Proof and Logic -- Diagnostic Tests

flowchart TD
    A[Diag Proof Logic] --> B[Key Concepts]
    A --> C[Core Principles]
    A --> D[Practical Applications]
    B --> E[Fundamental definitions]
    C --> F[Design patterns]
    D --> G[Real-world usage]

Mathematical proof is like a legal argument — each step must be justified by axioms, definitions, or previously proven theorems: Logic provides the grammar of mathematics — it ensures that conclusions follow necessarily from premises, creating certainty in an uncertain world

Why it matters: Proof is what separates mathematics from computation — it establishes universal truth, not just empirical patterns

The key insight: Logic provides the grammar of mathematics — it ensures that conclusions follow necessarily from premises, creating certainty in an uncertain world

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

Question:

For each of the following statements, state whether the condition $P$ is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither for $Q$:

(a) $P$: ”$n$ is divisible by $4$” and $Q$: ”$n^2$ is divisible by $16$”

(b) $P$: ”$f"'(x) \gt 0$ for all $x$” and $Q$: ”$f$ is injective”

(c) $P$: "$\Delta = 0$" and $Q$: “The quadratic equation $ax^2 + bx + c = 0$ has exactly one real root”

(d) A student argues: “Since $P \implies Q$ is true, and $Q$ is true, therefore $P$ 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 $n$ is divisible by $4$ Then $n = 4k$ So $n^2 = 16k^2$Which is divisible by $16$ (sufficient). Conversely, if $n^2$ is divisible by $16 = 2^4$ Then $n^2$ has at least $4$ factors of $2$ So $n$ has at least $2$ factors of $2$Meaning $n$ is divisible by $4$ (necessary).

(b) Sufficient but not necessary. If $f''(x) \gt 0$ everywhere, then $f'(x)$ is strictly increasing. If $f'(c) = 0$ for some $c$ Then $f'(x) \lt 0$ for $x \lt c$ and $f'(x) \gt 0$ for $x \gt c$Making $f$ strictly convex with a unique global minimum. This means $f$ is injective (sufficient). However, $f(x) = x^3$ is injective but $f''(0) = 0 \not\gt 0$ (not necessary).

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

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

Question:

(a) Negate the following statement:

$\forall \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \exists \delta \gt 0, \; \forall x \in \mathbb{R}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \implies (|f(x) - f(a)| \lt \varepsilon)$

(b) A student writes the negation as "$\exists \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \exists \delta \gt 0, \; \forall x \in \mathbb{R}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \implies (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon)$". 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 $P \implies Q$ is $P \wedge \neg Q$.

$\neg(P \implies Q) = \neg(\neg P \vee Q) = P \wedge \neg Q$

So:

$\exists \varepsilon \gt 0, \; \forall \delta \gt 0, \; \exists x \in \mathbb{R}, \; (0 \lt |x - a| \lt \delta) \;\wedge\; (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon)$

(b) The student made two errors:

1. The existential quantifier on $\delta$ should be universal ($\forall \delta \gt 0$), 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 $(0 \lt |x-a| \lt \delta) \wedge (|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \varepsilon)$. The student kept the implication structure $\implies$Which is wrong.

Question:

Prove that if $n^3 + 5n$ is even for some integer $n$ Then $n$ is even.

A student writes:

We prove the contrapositive: if $n$ is odd, then $n^3 + 5n$ is odd. If $n = 2k + 1$ Then $n^3 + 5n = (2k+1)^3 + 5(2k+1) = 8k^3 + 12k^2 + 8k + 1 + 10k + 5 = 8k^3 + 12k^2 + 18k + 6 = 2(4k^3 + 6k^2 + 9k + 3)$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 $n$ is odd, then $n^3 + 5n$ is odd” (the contrapositive), but the algebra showed that $n^3 + 5n$ is even when $n$ is odd. This contradicts what the student was trying to prove. The conclusion should be that $n^3 + 5n$ is even, which means the contrapositive is false, implying the original statement is false.

In fact, the original statement “if $n^3 + 5n$ is even, then $n$ is even” is false: when $n$ is odd, $n^3 + 5n = 2(4k^3 + 6k^2 + 9k + 3)$ is always even. So $n^3 + 5n$ is even for ALL integers $n$Not just even ones. The original statement is false, and the student’s work inadvertently proves this.

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

Tests synthesis of proof and logic with other topics.

Question:

Prove by mathematical induction that $3^{2n} + 2^{n+2}$ is divisible by $7$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

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

Solution:

Base case ($n = 1$): $3^{2(1)} + 2^{1+2} = 9 + 8 = 17$. This is not divisible by $7$. The stated formula $3^{2n} + 2^{n+2}$ does not produce a multiple of $7$ for $n = 1$.

The correct statement should be $3^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2}$. Verification: $3^{2(1)+1} + 2^{1+2} = 27 + 8 = 35 = 7 \times 5$.

Corrected problem: Prove that $3^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2}$ is divisible by $7$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Base case ($n = 0$): $3^1 + 2^2 = 3 + 4 = 7$Divisible by $7$. True.

Inductive hypothesis: Assume $3^{2k+1} + 2^{k+2} = 7m$ for some integer $m$.

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

$3^{2(k+1)+1} + 2^{(k+1)+2} = 3^{2k+3} + 2^{k+3}$

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

$= 9 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2 \cdot 2^{k+2} + 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1} - 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1}$

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

$= 7 \cdot 3^{2k+1} + 2 \cdot 7m = 7(3^{2k+1} + 2m)$

Since $3^{2k+1} + 2m$ is an integer, $3^{2k+3} + 2^{k+3}$ is divisible by $7$.

Conclusion: By induction, $3^{2n+1} + 2^{n+2}$ is divisible by $7$ for all $n \geq 0$.

Question:

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

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

Solution:

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

Squaring: $2 + 2\sqrt{6} + 3 = \frac{a^2}{b^2}$ So:

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

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

Since $a, b$ are integers, the RHS is rational. So $\sqrt{6}$ is rational. But $\sqrt{6}$ is irrational (proved by the standard contradiction proof: if $\sqrt{6} = \frac{p}{q}$ in lowest terms, then $p^2 = 6q^2$ So $p$ is even, p = 2r$$4r^2 = 6q^2$$2r^2 = 3q^2 So $q$ is even, contradicting lowest terms).

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

• Number and Algebra: Algebra is foundational
• Functions: Functions are central
• Calculus: Calculus is a major topic