Proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) is a powerful and often elegant technique used to prove the truth of a statement. The basic idea is to assume that the statement you are trying to prove is false, and then show that this assumption leads to a contradiction—something that is logically impossible or contradictory. Since the assumption of falsehood leads to an illogical result, we conclude that the original statement must be true.
This method is widely used in many areas of mathematics, especially when direct proof seems difficult or when the statement involves negations.
Statement: Prove that is irrational.
Proof (by contradiction):
Assume the opposite: Assume that is rational. This means that it can be expressed as a fraction , where and are integers, and . Additionally, assume that the fraction is in its simplest form, meaning that and have no common factors (i.e., they are coprime).
From this assumption, we can write:
Squaring both sides:
This equation tells us that is an even number, because it is divisible by 2.
Since is even, itself must also be even. (This is because the square of an odd number is odd, so if is even, must be even.) Therefore, we can write , where is some integer.
Substituting into the equation :
This shows that is also divisible by 2, so must be even as well.
Now, we have reached a contradiction. We initially assumed that and were coprime (i.e., they had no common factors), but we have shown that both and are even, meaning they both share 2 as a common factor. This contradicts our assumption that and are coprime.
Since the assumption that is rational leads to a contradiction, we conclude that the assumption is false. Therefore, must be irrational.
Conclusion: is irrational.
Statement: Prove that there is no smallest positive rational number.
Proof (by contradiction):
Assume the opposite: Suppose there exists a smallest positive rational number. Let this number be . Therefore, and is a rational number.
Since is a rational number, we can write , where and are positive integers, and .
Consider the number . Clearly, is a positive rational number, and it is smaller than (since ).
But this contradicts our assumption that is the smallest positive rational number because we have found a smaller rational number, .
Therefore, the assumption that there is a smallest positive rational number must be false.
Conclusion: There is no smallest positive rational number.
Statement: Prove that is irrational.
Proof (by contradiction):
Assume the opposite: Suppose is rational. This means , where and are integers and , with and having no common factors (i.e., the fraction is in its simplest form).
Square both sides:
This shows that is divisible by 3, meaning is divisible by 3 (since 3 is a prime number, if is divisible by 3, so is ).
Therefore, for some integer .
Substitute into the equation :
This shows that is divisible by 3, so must also be divisible by 3.
But this contradicts our assumption that and have no common factors, because we have shown that both and are divisible by 3.
Therefore, our assumption that is rational must be false.
Conclusion: is irrational.
Open this section to load past papers