← All TMUA Flashcard Decks

Proof Techniques Flashcards

7 cards from real TMUA practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.

Read the first 7 Proof Techniques flashcards as text
  1. Which of the following best describes a 'non-constructive' existence proof?

    Answer: It proves existence without identifying the object explicitly

    A non-constructive proof establishes that something must exist (e.g. via contradiction) without providing an explicit example.

  2. Prove or disprove: 'For all integers n, n² − n is even.' The correct conclusion is:

    Answer: True; n² − n = n(n−1) is a product of consecutive integers

    n(n−1) is a product of consecutive integers, so one factor is always even, making the product even.

  3. Which rule of inference is: 'P ∨ Q, ¬P ⊢ Q'?

    Answer: Disjunctive syllogism

    Disjunctive syllogism eliminates one option in a disjunction when the other is known to be false.

  4. In a proof by cases for an integer n, the usual split is n ≡ 0 (mod 2) and n ≡ 1 (mod 2). What guarantees these two cases are exhaustive?

    Answer: Every integer is either even or odd (the division algorithm)

    The division algorithm guarantees every integer has remainder 0 or 1 when divided by 2, covering all possibilities.

  5. Why is 'proof by example' invalid for universal statements?

    Answer: Both A and C

    A single example demonstrates existence but cannot rule out counterexamples; universal proofs require an argument covering every case.

  6. A student claims: 'Since 2+3=5 (prime), 4+3=7 (prime), and 6+3=9 is not prime, the pattern breaks.' This is an example of:

    Answer: A counterexample disproving a conjecture

    Finding 6+3=9 which is not prime provides a counterexample that disproves the conjecture that 'even + 3 is always prime'.

  7. To prove: 'If x and y are both irrational, then x + y is irrational', a student attempts a direct proof. The attempt fails because:

    Answer: The sum of two irrationals can be rational, e.g. √2 + (−√2) = 0

    √2 + (−√2) = 0 ∈ ℚ is a counterexample showing the statement is false, so no valid proof exists.