
show that q2 (x) is in R[x]. From above, in C[x], we have that
f (x) = g(x)q2 (x) + r2 (x)
where r2 (x) is the zero polynomial. Using the Division Algorithm for Polynomials (DAP)
in R[x], we get
f (x) = g(x)q(x) + r(x)
where q(x) is in R[x] and the remainder r(x) is the zero polynomial or deg r(x) < deg g(x).
Now, every real polynomial is a complex polynomial, so we can also view this as a statement
in C[x]. As for any field, DAP over C tells us that the quotient and remainder are unique.
Therefore r(x) = r2 (x) is the zero polynomial and q(x) = q2 (x) has real coefficients.
REMARK
Notice how we used complex polynomials to prove a result about real polynomials. This is
one of many ways in which moving up to C from R gives us a more complete picture and
deeper understanding of the real world.
This corollary is useful in characterizing the factorization of all real polynomials.

Theorem 12 (Real Factors of Real Polynomials (RFRP))

Let f (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + + a0 be a real polynomial where n 1. Then f (x) can
be written as a product of real linear and real quadratic factors.
We leave proving this using induction and Real Quadratic Factors as an exercise. The main
idea is that complex polynomials of degree n have n roots, perhaps with repetitions. Those
roots which are real correspond to real linear factors. Those roots which are not real come
in conjugate pairs, and correspond to real quadratic factors (as a pair).
36.4 Examples
Example 6 For each of the following, you are given several roots of a polynomial f (x). Find a polynomial
in the given F[x] of lowest possible degree that has the given roots.

1. R[x]: 3 + 2i, 5.
Solution: Since we are looking for a polynomial in R[x], we can use the Conjugate
Roots
Theorem for complex roots. Hence, 3+ 2i
6 R will be paired with its conjugate
3 2i. The product of the corresponding factors will produce a real quadratic. Hence
one choice for the polynomial is,

f (x) = (x (3 + 2i))(x (3 2i))(x 5)
= (x2 6x + 11)(x 5)
= x3 11x2 + 41x 55.

2. C[x]: 3 + 2i, 5.

Solution: Since both 3 + 2i and 5 are complex numbers, the corresponding linear
factors are in C[x] so

f (x) = (x (3 + 2i))(x 5) = x2 (8 + 2i)x + (15 + 5 2i).

3. R[x]: 1 5, 2i, 0.
Solution: Since we are looking for a polynomial in R[x], we can use the Conjugate
Roots Theorem for complex roots. The only root not in R is 2i so we need to pair this
root with its conjugate 2i. The product of the corresponding factors will produce a
real quadratic. Hence one choice for the polynomial is,

f (x) = (x (1 5))(x 2i)(x + 2i)(x 0)

= (x (1 5))(x2 + 4)x

= (x (1 5))(x3 + 4x)

= x4 + (1 + 5)x3 + 4x2 + 4(1 + 5)x.
4. Z7 [x]: [2], [1].

Solution: Both [2], [1] correspond to linear factors so
f (x) = (x [2])(x [1]) = x2 [3]x + [2] = x2 + [4]x + [2].
Example 7 Write each of the following polynomials f (x), as a product of irreducible polynomials in
F[x]. Cite appropriate propositions to justify the reasoning.
1. f (x) = x2 x 6 in Q[x].
Solution: The quadratic formula gives the roots 3 and 2. These are values in Q so
f (x) has linear factors x 3 and x + 2 by the Factor Theorem. Hence,
f (x) = (x 3)(x + 2)
is a product of irreducible polynomials in Q[x].
2. f (x) = x2 x + 6 in Q[x].
Solution: The quadratic formula gives only complex roots in this instance. Since
complex numbers do not belong to Q there are no linear factors in Q[x]. Therefore
by Lemma 6, f (x) = x2 x + 6 is irreducible Q[x]. (Can you see why?)
3. f (x) = 2x2 6ix 4 in C[x].

Solution: Applying the quadratic formula gives two roots, i and 2i, hence
f (x) = c(x2 3ix 2) = c(x i)(x 2i)
for some complex number c is a product of irreducible polynomials in C[x]. It is easy

to see that the leading cofficient is c = 2.
4. f (x) = 2x3 3x2 + 2x + 2 in R[x].

Solution: Since all of the coefficients are integers, we can use the Rational Roots
Theorem. The divisors of a0 are {1, 2} and the divisors of an are {1, 2} so the
only candidates for rational roots are
1, 2, 21 .

1
x 1 1 2 2 2 21
5
f (x) 3 5 10 30 2 0
Long division produces

f (x) = (2x + 1)(x2 2x + 2).
The quadratic formula gives two complex roots for x2 2x + 2 so it does not have any
linear factors. Therefore, by Lemma 6 this is a product of of irreducible polynomials
in R[x].
5. f (z) = z 4 + 27z in C[z]

Solution: Since f (z) is a complex polynomial of degree four, it will have four linear
factors. Now f (z) = z(z 3 + 27). Factoring z 3 + 27 can be done with the aid of the
Complex n-th Roots Theorem applied to z 3 = 27. First, we write 27 in polar form
as
27 = 27(cos + i sin ).
Using the Complex n-th Roots Theorem, the solutions are

3
27 cos +2k +2k 2k 2k

3 + i sin 3 = 3 cos 3 + 3 + i sin 3 + 3
for k = 0, 1, 2. The three distinct roots are given below

3 3 3
When k = 0, z0 = 3 cos 3 + i sin 3 = 3 21 + 3

2 i = 2 + 2 i.
When k = 1, z1 = 3 (cos + i sin ) = 3.

