Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Mathematical Induction. Well-ordering property. Basic and inductive steps. Why mathematical induction is valid. Second principle of mathematical induction.

Show that any interval of the set of reals and the set of reals have the same cardinality. Show that any two circles on the real plane have the same cardinality. Show that a family of disjoint intervals on a line is countable as well as a family of disjoint circles on a real plane.

1) |A|=|B| if there is a bijection from A to B

Lemma 1. Any two intervals have the same cardinality.

Proof. Let a<b, c<d.

Through (a,c) and (b,d) a unique line y=f(x) passes. It is a bijection from (a,b) to (c,d)

Picture 1

Since f is line and is not constant, it is 1-1 ax+b=ax2+b=> x1=x2 f is onto as a continuous function, which have all intermediate value between c and d.

Lemma 2. |(-p/2;p/2)| =|R|

Proof.Tan: (-p/2;p/2)->R is a bijection.

Th.|(a,b)|=|R|

Proof. |(a,b)|= |(-p/2;p/2)| =||R|=>|(a,b)|=|R|

2)pictures 2 Point on a circle is defined by its angles j, jϵ[0,2p), so any two circles have the same cardinalities with [0,2p) then they have the same ordinarily.

3) A family of disjoint intervals on a line is countable

Proof: Let {(ai,bi):iϵI} be a set of disjoint interval. Any interval contains a rational number. Q- is countable. Since intervals are disjoint any rational number cannot belong to 2 intervals. So, the number of intervals ≤ the number of rationales.

A family of disjoint circles on the real plane is countable.

Proof. Let {Ri:iϵI} be a set of disjoint circles. Any circle contains point (q1.,q2) with rational coordinates. Since circles are disjoint any point cannot belong to two circles. So, the number of circles ≤ |QxQ| picture 3/ (q1,q2)ϵ circle |QxQ| is countable because the Cartesian product of countable sets is countable.

28. Show that the image of the union of two sets under a function is equal to the union of the images of these sets.

Let f : X Y. If AX, B X , then unions are preserved. That is f ( A B ) = f ( A ) f ( B )

Proof:We begin by showing f ( X Y ) f ( X ) f (Y )

If yf ( AB ) this means there exists an x0AB such that y = f ( x0 ) . Hence, x0A or x0 B and so f ( x0 ) f ( A) or f ( x0 ) f ( B ) , and so we have f ( x0 ) ∈ f ( A ) ∪ f ( B ) which verifies f ( A B ) f ( A ) f ( B ) . We leave the verification that f ( A ) ∪ f ( B ) ⊆ f ( AB ) to the reader. Although the intersection of sets is not preserved for functions, it is preserved for the inverse of a function

 

Show that the image of the intersection of two sets under a function is a subset of the intersection of the images of these sets.

If f : XY and AX , BX , then the images of intersections satisfy

f ( A B ) f ( A ) f ( B )

Proof:Letyf(AB). Hence, there exists anxABsuch thatf ( x ) = y . Hence x A and x B . But



x A y = f ( x ) f ( A) x B y = f ( x ) f (B)

Hence y = f ( x ) ∈ f ( A) ∩ f (B) .

Let us now try to show the converse; that is f ( A ) ∩ f ( B ) ⊆ f ( AB )

Letting y f ( A ) f ( B ) we have yf ( A ) and yf ( B ) Hence

x1 A f ( x1 ) = y

x2 ∈ A ⇒ f (x2)= y

from which we conclude f ( x1 ) = f ( x2 ) which is only true if the function f is one-to-one. In general, intersections of sets are not preserved under the image of a function. However, the following theorem shows intersections are preserved.

 

Show that the image of the intersection of two sets under an injective function is equal to the intersection of the images of these sets.

Let f : X Y be a one-to-one function. If A ⊆ X , B ⊆ X , then intersection is preserved under mappings: f ( A ∩ B ) = f ( A) ∩ f ( B )\

Proof:It suffices to showf(A)∩f(B)⊆f ( A B ) . Letting y f ( A ) f ( B ) ,

we have y ∈ f (A ) and y ∈ f ( B ) . Hence

x1 A such that f ( x1 ) = y => f ( x1 ) = f ( x2 )

x2 B such that f ( x2 ) = y

But f is assumed 1-1 so we conclude x1 = x2 and so x1 A and x1 B and thus x1 A B

Hence y = f ( x1 ) ∈ f ( AB ) which proves theorem

 

Show that the pre-image of the union of two sets is equal to the union of pre-images of these two sets. Show that the pre-image of the intersection of two sets is equal to the intersection of pre-images of these two sets. Show that the complement of the pre-image of a set is equal to the pre-image of the complement of this set.

