Chapter 17

Proof by Contradiction

This chapter covers proof by contradiction. This is a powerful proof technique

that can be extremely useful in the right circumstances. We’ll need this
method in Chapter 20, when we cover the topic of uncountability. However,
contradiction proofs tend to be less convincing and harder to write than
direct proofs or proofs by contrapositive. So this is a valuable technique
which you should use sparingly.

17.1 The method

In proof by contradiction, we show that a claim P is true by showing that its
negation ¬P leads to a contradiction. If ¬P leads to a contradiction, then
¬P can’t be true, and therefore P must be true. A contradiction can be
any statement that is well-known to be false or a set of statements that are
obviously inconsistent with one another, e.g. n is odd and n is even, or x < 2
and x > 7.
Proof by contradiction is typically used to prove claims that a certain type
of object cannot exist. The negation of the claim then says that an object
of this sort does exist. The existence of an object with specified properties
is often a good starting point for a proof. For example:

Claim 51 There is no largest even integer.

196
CHAPTER 17. PROOF BY CONTRADICTION 197

Proof: Suppose not. That is, suppose that there were a largest
even integer. Let’s call it k.
Since k is even, it has the form 2n, where n is an integer. Consider
k + 2. k + 2 = (2n) + 2 = 2(n + 1). So k + 2 is even. But k + 2
is larger than k. This contradicts our assumption that k was the
largest even integer. So our original claim must have been true.


The proof starts by informing the reader that you’re about to use proof
by contradiction. The phrase “suppose not” is one traditional way of doing
this. Next, you should spell out exactly what the negation of the claim is.
Then use mathematical reasoning (e.g. algebra) to work forwards until you
deduce some type of contradiction.

√
17.2 2 is irrational
One
√ of the best known examples of proof by contradiction is the proof that
2 is irrational. This proof, and consequently knowledge of the existence of
irrational numbers, apparently dates back to the Greek philosopher Hippasus
in the 5th century BC.
We defined a rational number to be a real number that can be written as
a fraction ab , where a and b are integers and b is not zero. If a number can
be written as such a fraction, it can be written as a fraction in lowest terms,
i.e. where a and b have no common factors. If a and b have common factors,
it’s easy to remove them.
Also, we proved (above) that, for any integer k, if k is odd then k 2 is odd.
So the contrapositive of this statement must also be true: (*) if k 2 is even
then k is even.
Now, we can prove our claim:

√
Suppose not. That is, suppose that 2 were rational.
√ a
Then we can write 2 as a fraction b
where a and b are integers
with no common factors.
CHAPTER 17. PROOF BY CONTRADICTION 198
√ a2
Since 2 = ab , 2 = b2
. So 2b2 = a2 .
By the definition of even, this means a2 is even. But then a must
be even, by (*) above. So a = 2n for some integer n.
If a = 2n and 2b2 = a2 , then 2b2 = 4n2 . So b2 = 2n2 . This means
that b2 is even, so b must be even.
We now have a contradiction. a and b were chosen not to have
any common factors. But they are both even, i.e. they are both
divisible by 2.
√
Because assuming that√ 2 was rational led to a contradiction, it
must be the case that 2 is irrational. 

17.3 There are infinitely many prime num-

bers
Contradiction also provides provides a nice proof of a classic theorem about
prime numbers, dating back to Euclid, who lived around 300 B.C.

Euclid’s Theorem: There are infinitely many prime numbers.

This is a lightly disguised type of non-existence claim. The theorem

could be restated as “there is no largest prime” or “there is no finite list of
all primes.” So this is a good situation for applying proof by contradiction.

Proof: Suppose not. That is, suppose there were only finitely
many prime numbers. Let’s call them p1 , p2 , up through pn .
Consider Q = p1 p2 · · · pn + 1.
If you divide Q by one of the primes on our list, you get a re-
mainder of 1. So Q isn’t divisible by any of the primes p1 , p2 ,
up through pn . However, by the Fundamental Theorem of Arith-
metic, Q must have a prime factor (which might be either itself
or some smaller number). This contradicts our assumption that
p1 , p2 ,. . . pn was a list of all the prime numbers. 
CHAPTER 17. PROOF BY CONTRADICTION 199

Notice one subtlety. We’re not claiming that Q must be prime. Rather,
we’re making the much weaker claim that Q isn’t divisible by any of the first
n primes. It’s possible that Q might be divisible by another prime larger
than pn .

17.4 Lossless compression

A final example concerns file compression. A file compression algorithm
attempts to reduce the size of files, by transforming each input file to an
output file with fewer bits. A lossless algorithm allows you to reconstruct the
original file exactly from its compressed version, whereas a lossy algorithm
only allows you to reconstruct an approximation to the original file. Or, said
another way, a lossless algorithm must convert input files to output files in a
one-to-one-manner, so that two distinct input files are never compressed to
the same output file.

Claim 52 A lossless compression algorithm that makes some files smaller

must make some (other) files larger.

Proof: Suppose not. That is, suppose that we had a lossless

compression algorithm A that makes some files smaller and does
not make any files larger.
Let x be the shortest file whose compressed size is smaller than
its original size. (If there are two such files of the same length,
pick either at random.) Suppose that the input size of x is m
characters.
Suppose that S is the set of distinct files with fewer than m
characters. Because x shrinks, A compresses x to a file in S.
Because no files smaller than x shrink, each file in S compresses
to a file (perhaps the same, perhaps different) in S.
Now we have a problem. A is supposed to be lossless, therefore
one-to-one. But A maps a set containing at least |S| + 1 files to
a set containing |S| files, so the Pigeonhole Principle states that
two input files must be mapped to the same output file. This is
a contradiction.
CHAPTER 17. PROOF BY CONTRADICTION 200

So, on the face of it, lossless file compression algorithms can’t win. How
do they work so well in practice? One secret is that compression algorithms
can ensure that file sizes never increase much. If a file would increase in size,
the algorithm stores the original version unchanged, preceded with a one-bit
marker. This bounds the potential damage if we encounter a “bad” input
file.
The second secret is that commonly-occurring files are not created at
random but have definite patterns. Text files contain natural language text.
Digitized images contain values that tend to change gradually. Compression
algorithms are tuned so that common types of files shrink. The fact that
some files might get bigger isn’t a serious practical problem if those files are
unlikely to occur on your disk.

17.5 Philosophy
Proof by contradiction strikes many people as mysterious, because the argu-
ment starts with an assumption known to be false. The whole proof consists
of building up a fantasy world and then knocking it down. Although the
method is accepted as valid by the vast majority of theoreticians, these proofs
are less satisfying than direct proofs which construct the world as we believe
it to be. The best mathematical style avoids using proof by contradiction
except when it will definitely result in a much simpler argument.
There is, in fact, a minority but long-standing thread within theoretical
mathematics, called “constructive mathematics,” which does not accept this
proof method. They have shown that most of standard√mathematics can
be re-built without it. For example, the irrationality of 2 can
√ be proved
constructively, by showing that there is an error separating 2 from any
chosen fraction ab .