3 3 3
When k = 2, z2 = 3 cos 5 5 1 3

3 + i sin 3 = 3 2 + 2 i = 2 2 i.
Thus, we have the following product of irreducible polynomials in C[z]:

f (z) = z(z + 3) z 32 + 3 2 3 i z 32 3 2 3 i .
Example 8 Factor f (x) = 3x4 5x3 + x2 5x 2 over R[x] and C[x] into a product of irreducible
polynomials.
Solution: Since all of the coefficients are integers, we can use the Rational Roots Theorem.
The divisors of a0 are {1, 2} and the divisors of an are {1, 3} so the only candidates
for rational roots are
1, 2, 13 , 23 .
1
x 1 1 2 2 3 13 2
3 23
f (x) 8 12 0 100 100
27 0 52
9
104
27
Since 2 and 13 are roots, x 2 and x + 13 (or 3x + 1) are factors. We can perform long
division with f (x) and the divisor (x 2)(3x + 1) = 3x2 5x 2 to get
f (x) = (x 2)(3x + 1)(x2 + 1).
As we saw previously, x2 + 1 is irreducible in R[x], so we get
f (x) = (x 2)(3x + 1)(x2 + 1) R[x]
and
f (x) = (x 2)(3x + 1)(x i)(x + i) C[x].
Example 9 Let f (z) = z 6 + 4z 4 + z 2 + 4. Given that f (2i) = 0, factor f (z) into a product of irreducible
polynomials over C[z].
Solution: Over C, a polynomial of degree six will have six linear factors. Since all of the
coefficients of f (z) are real, the Conjugate Roots Theorem applies. Since 2i is a root, 2i
is also a root. Thus
(z 2i)(z + 2i) = z 2 + 4
is a factor of f (z). Long division produces
f (z) = z 6 + 4z 4 + z 2 + 4 = (z 2 + 4)(z 4 + 1)
We now factor z 4 + 1 using the Complex n-th Roots Theorem applied to z 4 = 1. First,
we write 1 in polar form as
1 = 1(cos + i sin ).
So the four distinct roots are

4 + 2k + 2k
1 cos + i sin =
4 4

k k
cos + + i sin + for k = 0, 1, 2, 3.
4 2 4 2
We name the roots z1 , z2 , z3 and z4 .

When k = 0, z0 = cos 4 + i sin 4 = 12 + i2 .

When k = 1, z1 = cos 3 3 1 i

4 + i sin 4 = 2 + 2 .
When k = 2, z2 = cos 5 5 1 i

4 + i sin 4 = 2 + 2 .
When k = 3, z3 = cos 7 7 1 i

4 + i sin 4 = 2 + 2 .
Thus we get the following product of irreducible polynomials in C[z],
f (z) = (z 2i)(z + 2i)(z z0 )(z z1 )(z z2 )(z z3 )
where the zi are defined above.
Example 10 Let f (x) = [1]x2 + [1] Z3 [x]. Factor f (x) into a product of irreducible polynomials.
After substituting all three elements of Z3 , we see that f (x) does not have any roots.
Therefore it does not have any linear factors and by Lemma 6, there is no work to do.
Notice that the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra does not apply to polynomials over Zp .
Example 11 Let f (x) = [1]x4 + [2]x2 + [1] Z3 [x]. Factor f (x) into a product of irreducible polynomials.
As in the previous example, we can deduce that f (x) does not have any roots. This tells us
that f (x) does not have any linear factors. So by Lemma 6 we only need to check if f (x)
can be written as a product of quadratic polynomials. In fact, f (x) = ([1]x2 + [1])2 . Can
you see how we might have found this factorization in this case? In general, mathematicians
do not have efficient methods for factoring in Zp .
Part VII
Bijections, Counting and

Cardinality
265
Chapter 37
Compositions and Bijections
37.1 Objectives
1. Read proofs about the composition of surjections and composition of injections.
2. Define bijection.
3. Read and discover proofs that specified functions are bijections.
37.2 Functions, Surjections and Injections
Earlier, we learned about nested quantifiers and used them to define the concept of functions,
surjections and injections. Here is a quick summary of the definitions.
Definition 37.2.1 Let S and T be two sets.

