Skip to main content

Proof and Logic — Diagnostic Tests

Unit Tests

Tests edge cases, boundary conditions, and common misconceptions for proof and logic.

UT-1: Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions

Question:

For each of the following statements, state whether the condition PP is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither for QQ:

(a) PP: "nn is divisible by 44" and QQ: "n2n^2 is divisible by 1616"

(b) PP: "f(x)>0f''(x) \gt 0 for all xx" and QQ: "ff is injective"

(c) PP: "Δ=0\Delta = 0" and QQ: "The quadratic equation ax2+bx+c=0ax^2 + bx + c = 0 has exactly one real root"

(d) A student argues: "Since P    QP \implies Q is true, and QQ is true, therefore PP is true." Identify the logical fallacy.

[Difficulty: hard. Tests the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, which IB exams test extensively.]

Solution:

(a) Both necessary and sufficient. If nn is divisible by 44, then n=4kn = 4k, so n2=16k2n^2 = 16k^2, which is divisible by 1616 (sufficient). Conversely, if n2n^2 is divisible by 16=2416 = 2^4, then n2n^2 has at least 44 factors of 22, so nn has at least 22 factors of 22, meaning nn is divisible by 44 (necessary).

(b) Sufficient but not necessary. If f(x)>0f''(x) \gt 0 everywhere, then f(x)f'(x) is strictly increasing. If f(c)=0f'(c) = 0 for some cc, then f(x)<0f'(x) \lt 0 for x<cx \lt c and f(x)>0f'(x) \gt 0 for x>cx \gt c, making ff strictly convex with a unique global minimum. This means ff is injective (sufficient). However, f(x)=x3f(x) = x^3 is injective but f(0)=00f''(0) = 0 \not\gt 0 (not necessary).

(c) Both necessary and sufficient. Δ=0\Delta = 0 gives exactly one real root (sufficient). If the quadratic has exactly one real root, then Δ=0\Delta = 0 (necessary, since Δ>0\Delta \gt 0 gives two distinct roots and Δ<0\Delta \lt 0 gives none).

(d) This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. P    QP \implies Q and QQ does not imply PP. The correct inference from P    QP \implies Q and QQ is nothing — we cannot deduce PP. The valid inference is modus ponens: from P    QP \implies Q and PP, we deduce QQ.


UT-2: Quantifier Negation with Nested Quantifiers

Question:

(a) Negate the following statement:

ε>0,  δ>0,  x{R},  (0<xa<δ)    (f(x)f(a)<ε)\forall \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \exists \delta \gt 0, \; \forall x \in \mathbb{'\{'}R{'\}'}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \implies (|f(x) - f(a)| \lt \varepsilon)

(b) A student writes the negation as "ε>0,  δ>0,  x{R},  (0<xa<δ)    (f(x)f(a)ε)\exists \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \exists \delta \gt 0, \; \forall x \in \mathbb{'\{'}R{'\}'}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \implies (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon)". Identify the errors.

[Difficulty: hard. Tests correct negation of nested quantifiers and the implication.]

Solution:

(a) To negate, flip each quantifier and negate the predicate. The negation of an implication P    QP \implies Q is P¬QP \wedge \neg Q.

¬(P    Q)=¬(¬PQ)=P¬Q\neg(P \implies Q) = \neg(\neg P \vee Q) = P \wedge \neg Q

So:

ε>0,  δ>0,  x{R},  (0<xa<δ)    (f(x)f(a)ε)\exists \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \forall \delta \gt 0, \; \exists x \in \mathbb{'\{'}R{'\}'}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \;\wedge\; (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon)

(b) The student made two errors:

  1. The existential quantifier on δ\delta should be universal (δ>0\forall \delta \gt 0), not existential.
  2. The negation of the implication was written incorrectly. The student wrote the "converse implication" with a negated conclusion, rather than the correct negation which is (0<xa<δ)(f(x)f(a)ε)(0 \lt |x-a| \lt \delta) \wedge (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon). The student kept the implication structure     \implies, which is wrong.

UT-3: Contrapositive vs Converse vs Contradiction

Question:

Prove that if n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even for some integer nn, then nn is even.

A student writes:

We prove the contrapositive: if nn is odd, then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is odd. If n=2k+1n = 2k + 1, then n3+5n=(2k+1)3+5(2k+1)=8k3+12k2+8k+1+10k+5=8k3+12k2+18k+6=2(4k3+6k2+9k+3)n^3 + 5n = (2k+1)^3 + 5(2k+1) = 8k^3 + 12k^2 + 8k + 1 + 10k + 5 = 8k^3 + 12k^2 + 18k + 6 = 2(4k^3 + 6k^2 + 9k + 3), which is even.