For a subset A of the range of a function ƒ, the set of points x in the domain of ƒ for which ƒ(x) is a member of A. Also known as inverse image.

f:A->B, f(a)=b. b is the image of a under f. a is a preimage of b.

1) Th. Letf:XYandCY,DY, then the inverse image of intersections and unions satisfies f 1 (C D ) = f 1 (C ) f 1 ( D )

Proof y f 1 (C UD ) f ( y ) CUD

f ( y ) C and f ( y ) D

y f 1 ( C ) and y = f 1 ( D )

y f 1 ( C ) U f 1 ( D )

2) f 1 (C D ) = f 1 (C ) f 1 ( D )

y f 1 (C D ) f ( y ) C D

f ( y ) C and f ( y ) D

y f 1 ( C ) and y = f 1 ( D )

y f 1 ( C ) f 1 ( D )

3) a ϵ f^-1(๗ๅ๐๒๎๗๊เ ภ)ó f(a) ϵ ๗ๅ๐๒๎๗๊เ ภ ó f(a) not ϵ A ó a not ϵ f^-1 (A) ó a ϵf^-1(A)

32. Rules of inference. The six basic rules of inference. Vacuous, trivial, indirect proof and proof by contradiction. Prove that the square root of 2 is irrational.

1) Modus ponens:

2)Modus Tollenes:

3)Elimination:

4)Transitivity:

5)Generalization: P->PVQ, Q->PVQ

6)Specialization: P˄Q->P, P˄Q->Q

7)Conjunction: (P,Q)/(P˄Q)

8)Contradiction Rule: (notP->F)/P

Indirect proofs

Consider an implication: p→q

 

– It’s contrapositive is q→p

 

ท Is logically equivalent to the original implication!

 

– Thus, show that if q is true, then p is true

ท To perform an indirect proof, do a direct proof on the contrapositive

 

Proof by contradiction

 

• Given a statement p, assume it is false

 

– Assume p

 

• Prove that p leads to false

 

– A contradiction exists

 

• Given a statement of the form p→q

 

– To assume it’s false, you only have to consider the case where p is true and q is false

 

Vacuous proofs

 

• Consider an implication: p→q

 

• If it can be shown that p is false, then the implication is always true

– By definition of an implication

 

• Note that you are showing that the antecedent is false

 

Trivial proofs

 

• Consider an implication: p→q

 

• If it can be shown that q is true, then the implication is always true

– By definition of an implication

 

• Note that you are showing that the conclusion is true

 

Let's suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a,b are whole numbers, b not zero.

From the equality √2 = a/b it follows that 2 = a^2/b^2, or a^2 = 2 * b^2.

if a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. 2 = a^2/b^2, this is what we get:

B^2 =2k^2. b^2 is even. It is contradiction. So √2 cannot be rational.

Mathematical Induction. Well-ordering property. Basic and inductive steps. Why mathematical induction is valid. Second principle of mathematical induction.

Show that 12 + 22 + … + n2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6.

1)Mathematical induction is a a specialized form of deductive reasoning used to prove a fact about all the elements in an infinite set by performing a finite number of steps.

2)The well-ordering property states, that every nonempty subset of the Natural Numbers has a least member.

∀S ≠ ∅ ⊆ N ∃x ∈ S ∀z ∈ S (x ≤ z)

Mathematical induction for proving ``the proposition P(n) is true for all positive integers n'':

Basis step: show that P(1) is true

Inductive step: show that the proposition P(k) -> P(k+1) is true, where k is an arbitrary positive integer.

After we complete the basis step and inductive step, we proved that P(n) must be true for all positive integers n.

Let us show by using ``proof-by-contradiction''.

 

Assume that there is at least one positive integer for which P(n) is false. As a result, the set S of positive integers for which P(n) is false is nonempty.

 

Thus, by the well-ordering property, S has a least element, which will be denoted by m. Correspondingly, P(m) is false.

 

We know that m cannot be 1, because P(1) is true.

 

Because m is positive and greater than 1, m-1 is a positive integer.

 

Since m-1 is less than m, it is no in S. Therefore P(m-1) must be true.

 

Because the conditional statement P(m-1) -> P(m) is true, it must be the case that P(m) is true.

 

This is a contradiction. Hence, P(n) must be true for every positive integers n.

 

Recall: well-ordering property: Every nonempty subset of the set of positive integers has a least element.

 

Formally the second principle of induction states that

 

if n [ k [ k < n P(k) ] P(n) ] , then n P(n) can be concluded.

 

Here k [ k < n P(k) ] is the induction hypothesis.

 

The reason that this principle holds is going to be explained later after a few examples of proof.

 


Date: 2015-12-17; view: 1019


<== previous page | next page ==>
Posição dos Comunistas diante dos diversos partidos de oposição | 
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.01 sec.)