Function, Surjective,
Injective A function f from S to T , denoted by f : S T , is a rule that assigns to each element
s S a unique element f (s) T . The set S is called the domain of the function and the
set T is called the codomain. The element f (s) is called the value of the function f at s.
A function f : S T is surjective (or onto) if and only if for every y T there exists an
x S so that f (x) = y.
A function f : S T is injective (or one-to-one) if and only if for every x1 S and
every x2 S, f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies that x1 = x2 .
Symbolically, we can write out these definitions a follows.
REMARK
A rule f : S T is a function if and only if
s S !t T, f (s) = t
where the exclamation mark after the existential quantifier means unique.
266
Section 37.3 Composition of Functions 267
A function f : S T is surjective if and only if
t T s S, f (s) = t
A function f : S T is injective if and only if
x1 S x2 S, f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) = x1 = x2
Equivalently, a function f : S T is injective if and only if
x1 S x2 S, x1 6= x2 = f (x1 ) 6= f (x2 )
In prose, we can say the following.
REMARK
Suppose f is a rule that defines a mapping from set S to set T .
f is a function if it assigns to each element s S exactly one element f (s) T .
f is surjective if, for each element t T , there is at least one element s S so that
f (s) = t.
f is injective if, for each element t T , there is at most one element s S so that
f (s) = t.
37.3 Composition of Functions
We may combine two functions to create a third function using the concept of composition
of functions defined below:
Definition 37.3.1 Suppose S, T and V are three sets, and f : T V and g : S T are two functions. Then
Composition of we may define the composite function f g : S V , given by
Functions
f g(x) = f (g(x)) for all x S.
Note that for the composition f g to be defined, the codomain of g must be equal of
the domain of f . As a consequence, the composition g f may not be defined unless the
codomain of f is equal to the domain of g. Therefore f g and g f are quite different.
37.3.1 Composing Onto Functions
Mathematics makes great use of the composition of functions. The next proposition states
that the composition of onto functions is also onto.
268 Chapter 37 Compositions and Bijections
Proposition 1 Let f : T V and g : S T be onto functions. Then f g is an onto function.
Carefully read and analyze the following proof.
Proof: Let y in V . Since f : T V is onto, there exists a t0 T so that f (t0 ) = y. Since

t0 T and g : S T is onto, there exists an s0 S so that g(s0 ) = t0 . Hence, there exists
s0 S so that f (g(s0 )) = f (t0 ) = y.
37.3.2 Composing One-to-One Functions
The next proposition asserts that the composition of one-to-one functions is also one-to-one.
Try discovering a proof before analyzing the one given below.
Proposition 2 Let f : T U and g : S T be one-to-one functions. Then f g is a one-to-one function.
Proof: Let x1 , x2 S. Suppose that (f g)(x1 ) = (f g)(x2 ). Since (f g)(x1 ) = (f g)(x2 ),

we know that f (g(x1 )) = f (g(x2 )). Since f is one-to-one, we know that g(x1 ) = g(x2 ) and
since g is one-to-one, x1 = x2 as required.
37.4 Bijections
An extraordinarily useful class of functions is described next.
Definition 37.4.1 A function f : S T is bijective if and only if f is both surjective and injective.
Bijective
REMARK
Put another way, saying a function f : S T is bijective means that for each element
t T , there is exactly one element s S such that f (s) = t.
Example 1 For each of the following functions, determine if the function is a surjection, injection, or
bijection.
1. f : R R defined by f (x) = ex .
Solution: This function is not surjective. Consider the real number 1. Since
f (x) > 0 for all x R, there is no real number x0 so that f (x0 ) = 1. To show
that this function is injective, let x1 , x2 R and suppose that ex1 = ex2 . Taking the
natural log of both sides gives ln(ex1 ) = ln(ex2 ) which implies that x1 = x2 . Since f
is not surjective, it is not bijective.
Section 37.4 Bijections 269
2. f : R (0, +) defined by f (x) = ex .

Solution: To show that this function is surjective, let y (0, +). Consider
x0 = ln y. Now x0 R and f (x0 ) = ex0 = eln y = y. To show that this function is
injective, let x1 , x2 R and suppose that ex1 = ex2 . Taking the natural log of both
sides gives ln(ex1 ) = ln(ex2 ) which implies that x1 = x2 . Since f is both surjective
and injective, f is bijective.
3. Let p 6= 3 be a prime and let f : Zp Zp be defined by f (x) = [3]x.

Solution: Since p is a prime, [3] has an inverse by the corollary Existence of Inverses
in Zp . To show that this function is surjective, let y Zp . Consider x0 = [3]1 y.
Now x0 Zp and f (x0 ) = [3]([3]1 y) = ([3][3]1 )y = y. To show that this function
is injective, let x1 , x2 Zp and suppose that [3]x1 = [3]x2 . Multiplying both sides
by [3]1 gives [3]1 ([3]x1 ) = [3]1 ([3]x2 ) which implies that x1 = x2 . Since f is both
surjective and injective, f is bijective.
4. f : Z Z7 defined by f (x) = [x].

Solution: Recall that Z7 = {[0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]}. Since f (j) = [j] for
j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, f is surjective. This function is not injective since 0 and 7 both
map to [0]. Since f is not injective, it is not bijective.
5. f : N N where d(n) is the number of natural number divisors of n.

Solution: To show that this function is surjective, let y N. Since the natural
number 2y1 has the y divisors 20 , 21 , 22 , . . . , 2y1 , f (2y1 ) = y so f is surjective.
This function is not injective since d(2) = d(3) = 2. Since f is not injective, it is not
bijective.
Self Check 1 Prove the following proposition.
Proposition 3 Let f : T U and g : S T be bijections. Prove that f g is a bijection.
37.4.1 Inverses
There are many instances in mathematics when undoing an operation is very useful. Sub-
traction undoes addition. Division undoes multiplication. Taking a square root undoes the
operation of squaring. Here is a way to generalize all such undoings.
Definition 37.4.2 If f : S T and g : T S are functions that satisfy

Inverse
for every s S, g(f (s)) = s, and
for every t T , f (g(t)) = t
then g is called the inverse of f and we write g = f 1 .

