Method line M2 · When and why do we use it?

Proof by Contradiction

In the Chinese book: 反证法

Assume the conclusion is false and follow it until it crashes into something.

📖 Chapter 2 of 《解题方法与策略》

One idea, one picturePick a few primes and assume “these are all the primes in the world”. Then click “Chase it” and watch the assumption knock itself down.

Loading figure…

In one sentence

Proof by contradiction: to prove , assume first that is false. Treat “not ” as a new condition, reason with it together with , and keep going until you reach a contradiction: with the given conditions, with a theorem, or with itself. Since “not ” cannot stand, is true.

Three moves: assume the opposite (state the negation of the conclusion precisely) → derive a contradiction (the key step) → conclude.

Example: there are infinitely many primes (Euclid)

Step 1 / 4
Loading figure…
  1. Assume the opposite

    Suppose there are only finitely many primes, and list all of them: . In the picture, start with .

Predict first

Suppose all the primes are . Then . Is prime?

Choose an answer first; then you can see the result.

Stop 1 · Properties of Sets (Vol. 1)

“The set cannot have just one element.” The conclusion is negative, and it is hard to know where to start directly. Assume it has just one element, and the condition at once becomes an equation.

Example: a set A of real numbers satisfies 1 ∉ A, and if a ∈ A then 1/(1 − a) ∈ A. Prove that A cannot have exactly one element

Step 1 / 4
  1. Assume the opposite

    Suppose has just one element, where .

Stop 2 · The well-ordering principle (Vol. 5)

Team up proof by contradiction with “smallest”, and you get infinite descent: assume there is a solution, take the “smallest” one, then build an even smaller one. Contradiction.

One problem, several solutions

Prove that is irrational.

Lowest terms + parity

Assume , where are coprime positive integers. Then , so is even, and therefore is even.

Write . Then , so is even too. Both and are even, contradicting the fact that they are coprime.

CostThe most common proof; you must say “in lowest terms” first.

Infinite descent (well-ordering principle)

Assume . Among all such representations, the positive integer has a smallest value; take a representation with the smallest .

As before, gives and . So , and (because ).

We have found a representation with a smaller denominator, contradicting the choice of the smallest .

CostNo “lowest terms”; use “smallest denominator” instead. The same skeleton proves that many Diophantine equations have no solutions.

Stop 3 · Functional equations (Vol. 2)

“No such function exists”: another negative conclusion. Assume it exists, and use special values to back it into a corner.

Example: prove there is no injection f: ℝ → ℝ such that f(x²) − (f(x))² ≥ 1/4 for every real x

Step 1 / 4
  1. Assume the opposite

    Suppose such an injection exists. The condition holds for every ; pick the values with .

Practice

Exercise 1Basic

Suppose all the primes are . Build as Euclid did. What is the smallest prime factor of ?

Exercise 2Advanced

How many integer solutions does the equation have?

Exercise 3Advanced

Prove that is irrational.

Exercise 4Challenge

Let all be odd. Prove that the equation has no rational root.

Mistake Museum · Exhibits from this stop

Before you leave, look at the traps other people fell into here.See every exhibit in the museum →

Exhibit

The negation is wrong

The wrong step: To prove “at least one of is greater than ”, assume: “none of is greater than ” … that is fine. But to prove “ are all positive”, the assumption is written as “none of is positive”.
What went wrong? Think first, then open

Diagnosis The opposite of “all are” is “not all are”, that is, “at least one is not”. Writing “none is” leaves out the case where some are and some are not, so the contradiction only rules out part of the possibilities.

The right step: Learn the common negations by heart: all are ↔ not all are; at least one ↔ none at all; at most one ↔ at least two; there exists ↔ every one fails. After writing the assumption, ask yourself: is exactly one of the original conclusion and the assumption true?

“The assumption must be the whole opposite of the conclusion”

Exhibit

A “contradiction” that never uses the assumption

The wrong step: Assume is rational. Since , we have , so is not an integer: contradiction.
What went wrong? Think first, then open

Diagnosis “Not an integer” does not contradict “rational”: is not an integer either. The assumption never appeared in the argument, so it has not ruled anything out.

The right step: Write the assumption as something you can compute with: (in lowest terms), , so … The contradiction has to come out of this equation.

“Actually use the assumption”

Stops on this line

The same idea, used once in each of several places.

  1. Properties of SetsVol. 1 Sets, ch. 6
  2. The Extremal PrincipleVol. 1 Sets, ch. 8
  3. Functional Equations: Cauchy's MethodVol. 2 Functions and Functional Equations, §7.3
  4. Well-Ordering and Infinite DescentVol. 5 Sequences and Mathematical Induction, ch. 3