Chapter 2: Proof by Contradiction

Difficulty: Basic

2.1 What is proof by contradiction?

Definition: proof by contradiction

Proof by contradiction is a method of proof in which one assumes the negation of the proposition to be proved and derives a contradiction from this assumption, thereby showing that the original proposition is true.

It is also known as "proof by contradiction" in the literal sense and as reductio ad absurdum.

Flow diagram of proof by contradiction Goal: P Assume ¬P (negation of P) Contradiction! Therefore ¬P is false → P is true
Figure 2.1: Flow of Proof by Contradiction

2.2 The principle of proof by contradiction

Why proof by contradiction is valid

The validity of proof by contradiction is based on the following law of logic:

Law of Excluded Middle

For any proposition $P$, the statement $P \lor \lnot P$ is true.

That is, $P$ is either true or false, and there is no third possibility.

Logical structure of proof by contradiction

  1. Assume $\lnot P$.
  2. Derive a contradiction (a statement of the form $Q \land \lnot Q$) from $\lnot P$.
  3. Since a contradiction cannot hold, the assumption $\lnot P$ must be false.
  4. By the Law of Excluded Middle, $P$ is true.

What is a contradiction?

A contradiction is a situation in which, for the same proposition $Q$, both $Q$ and $\lnot Q$ hold simultaneously.

Example: "$n$ is even" and "$n$ is not even".

2.3 Example 1: $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational

Theorem

$\sqrt{2}$ is irrational.

Before the proof

  • Irrational number: a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction (a number that is not rational).
  • Rational number: a number that can be written as $\dfrac{p}{q}$, where $p, q$ are integers and $q \neq 0$.
  • Fraction in lowest terms: a fraction whose numerator and denominator are coprime.

Proof (by contradiction)

Step 1: Set up the assumption for the proof by contradiction.

Assume that $\sqrt{2}$ is rational.

Step 2: Express the assumption as a formula.

By the definition of a rational number, there exist coprime integers $p, q$ (with $q \neq 0$) such that

$$\sqrt{2} = \dfrac{p}{q}$$

(that is, $\sqrt{2}$ can be written as a fraction in lowest terms).

Step 3: Square both sides.

$$2 = \dfrac{p^2}{q^2}$$

Multiplying both sides by $q^2$ and rearranging gives

$$p^2 = 2q^2 \quad \cdots (*)$$

Step 4: Show that $p$ is even.

From $(*)$ we have $p^2 = 2q^2$, so $p^2$ is even.

Here we use the lemma: "If $n^2$ is even, then $n$ is even" (proved below).

Hence $p$ is even, and there exists an integer $k$ such that

$$p = 2k.$$

Step 5: Show that $q$ is also even.

Substituting $p = 2k$ into $(*)$:

\begin{align} (2k)^2 &= 2q^2 \\ 4k^2 &= 2q^2 \\ 2k^2 &= q^2 \end{align}

Thus $q^2$ is even, so $q$ is also even.

Step 6: Point out the contradiction.

We have shown that both $p$ and $q$ are even.

But this contradicts the assumption in Step 2 that "$p$ and $q$ are coprime".

(If both $p$ and $q$ are even, they share the common divisor $2$.)

Step 7: State the conclusion.

Since a contradiction has been derived, the initial assumption "$\sqrt{2}$ is rational" is false.

Therefore $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational. $\square$

Lemma: if $n^2$ is even, then $n$ is even

Proof of the lemma (by contrapositive)

We prove the contrapositive: "If $n$ is odd, then $n^2$ is odd".

If $n$ is odd, then there exists an integer $m$ such that $n = 2m + 1$.

\begin{align} n^2 &= (2m + 1)^2 \\ &= 4m^2 + 4m + 1 \\ &= 2(2m^2 + 2m) + 1. \end{align}

Since $2m^2 + 2m$ is an integer, $n^2$ is odd.