270 Chapter 37 Compositions and Bijections
A common mistake is to assume that the inverse is the reciprocal. The inverse of the

function f (x) = x2 is f 1 = x, not 1/x2 .
Example 2 The inverse of the function f : R R defined by f (x) = mx + b is the function

g(x) = (x b)/m. Lets verify that the two defining properties of an inverse hold.
For every s R,
(ms + b) b
g(f (s)) = =s
m
as required, and for every t R,
tb
f (g(t)) = m +b=t
m
as required.
It is not surprising that the function f in our example is bijective. The following theorem,
which we will not prove, establishes the fact that inverses only exist for bijective functions.
Theorem 4 (Inverse Theorem)

A function has an inverse if and only if the function is bijective.
Bijections are commonly used in calculus to identify invertible functions. Bijections are
used in linear algebra and group theory to show that two algebraic structures, which may
look very different, are essentially the same. We will use bijections to count.
Chapter 38
Counting
38.1 Objectives
1. Define what it means for two sets to have the same cardinality.
2. State and prove the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets.
3. State and prove the Cardinality of Intersecting Sets.
4. State and prove the Cardinality of Subsets of Finite Sets.
38.2 African Shepherds
Many, many years ago, Dr. Furino lived high up in the mountains of southern Africa. Herd
boys would be sent with their flocks of sheep and goats to the high pastures to allow the
animals to graze. The herd boys were uneducated, and very few knew how to count. So,
how did they know if they had the right number of animals at any given time? An animal
might get lost at night, be out of sight among the ridges during the day, or be taken by
jackals.
Before the herd boys were sent out from their family compounds they would be given a
very small bag that contained pebbles, one pebble for each animal. So, to count the
animals, they would simply match up a pebble against each animal they could see. If there
were more pebbles than animals, an animal was missing. If there were more animals than
pebbles, another animal had joined their flock, presumably from a nearby herd. If there
was exactly one pebble for each animal, the herd boy had the correct number of animals.
The herd boys counted by forming a bijection between the set of pebbles in their bag
and the set of animals in their flock. When we count by saying 1, 2, 3, . . . we are creating
a bijection between a subset of the integers and the set of objects we are counting. Now,
how do we formalize this idea?
271
272 Chapter 38 Counting
38.3 What Does It Mean to Count?
Recall that we used the notation |S| to mean the cardinality, or number of elements, in the
set S. Now it is time to be clear about what that really means.
Definition 38.3.1 If there exists a bijection between the sets S and T , we say that the sets have the same
Cardinality cardinality and we write |S| = |T |.
Let Nn denote the set of all natural numbers less than or equal to n.
N0 =
N1 = {1}
N2 = {1, 2}
N3 = {1, 2, 3}
Nn = {1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
Definition 38.3.2 If there exists a bijection between a set S and Nn , we say that the number of elements
Number of in S is n, and we write |S| = n. Moreover, we also say that S is a finite set. If no bijection
Elements, Finite, exists between a set S and Nn for any n, we say that S is an infinite set.
Infinite
This formal definition corresponds exactly to what herd boys do with pebbles, what children
do when counting on fingers, and what we do when counting with the words one, two,
three. This definition extends the bijection notion to infinite sets as well, but that extension
brings some weirdness which we will see next lecture.
38.4 Showing That a Bijection Exists
To show that |S| = |T | using a bijection is equivalent to proving a proposition of the

following form.
Proposition 1 Let S = . . . Let T = . . . Then there exists a bijection f : S T . Hence, |S| = |T |.
The presence of an existential quantifier in the conclusion suggests we use the construct
method. Lets begin by identifying the parts of the quantified sentence.
Quantifier:
Variable: f
Domain: all functions from S to T
Open sentence: f : S T is a bijection.
Section 38.5 Showing That a Bijection Exists 273
To show that the open sentence is true, we must show that f is a bijection, that is, we must
show that f is surjective and injective. So any proof that |S| = |T | which uses bijections
will have the following structure.
Proof in Progress
1. Consider the rule f : S T defined by f (s) = to be completed.

2. We show that f is a function. This shows f is in the domain of the quantified statement
we just examined.
3. We show that f is surjective. To be completed.
4. We show that f is injective. To be completed.
5. Hence, f : S T is a bijection and |S| = |T |.
In practice, the first two steps are usually combined and authors typically write Consider
the function f mapping from S to T defined by .... The task of verifying that the rule is
really a function is left to the reader. A more formal proof would require that the details be
presented, but this is where understanding your audience is important. In many instances,
verifying that a rule is a function is straightforward and including such a verification would
actually distract from the proof. With the preceding remark in mind, and already knowing
how to handle Steps 3 and 4, we can produce a more typical proof structure.
Proof in Progress
1. Consider the function f : S T defined by f (s) = to be completed.

2. We show that f is surjective. Let t T . Consider s = to be completed. We show that
s S to be completed. Now we show that f (s) = t to be completed.
3. We show that f is injective. Let s1 , s2 S and suppose that f (s1 ) = f (s2 ). Now we
show that s1 = s2 to be completed.
4. Hence, f : S T is a bijection and |S| = |T |.
The structure contains two parts which are, in themselves, proofs: a proof that f is surjec-
tive, and a proof that f is injective.
We should emphasize that bijections are not the only way to show that two sets have the
same cardinality. We can use bijections to establish propositions which are simpler to work
with, and then use the propositions.
REMARK
Even though it is often obvious that a rule is a function, we want to emphasize that many
common rules are not functions. For example, the (x, y) pairs that satisfy x2 + y 2 = 1 do
not constitute a function using the rule f (x) = y since (0, 1) and (0, 1) are among the
pairs. That is, x = 0 does not map to a unique value of y. The parabola x = y 2 is not a
function. Though y = sin x is a function, its reflection in the line y = x, x = sin y, is not a
function which is why the domain must be restricted when you are looking for an inverse
sine relation.
Many real life rules are not functions. Think of a university timetable which implicitly
embeds a rule that maps rooms to students. Since one room contains many students, the
rule that maps rooms to students is not a function.
38.5 Finite Sets
We begin by proving two fundamental theorems about counting and sets for which you
probably already have an intuitive understanding but may never have proved.
Definition 38.5.1 Sets S and T are disjoint if S T = .