(a) Explain why the student's answer is self-contradictory.

(b) Write a correct proof of the original statement.

[Difficulty: hard. Tests confusion between contrapositive and converse, and algebraic errors in divisibility proofs.]

Solution:

(a) The student set out to prove "if nn is odd, then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is odd" (the contrapositive), but the algebra showed that n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even when nn is odd. This contradicts what the student was trying to prove. The conclusion should be that n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even, which means the contrapositive is false, implying the original statement is false.

In fact, the original statement "if n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even, then nn is even" is false: when nn is odd, n3+5n=2(4k3+6k2+9k+3)n^3 + 5n = 2(4k^3 + 6k^2 + 9k + 3) is always even. So n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even for ALL integers nn, not just even ones. The original statement is false, and the student's work inadvertently proves this.

(b) The correct approach: since n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even for all n{Z}n \in \mathbb{'\{'}Z{'\}'} (as shown above), the statement "if n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even, then nn is even" is false. A counterexample is n=1n = 1: 1+5=61 + 5 = 6 is even, but n=1n = 1 is odd.


Integration Tests

Tests synthesis of proof and logic with other topics.

IT-1: Proof by Induction for a Divisibility Result (with Number and Algebra)

Question:

Prove by mathematical induction that 32n+2n+23^{2n} + 2^{n+2} is divisible by 77 for all n{N}n \in \mathbb{'\{'}N{'\}'}.

[Difficulty: hard. Combines proof by induction with number-theoretic divisibility.]

Solution:

Base case (n=1n = 1): 32(1)+21+2=9+8=173^{2(1)} + 2^{1+2} = 9 + 8 = 17. This is not divisible by 77. The stated formula 32n+2n+23^{2n} + 2^{n+2} does not produce a multiple of 77 for n=1n = 1.

The correct statement should be 32n+1+2n+23^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2}. Verification: 32(1)+1+21+2=27+8=35=7×53^{2(1)+1} + 2^{1+2} = 27 + 8 = 35 = 7 \times 5.

Corrected problem: Prove that 32n+1+2n+23^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2} is divisible by 77 for all n{N}n \in \mathbb{'\{'}N{'\}'}.

Base case (n=0n = 0): 31+22=3+4=73^1 + 2^2 = 3 + 4 = 7, divisible by 77. True.

Inductive hypothesis: Assume 32k+1+2k+2=7m3^{2k+1} + 2^{k+2} = 7m for some integer mm.

Inductive step: Consider n=k+1n = k + 1:

32(k+1)+1+2(k+1)+2=32k+3+2k+33^{2(k+1)+1} + 2^{(k+1)+2} = 3^{2k+3} + 2^{k+3}

=932k+1+22k+2= 9 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2 \cdot 2^{k+2}

=932k+1+22k+2+732k+1732k+1= 9 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2 \cdot 2^{k+2} + 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1} - 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1}

=732k+1+2(32k+1+2k+2)= 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2(3^{2k+1} + 2^{k+2})

=732k+1+27m=7(32k+1+2m)= 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2 \cdot 7m = 7(3^{2k+1} + 2m)

Since 32k+1+2m3^{2k+1} + 2m is an integer, 32k+3+2k+33^{2k+3} + 2^{k+3} is divisible by 77.

Conclusion: By induction, 32n+1+2n+23^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2} is divisible by 77 for all n0n \geq 0.


IT-2: Proof by Contradiction for Irrationality (with Number and Algebra)

Question:

Prove that 2+3\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} is irrational.

[Difficulty: hard. Combines proof by contradiction with algebraic manipulation and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.]

Solution:

Assume 2+3\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} is rational. Then 2+3=ab\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} = \frac{a}{b} for some coprime positive integers a,ba, b.

Squaring: 2+26+3=a2b22 + 2\sqrt{6} + 3 = \frac{a^2}{b^2}, so:

26=a2b252\sqrt{6} = \frac{a^2}{b^2} - 5

6=a25b22b2\sqrt{6} = \frac{a^2 - 5b^2}{2b^2}

Since a,ba, b are integers, the RHS is rational. So 6\sqrt{6} is rational. But 6\sqrt{6} is irrational (proved by the standard contradiction proof: if 6=pq\sqrt{6} = \frac{p}{q} in lowest terms, then p2=6q2p^2 = 6q^2, so pp is even, p=2rp = 2r, 4r2=6q24r^2 = 6q^2, 2r2=3q22r^2 = 3q^2, so qq is even, contradicting lowest terms).

This contradiction means our assumption is false. Therefore 2+3\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} is irrational.