The contrapositive is true, so the original statement is also true. $\square$

Flow diagram of the proof that √2 is irrational Flow of the proof that √2 is irrational Assume: √2 = p/q (in lowest terms) p² = 2q² Both p and q are even Contradiction! (must be coprime) √2 is irrational
Figure 2.2: Flow of the proof that √2 is irrational

2.4 Example 2: There are infinitely many primes

Theorem (Euclid)

There are infinitely many prime numbers.

Proof (by contradiction)

Step 1: Set up the assumption.

Assume that there are only finitely many primes.

List all primes as $p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_n$.

Step 2: Construct a new number.

Consider the number $N$ defined by

$$N = p_1 \cdot p_2 \cdot p_3 \cdots p_n + 1$$

(the product of all the primes plus $1$).

Step 3: Examine the properties of $N$.

Since $N > 1$, $N$ is either prime itself or has a prime factor.

Step 4: Derive a contradiction.

For any prime $p_i$ (with $i = 1, 2, \ldots, n$), dividing

$$N = p_1 p_2 \cdots p_n + 1$$

by $p_i$: since $p_1 p_2 \cdots p_n$ is divisible by $p_i$, we have

$$N \equiv 1 \pmod{p_i}.$$

That is, dividing $N$ by $p_i$ leaves remainder $1$.

Hence $N$ is not divisible by any $p_i$.

Step 5: Point out the contradiction.

Although $N > 1$, $N$ is not divisible by any prime.

This contradicts the fact that "every integer greater than $1$ has a prime factor".

(Either $N$ itself is a new prime, or it has a prime factor not in the list.)

Step 6: Conclusion.

Since a contradiction has been derived, the assumption that "there are finitely many primes" is false.

Therefore there are infinitely many primes. $\square$

2.5 When to use proof by contradiction

When proof by contradiction is effective

  • When proving a proposition of negative form (statements such as "is not ..." or "does not exist").
  • When a direct proof is difficult.
  • For statements such as "infinitely many ... exist" that are hard to establish by direct construction.

Cautions when using proof by contradiction

Caution

  • Make clear what is being assumed (take the negation correctly).
  • State the contradiction explicitly.
  • When a direct proof is available, it is often easier to follow than a proof by contradiction.
When to use direct proof vs. proof by contradiction When direct proof fits • Explicit construction available • Form: "... is ..." • Can be shown by computation When contradiction fits • Form: "... is not ..." • Existence of infinitely many • Direct proof is difficult
Figure 2.3: When to use direct proof vs. proof by contradiction

2.6 Chapter summary

Point Content
What proof by contradiction is A proof method that assumes the negation of the proposition and derives a contradiction.
Principle The Law of Excluded Middle (either $P$ or $\lnot P$ holds).
Procedure (1) Assume the negation → (2) Derive a contradiction → (3) The original proposition is true.
Where to use Propositions of negative form, and cases where direct proof is difficult.

Next chapter

The next chapter introduces "proof by contrapositive". It is similar to proof by contradiction, but it is a distinct and powerful method of proof.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What kind of proof method is proof by contradiction?

A: It is a method that proves a proposition $P$ by assuming its negation $\lnot P$ and deriving a contradiction. When the proposition has the form of an implication $P \Rightarrow Q$, one assumes $P$ together with $\lnot Q$. It is particularly effective when the conclusion cannot be derived directly.

Q2. What points should one be careful about when using proof by contradiction?

A: One must make clear that the contradiction is a genuine logical contradiction. The contradiction should take a form such as "$A$ and $\lnot A$" or "$n$ being simultaneously an integer and not an integer", and the proof should conclude with a statement such as "this is a contradiction, hence the proposition holds".

Q3. What is the difference between proof by contradiction and proof by contrapositive?

A: Proof by contrapositive directly proves $\lnot Q \Rightarrow \lnot P$ and has a clearer structure. Proof by contradiction differs in that it assumes $P$ together with $\lnot Q$ and derives a contradiction. Both are logically equivalent; the choice depends on which yields a more readable proof.