Disjoint
Proposition 2 (Cardinality of Disjoint Sets (CDS))

If S and T are disjoint finite sets, then
|S T | = |S| + |T |.
A simple example can be taken from any room in any building. If S is a set of m chairs in
the room, and T is a set of n tables in the room, then the number of tables and chairs is
m + n.
Before we read a proof of the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets, it is important to keep two things
in mind. First, we are proving a statement about set cardinality, not a statement about
set equality. Second, to establish basic properties of set cardinality we must work with
bijections.
The intuitive idea underlying the proof is very simple. Count the first m elements in S, and
then continue counting the next n elements in T . As you will see, a formal proof is more
complicated. Note how closely the proof follows the structure described in the previous
section.
1. Since S is a finite set, there exists a bijection f : S Nm for some non-negative

integer m, and |S| = m.
2. Since T is a finite set, there exists a bijection g : T Nn for some non-negative

integer n, and |T | = n.
3. Construct a function h : S T Nm+n as follows.

f (x) if x S
h(x) =
g(x) + m if x T.
4. To show that h is surjective, let y Nm+n . If y m, then because f is surjective,

there exists an element x S so that f (x) = y, hence h(x) = y. If m + 1 y m + n,
then because g is surjective, there exists an element x T so that g(x) = y m and
so h(x) = (y m) + m = y.
5. To show that h is injective, let x1 , x2 S T and suppose that h(x1 ) = h(x2 ). If

h(x) m then h(x) = f (x) so if h(x1 ) m we have
h(x1 ) = h(x2 ) = f (x1 ) = f (x2 )

Section 38.5 Finite Sets 275
But since f is a bijection f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies x1 = x2 as needed.

If h(x) > m then h(x) = g(x) + m so if h(x1 ) > m we have
h(x1 ) = h(x2 ) = g(x1 ) + m = g(x2 ) + m = g(x1 ) = g(x2 ).
But since g is a bijection g(x1 ) = g(x2 ) implies x1 = x2 as needed.

Since h is a function which is both injective and surjective, h is bijective.
6. Thus
|S T | = |Nm+n | = m + n = |Nm | + |Nn | = |S| + |T |
Lets spend some time analyzing the proof.
Analysis of Proof As usual, we begin with the hypothesis and the conclusion.
Hypothesis: S and T are disjoint finite sets.

Conclusion: |S T | = |S| + |T |.
Sentence 1 Since S is a finite set, there exists a bijection f : S Nm for some non-
negative integer m, and |S| = m.
This makes use of the hypothesis and the definition of Nm . The second sentence is
similar.
Sentence 2 Since T is a finite set, there exists a bijection g : T Nn for some non-
negative integer n, and |T | = n.
Sentence 3 Before looking at Sentence 3, we are going to skip ahead to the last sentence.
Fortunately, when reading a proof we are free to do that. This last sentence drives
what we need to do. Sentence 3 constructs a function h : S T Nm+n . How are
we going to use h?
|S T | = |Nm+n | because of the bijection h

=m+n from the cardinality of the finite set Nm+n
= |Nm | + |Nn | from the cardinality of the finite sets Nm and Nn
= |S| + |T | because of the bijections f and g
The first equality sign relies on the bijection h. All of the remaining equality signs
can be justified from the definition of N` or Sentences 1 and 2. The difficult part is
constructing h and then establishing that h is a bijection. Sentence 3 constructs a
function h : S T Nm+n as follows.

f (x) if x S
h(x) =
g(x) + m if x T.
Notice that h is defined in terms of f and g. Note also that elements in the set S will
be mapped to the integers 1, 2, . . . , m and the elements in the set T will be mapped
to the integers m + 1, m + 2, . . . , m + n.
Having defined a function h, the author must still establish
h is surjective
h is injective
This occurs in the next two paragraphs, each of which is a proof in its own right.
Paragraph 4 To show that h is surjective, . . .

In this paragraph the author establishes that h is surjective by using the definition of
surjective. The checking of each sentence is left to the reader.
Paragraph 5 To show that h is injective, . . .

In this paragraph the author establishes that h is injective by using the definition of
injective. The checking of each sentence is left to the reader.
Who would have thought that counting was so complicated!
Self Check 1 The rule h : S T Nm+n defined below appears in the proof of the Cardinality of Disjoint
Sets.
f (x) if x S
h(x) =
g(x) + m if x T
Prove that the rule is a function.
Proposition 3 (Cardinality of Intersecting Sets (CIS))

If S and T are any finite sets, then
|S T | = |S| + |T | |S T |.
After having just endured an arduous proof, you might be disinclined to go looking for a
complicated mapping and then proving that it is a bijection. Thats sensible. What we can
do in this case is to use the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets by writing S T and T as the union
of disjoint sets.
Proof in Progress
1. S T = S (T S) where S and T S are disjoint sets.

