UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

School of Mathematics & Statistics

M1010 Calculus & Linear Algebra (Semester 1, 2010)
(Based on notes for MATH1010 2009 by Prof. L. Stoyanov)

1. ELEMENTARY LOGIC: the basis of mathematical reasoning (and a grasp of

it doesn’t go astray in other facets of life, either)

SOME NOTATION AND ABBREVIATIONS

IN; the set of natural numbers {1,2,3,. . . }
ZZ; the set of integers, {. . . ,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,. . . }
Q; the set of rational numbers
IR; the set of real numbers
s.t. ; such that
x ∈A; x belongs to the set A
x �∈ A; x does not belong to the set A
A ⊂ B (A ⊆ B); the set A is contained in the set B (A may coincide with B)
≡; is (logically) equivalent to
iff (or ⇔); if and only if

If S is a set and P is a property which the elements of S may or may not have then
A = {x ∈ S : s.t. P holds} is the set of all x ∈ S which have the property P.
For example, IR+ = {x ∈ IR : x > 0} is the set of all positive real numbers, while
ZZ+ = {m ∈ ZZ : m > 0} is the set of all positive integers.

STATEMENTS
(Mathematical) Statements are the basic units of mathematical reasoning. They are sen-
tences (propositions) which are unambiguously either true or false but not both (unlike
many remarks made in ’normal’ English). For example, ‘20-1 = 42’ is a false statement,
whereas ‘Thoroughly boiled cabbages are delicious’ is not a statement in this sense. Sym-
bols such as p and q are used to stand for statements in the way we use x and y to stand
for numbers.
Examples of statements:√ (a) 1 > 2 (b) There are one thousand
√ dollars in the bag. (c) It
is raining outside. (d) 2 is an irrational number (i.e. 2 �∈ Q).

COMPOUND STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES

Statements may be combined, using logical connectives, to form compound statements.
The truth of a compound statement depends on the truth of its component statements
and on the connectives used, as explained in the following.
(i) and: ‘p and q’ is true iff p is true and q is true.
(ii) or: ‘p or q’ is true iff p is true or q is true or both are true.
(iii) negation: ‘∼ p ( not p)’ is true iff p is false.
(iv) implication: ‘p ⇒ q’ is true if and only if whenever p is true, q is also true. So if p
is false the compound statement ‘p⇒ q’ is true, regardless of whether q is true or false.
It is read as ‘p implies q’ or ‘if p then q’. So ‘if the moon is made of green cheese then
Perth is the capital of Outer Mongolia’ is a true statement. This is rather different from
the way implication is regarded in everyday discourse and some people take a while to

1
get used to it. Implications play a central role in an important method of proof known as
mathematical induction, which we shall be discussing soon.
(v) equivalence (double implication): ‘p⇔ q’ means ‘p⇒ q and q⇒ p ’. It is read as ‘p
if and only if q’, and is true if both p and q are true or if both p and q are false. The
symbol ≡ is also sometimes used, and may be read as ‘is logically equivalent to’
(vii) exclusive or: ‘p eor q’ is true if p is true or q is true but not both. This last connective
is not encountered as frequently as ‘or’ in mathematics but it’s as well to know about it.
Example: Let p and q be the statements ‘5 > 2’ and ‘1 + 2 = 6’, respectively. Then: ‘p and
q’ is false, ‘p or q’ is true, ‘∼ q’ is true, ‘∼ (p and q)’ is true, ‘p⇒ q’ is false, ‘q⇒ p’ is true.

TRUTH TABLES
These tables are sometimes useful for summarising the behaviour of compound state-
ments. For example, here is the truth table for p⇒ q.

p q p⇒ q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

GENERAL RULES (De Morgan Laws): 1) ∼ (p and q) ≡ (∼ p)or(∼ q),

2) ∼ (p or q) ≡ (∼ p)and(∼ q). [Why? Can you explain why these rules hold?]