(Prove this for practice.)
2. T = (S T ) (T S) where S T and T S are disjoint sets.

(Prove this for practice.)
3. To be completed.
But now that we have the unions of finite disjoint sets we can invoke the Cardinality of
Disjoint Sets.
Proof in Progress
1. S T = S (T S) where S and T S are disjoint sets.

Section 38.5 Finite Sets 277
2. Hence, by the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets, |S T | = |S| + |T S|.

3. T = (S T ) (T S) where S T and T S are disjoint sets.
4. Hence, by the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets, |T | = |S T | + |T S|
5. To be completed.
Subtracting the two cardinality equations and rearranging will give us what we need. Take
a minute to read a complete proof.
Proof: Since S and T S are disjoint sets, and
S T = S (T S),
the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets implies
|S T | = |S| + |T S|.
Since S T and T S are disjoint sets, and
T = (S T ) (T S)
the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets implies
|T | = |S T | + |T S|.
Subtracting the two cardinality equations gives
|S T | |T | = |S| |S T |
hence
|S T | = |S| + |T | |S T |
as required.
Proposition 4 (Cardinality of Subsets of Finite Sets (CSFS))

If S and T are finite sets, and S ( T , then |S| < |T |.
The proof uses the same partitioning idea that was used in the proof of the Cardinality of
Intersecting Sets.
Proof: The sets S and T S are disjoint sets where
S (T S) = T.
By the Cardinality of Disjoint Sets and the fact above
|S| + |T S| = |S (T S)| = |T |.
Since S ( T , T S is a non-empty finite subset so |T S| > 0. Hence
|S| + |T S| = |T | |S| < |T |.

Example 1 Prove the following proposition.
Let S, T, U be sets. If |S| = |T | and |T | = |U |, then |S| = |U |.
Proof: Since |S| = |T |, there exists a bijection f : S T . Since |T | = |U |, there exists a

bijection g : T U . By Proposition 3 in the previous chapter, g f : S U is a bijection
from S to U so |S| = |U |.
Example 2 Suppose S is a non-empty finite set with k elements and a 6 S. Find a bijection f from
S {a} to Nk+1 . You do not need to prove that f is a bijection, simply state it. Use this
bijection to prove that |S {a}| = |S| + 1.
Proof: Since S is a non-empty finite subset, there exists a bijection g between S and Nk
for some integer k. Define f as follows.

g(x) if x S
f (x) =
k + 1 if x = a.
Now
|S {a}| = |Nk+1 | = k + 1 = |S| + 1
as needed.
Example 3 Let S be a non-empty finite set disjoint from N. Find a bijection f : N S N.

Solution: Since S is a non-empty finite set, |S| = n for some natural number n and there
exists a bijection g : S Nn . Define f as follows:

g(x) if x S
f (x) =
n + x if x N
Chapter 39
Cardinality of Infinite Sets
39.1 Objectives
1. Discover a proof that |N| = |2N|.
2. State and prove that |N N| = |N|.
3. State and prove that |N| =

6 |(0, 1)|.
39.2 Infinite Sets Are Weird
With respect to counting, finite sets behave pretty much as we expect. For example, if S is
a proper subset of T , then |S| < |T |.
This is not the case for infinite sets. Consider the following proposition.
Proposition 1 Let 2N be the set of even natural numbers. Then |N| = |2N|.
Lets be clear about what this proposition is saying. Even though the set of positive even
numbers is a proper subset of the set of natural numbers, and even though there are infinitely
many odd numbers excluded from the set of even numbers, the cardinality of the sets of
even numbers and all natural numbers is the same!
How would we prove this? Two sets have the same cardinality if and only if there exists a
bijection between the two sets. So we can use the same proof structure that was used in
the previous chapter to build a bijection between two sets.
Proof in Progress
1. Consider the function f : N 2N defined by f (s) = to be completed.
2. We show that f is surjective. Let t 2N. Consider s = to be completed. We show

that s N to be completed. Now we show that f (s) = t to be completed.
3. We show that f is injective. Let s1 , s2 N and suppose that f (s1 ) = f (s2 ). Now we
show that s1 = s2 to be completed.
279
280 Chapter 39 Cardinality of Infinite Sets
4. Hence, f : N 2N is a bijection and |N| = |2N|.
How do we construct a bijection? There is an obvious mapping from N to 2N:
f (s) = 2s
N 1 2 3 4 ...

2N 2 4 6 8 . . .
Lets update the proof in progress.

Proof in Progress
1. Consider the function f : N 2N defined by f (s) = 2s.
2. We show that f is surjective. Let t 2N. Consider s = . . . (to be completed ).

We show that s N (to be completed ).
Now we show that f (s) = t (to be completed ).
3. We show that f is injective. Let s1 , s2 N and suppose that f (s1 ) = f (s2 ). Now we
show that s1 = s2 (to be completed ).
4. Hence, f : N 2N is a bijection and |N| = |2N|.
Exercise 1 Complete the proof that |N| = |2N|.
39.3 Infinite Sets Are Even Weirder Than You Thought
There are infinitely many rational numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2 so it is
a real shock to most people that the cardinality of the positive rational numbers and the
natural numbers is the same. For technical reasons, we wont prove that but we will prove
something very close. Consider the sets
N N = {(a, b) | a, b N}
and n a o
Q>0 = a, b N, gcd(a, b) = 1 .

b
The obvious mapping f : Q>0 N N defined by
a
f = (a, b)
b
is injective but not surjective since, for example, (2, 2) N N but 22 6 Q>0 . Since N N
is at least as large as Q>0 , it is even more surprising that N N and N have the same
cardinality.
Section 39.4 Infinite Sets Are Even Weirder Than You Thought 281
Proposition 2
|N N| = |N|
To prove this we will make use of the following proposition, whose proof will be left as an
exercise.
Proposition 3 ( Even-Odd Factorization of Natural Numbers (EOFNN) )

Any natural number n can be written uniquely as n = 2i q where i is a non-negative integer
and q is an odd natural number.
Proof: The proof is left as an exercise.
Example 1 Here are some examples of the Even-Odd Factorization of Natural Numbers.
60 = 22 15
64 = 26 1
65 = 20 65
Here is a proof that |N N| = |N|. Notice how closely it follows the proof structure that we
have been using.
1. Consider the function f : N N N defined by f (a, b) = 2a1 (2b 1). Observe that
mathematicians usually write f (a, b) instead of f ((a, b)).
2. We show that f is surjective. Let t N. By the Even-Odd Factorization of Natural
Numbers, t = 2i q where i is a non-negative integer and q is an odd natural number.
Since q is odd, there exists a natural number b such that q = 2b 1. If t is odd then
t = 20 (2b 1) and f (1, b) = t. If t is even then there exists a natural number a so
that t = 2a1 (2b 1) and f (a, b) = t.
3. We show that f is injective. Let (a, b), (c, d) NN and suppose that f (a, b) = f (c, d).
But then
f (a, b) = f (c, d) 2a1 (2b 1) = 2c1 (2d 1)
(2a1 = 2c1 ) and (2b 1 = 2d 1)
(a = c) and (b = d)
(a, b) = (c, d)
as required.
4. Hence, f : N N N is a bijection and |N N| = |N|.
You might well ask, do all infinite sets have the same size? The surprising answer is no.
282 Chapter 39 Cardinality of Infinite Sets
39.4 Not All Infinite Sets Have the Same Cardinality
Recall that (0, 1) denotes the open interval of real numbers between 0 and 1. That is
(0, 1) = {x R | 0 < x < 1}
Proposition 4 The set of natural numbers and the open interval (0, 1) of real numbers do not have the
same cardinality. That is, |N| =
6 |(0, 1)|
Proof: By way of contradiction, assume that |N| = |(0, 1)|. But then some bijection
f : N (0, 1) must exist. Write each element of (0, 1) as an infinite decimal and list all of
the real numbers in (0, 1) as follows.
f (1) = 0.a11 a12 a13 a14 . . .

f (2) = 0.a21 a22 a23 a24 . . .
f (3) = 0.a31 a32 a33 a34 . . .
..
.
f (n) = 0.an1 an2 an3 an4 . . .
..
.
Construct the real number c = 0.c1 c2 c3 c4 . . . as follows. For ci , choose any digit from
1, 2, 3, . . . , 8 with the property that ci 6= aii . The number c does not end in an infinite
sequence of 0s or 9s so has only one decimal representation (a subtlety that requires its
own explanation in another course). The real number c appears nowhere in the list since it
differs from f (i) in position i for every i.
But then f is not surjective, hence not bijective which contradicts our assumption.
This chapter raises a whole set of questions about infinite sets.
How many infinities are there?
Can we say that the cardinality of one infinite set is less than or greater than another
infinite set?
Can there be infinite sets whose cardinality lies between that of other infinite sets of
distinct cardinalities?
How does one construct new infinite sets?
These are very interesting questions with even more interesting answers. Unfortunately, the
questions and answers will have to be left to another course.
Index
F[x], 247 De Morgans Laws, 24, 24, 32

deciphering, 209
Addition, 219 decryption, 209
Argand plane, 229 defining property, 46
argument, 232 degree, 248
Associativity Laws, 25 diagonal set, 51, 51
axiom, 17, 107 difference, 249
Diophantine equations, 156
bijective, 268
Direct Proof, 30, 36
Bounds By Divisibility, 40
direct proof, 38, 53, 55
cardinality, 45, 272 disjoint, 274
Cartesian product, 50, 50, 51 disjoint sets, 52
ciphertext, 209 Distributivity Laws, 25
closed form, 106 dividend, 102
closed interval, 47 divides, 33, 251
codomain, 77, 266 Divisibility, 33, 34
coefficients, 247 Bounds By, see Bounds By Divisibility
Commutativity Laws, 23 Integer Combinations, see Divisibility of
complement, 49 Integer Combinations
complex n-th roots, 239 Transitivity of, see Transitivity of Divis-
complex conjugate, 224 ibility
complex exponential function, 238 Divisibility of Integer Combinations, 37
complex number, 219 divisible by, 33
complex plane, 229 Division, 187, 221
complex polynomials, 247 divisor, 33, 102
component statements, 18 domain, 46, 77, 266
composite, 64
elements, 44
composite function, 267
empty set, 45, 45, 50, 52, 54
compound statement, 18, 26
enciphering, 209
conclusion, 26, 31
encryption, 209
congruence class modulo m, 183
equal, 219, 248
congruent, 167
even, 17
constant polynomial, 248
existential quantifier, 66
construct method, 67, 67, 68, 71
contradiction, 90, 91 factor, 33, 251
contrapositive, 83 finite set, 272
Proof Method, see Proof by Contrapos- floor, 136
itive function, 77, 266
converse, 56
coprime, 141 greatest common divisor, 129
corollary, 15
cubic, 248 hypothesis, 26
283
284 Chapter 39 INDEX
identity, 186 open sentence, 46, 46, 63