CONVERSES AND CONTRAPOSITIVES

Converse: ‘q⇒ p’ is the converse of ‘p⇒ q’. The truth or falsity of a converse cannot be
inferred from the truth or falsity of the original statement. For example, x > 2 ⇒ x2 > 4
is true but its converse is false (why?), while x > 2 ⇒ x3 > 8 is true and so is its con-
verse. What about the statement ‘If there are no MATH1010 lectures today then today
is Sunday’ ?
Contrapositive: ‘∼ q⇒∼p’ is the contrapositive of ‘p ⇒ q’. A statement and its con-
trapositive are logically equivalent. [Why? Prove this!] This means that a proof of one
counts as a proof of the other. This is very convenient because sometimes proving a
statement as it stands would be difficult but proving its contrapositive is easier.
Examples: ‘x2 ≥ y ⇒ x > y/2’ has contrapositive ‘x ≤ y/2 ⇒ x2 < y’ (both are false).
‘0 < x < π/4 ⇒ tan(x) < 1’ has contrapositive ‘tan(x) ≥ 1 ⇒ x ≤ 0 or x ≥ π/4’ (both
implications are true). Notice that solving the inequality tan(x) ≥ 1 for x ∈ IR will give
more restrictions for x than ‘x ≤ 0 or x ≥ π/4’. So, ‘tan(x) ≥ 1 ⇒ x ≤ 0 or x ≥ π/4’ is
just an implication, not an equivalence (that is, the arrow goes one way only).

NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS

If the statement ‘p ⇒ q’ is true, then we say p is a sufficient condition for q (i.e. p being
true is sufficient to guarantee that q is true), and that q is a necessary condition for p
(i.e. if q is false then p is false). If the statement ‘p⇔ q’ is true then p is both necessary
and sufficient for q (and vice versa). Another way of expressing this is ‘p if and only if
q’. For example, ‘x2 < 4’ is necessary and sufficient for ‘|x| < 2’.

QUANTIFIERS

2
Universal Quantifier : ‘∀ means for all’.
Existential Quantifier : ‘∃’ means ‘there exists’.
If p(x) is some statement about a variable x then: ‘∀x, p(x)’ means ‘for all x, p(x) is true’
and ‘∃x, p(x)’ means ‘there exists x s.t. p(x) is true’.
Negations of Quantifiers: ‘∼ (∀x, p (x))’ means ‘∃x s.t. ∼ p(x), and ∼ (∃xs.t. p (x))’
means ‘∀x, ∼ p(x)’.
Examples: The statement ‘the square of any real number is non-negative’ (which is true)
may be written more compactly as ‘∀x ∈ IR, x2 ≥ 0.’ Its negation (which is false) reads
‘∃x ∈ IR, x2 < 0’. The negation of the statement ‘∀x ∈ IR, sin x < 1’ (which is false) is:
‘∃x ∈ IR, sin x ≥ 1’ (which is true; e.g. take x= π/2).
IMPORTANT NOTE: Statements may include more than one quantifier and the or-
der of these is important. For example, ‘∀x ∈ IR, ∃y ∈ IR s.t.x = 2y’ is not the same as
‘∃y ∈ IR s.t.∀x ∈ IR, x = 2y’. (Why?)

THEOREMS AND PROOFS

Theorem : a true statement about a mathematical system which follows logically from
the initial assumptions (or axioms) made about the system.
Proof : a chain of reasoning used to deduce a theorem. Each step follows from previous
ones, using only rules of logic, axioms, definitions or previously proved results.
There are various types of proof and some of them are described below.
Direct Proof : This type involves no logical rearrangement.
Example :
Theorem. If x and y are even integers then xy is even.
Proof: By definition of even numbers, x = 2r for some integer r and y = 2s for some
integer s. Hence xy = 2r.2s = 2(2sr), which by definition is even. Hence xy is even.
Proof by Contraposition: Instead of proving p⇒ q, prove the contrapositive ∼ q ⇒∼p,
which is logically equivalent.
Example:
Theorem. If m∈ ZZ and m2 − 3 is even, then m is odd.
Proof. We prove the contrapositive, which is: if m is even then m2 − 3 is odd. Let m∈ ZZ
be even, so that m=2n, n ∈ ZZ. Then m2 − 3 = 4n2 − 3 = 2(2n2 − 2) + 1, which is odd.
Hence the theorem is proved by contraposition.
Indirect Proof (Proof by Contradiction): With this method we show that the assumption
that the theorem is false entails a logical contradiction, and hence deduce that the theo-
rem must be true.
Example:
Theorem. If x∈ IR satisfies x3 + x + 1 = 0, then x < 0.
Proof. Suppose that x3 + x + 1 = 0 and x≥ 0 .Then x3 ≥ 0 so x3 + x + 1 ≥ 0 + 0 + 1 = 1,
and hence x3 + x + 1 > 0. This is a contradiction so if x3 + x + 1 = 0 then x < 0.
Proof by Example: Theorems of the form ‘∃x s.t. p(x)’ may be proved by producing a
single example.
Example : Theorem. Not every odd number is prime.
Proof. 9 is odd and not prime.
Proof by counterexample : Statements of the form ‘∀ x, p(x)’ may be proved to be false
by producing a single counterexample. This is really a proof by example of the negation
of p(x).
Example: The counterexample x= π/2 shows that the statement ‘∀x ∈ IR, sin(x) < 1’ is
false.