if and only if, 56 ordered pair, 50, 50
image of f , 78
imaginary axis, 229 perfect square, 57
imaginary part, 219 plaintext, 209
implication, 26 polar axis, 230
Direct Proof, see Direct Proof polynomial equation, 253
negation, 32 polynomial in x, 247
Proof by Contrapositive, see Proof by prime, 64, 127
Contrapositive private key cryptographic scheme, 209
indeterminate, 247 product, 250
index of summation, 104 product notation, 106
infinite set, 272 proof, 16
injective, 99, 101, 266 Proof by Contrapositive, 84
intersection, 48 Proof Method
inverse, 186, 269 Nested Quantifiers, 74, 75
iterative, 106 Proof Methods
S = T , 59
key, 209 S T , 53
A B, 57
lemma, 15 A B, 21
linear, 156, 248 A B, 20
linear congruence, 189 Using S1 S2 , 23
linear congruence in the variable x, 179 construct, 67
Logical Operators, 19 contradiction, 91
A = B, 26 Contrapositive, see Proof by Contrapos-
A B, 20 itive
A B, 20 Direct Proof, see Direct Proof
A B, 56 Elimination, 88
A, 19 object, 71
logically equivalent, 22, 22, 23 select, 65
lower bound of summation, 104 substitution, 70
proper subset, 53
members, 44
proper superset, 54
membership criteria, 46
proposition, 15
message, 209
public key cryptographic scheme, 209
modulus, 227
multiple, 33 quadratic, 248
Multiplication, 220 quantifier, 62
mutual inclusion, 59 existential, 62
negation, 69
Negation, 19
nested, 73
double negation, 22
universal, 62, 64
negation, 19, 24, 69, 75
quotient, 102
nested quantifiers, 73
quotient polynomial, 251
negation, 75
number of elements, 272 rational polynomials, 247
real axis, 229
object method, 71, 124
real part, 219
odd, 17
real polynomials, 247
one-to-one, 99, 101, 266
recurrence relation, 106
onto, 78, 266
Section 39.4 INDEX 285
remainder, 102
remainder polynomial, 251
root, 253
select method, 65, 65, 74, 107

set, 44
set equality, 55
set-builder notation, 46, 47, 48, 51
set-difference, 48
solution, 253
standard form, 219
statement, 14
subset, 53, 53
substitution method, 70
Subtraction, 220
sum, 249
summation notation, 104
superset, 54
surjective, 78, 266
term, 247
theorem, 15
Transitivity of Divisibility, 34, 37
Truth Table, 19
union, 48
universe of discourse, 46, 47, 53, 55, 59
upper bound of summation, 104
value, 77, 266
zero, 248, 253

RDW 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RDW 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RDW 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading, Discovering and Writing Proofs

I Introduction to Proof Methods 9

2 A First Look At Proofs 14

3 Truth Tables and Logical Operators 18

4 Implications and the Direct Proof 26

II Foundations: Sets and Quantifiers 43

8 Subsets, Set Equality, Converse and If and Only If 52

III More Proof Techniques 82

11 Contrapositives and Other Proof Techniques 83

13 Uniqueness, Injections and the Division Algorithm 96

14 Simple Induction 104

15 Strong Induction 114

16 Whats Wrong? 120

IV Securing Internet Commerce 128

17 The Greatest Common Divisor 129

18 The Extended Euclidean Algorithm 136

19 Properties Of GCDs 141

20 GCD from Prime Factorization 148

21 Linear Diophantine Equations: One Solution 156

22 Linear Diophantine Equations: All Solutions 160

24 Congruence and Remainders 174

25 Linear Congruences 179

26 Modular Arithmetic 183

26.2.2 [1] Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

27 Fermats Little Theorem 193

28 Chinese Remainder Theorem 200

29 The RSA Scheme 209

V Complex Numbers and Eulers Formula 217

30 Complex Numbers 218

31 Properties Of Complex Numbers 224

32 Graphical Representations of Complex Numbers 229

33 De Moivres Theorem 234

33.2 De Moivres Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

34 Roots of Complex Numbers 239

VI Factoring Polynomials 245

35 An Introduction to Polynomials 246

36 Factoring Polynomials 253

VII Bijections, Counting and Cardinality 265

37 Compositions and Bijections 266

39 Cardinality of Infinite Sets 279

Introduction to Proof Methods

1.1 What Makes a Mathematician a Mathematician?

Welcome to MATH 135!

1.2 Why Do We Reason Formally?

which implies x = 1, not x = 0.9. Consequently, we need a better understanding of

1.3 Structure of the Course

Let us start with a description of how the course is organized.

A First Look At Proofs

1. Define statement, proposition, and axiom.

2. Read our first proof.

3. Develop a notion of proofs as convincing arguments that verify propositions.

2.2 The Language

Mathematics is the language of mathematicians, and a proof is a method of com-

Mathematics is an extraordinarily precise language. When a making a mathematical argu-

Example 1 Here are some examples of statements.

2. + 2 < 5. (A false statement.)

3. There is no largest real number. (A true statement.)

2. Find the smallest positive integer.