14-240/Tutorial-October7: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Boris==
==Boris==


====Subtle Problems in Proofs====
====Subtle Errors in Proofs====


Check out these proofs:
Check out these proofs:


=====Proof 1=====
(1) Let <math>W_1</math>, <math>W_2</math> be subspaces of a vector space <math>V</math>. We show that <math>W_1 \cup W_2</math> is a subspace


<math>\implies W_1 \subset W_2 \or W_2 \subset W_1</math>.
Let <math>W_1</math>, <math>W_2</math> be subspaces of a vector space <math>V</math>.

We show that <math>W_1 \cup W_2</math> is a subspace <math>\implies W_1 \subset W_2 \or W_2 \subset W_1</math>.


:Assume that <math>W_1 \cup W_2</math> is a subspace.
:Assume that <math>W_1 \cup W_2</math> is a subspace.


:Let <math>x \in W_1, y \in W_2</math>.
:Let <math>x \in W_1</math>, <math>y \in W_2</math>.


:Then <math>x, y \in W_1 \cup W_2</math> and <math>x + y \in W_1 \cup W_2</math>.
:Then <math>x, y \in W_1 \cup W_2</math>.

:Then <math>x + y \in W_1 \cup W_2</math>.


:Then <math>x + y \in W_1 \or x + y \in W_2</math>.
:Then <math>x + y \in W_1 \or x + y \in W_2</math>.
Line 35: Line 39:
:Then <math>W_1 \subset W_2 \or W_2 \subset W_1</math>. ''Q.E.D.''
:Then <math>W_1 \subset W_2 \or W_2 \subset W_1</math>. ''Q.E.D.''


=====Proof 2=====

Let <math>V=\{(a_1, a_2):a_1, a_2 \in R\}</math>. Then <math>\forall (a_1, a_2), (b_1, b_2) \in V, \forall c \in R</math>, define

::<math>(a_1, a_2) + (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 + 2b_1, a_2 + 3b_2)</math> and <math>c(a_1, a_2)=(ca_1, ca_2)</math>.

We show that <math>V</math> is not a vector space over <math>R</math>.

:We show that <math>V</math> is not commutative.

::Let <math>(a_1, a_2) = (0, 0)</math>.

::Then <math>(0, 0) + (b_1, b_2) = (2b_1, 3b_2) \neq (b_1, b_2)</math>.

::Then <math>V</math> is not commutative.

:Then <math>V</math> is not a vector space. ''Q.E.D.''


Can you spot the subtle error in each?


In Proof 1, the equivalence of (2) the last line and (1) the "let" statement to the second last line is not obvious:

(1) Let <math>x \in W_1, y \in W_2</math>. [Many lines] Then <math>x \in W_2 \or y \in W_1</math>.

(2) Then <math>W_1 \subset W_2 \or W_2 \subset W_1</math>.


Rewrite sentences (1) and (2) into a form that is easier to compare:

(1) <math>\forall x \in W_1, \forall y \in W_2, (x \in W_2 \or y \in W_1)</math>.

(2) <math>( \forall x \in W_1, x \in W_2) \or ( \forall y \in W_2, y \in W_1)</math>.


For Proof 1 to be correct, we must show that sentences (1) and (2) are equivalent. Alternatively, alter the structure of Proof 1 into a proof by contradiction.


(2) Let <math>V=\{(a_1, a_2):a_1, a_2 \in R\}</math>. Then <math>\forall (a_1, a_2), (b_1, b_2) \in V, \forall c \in R</math>, define <math>(a_1, a_2) + (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 + 2b_1, a_2 + 3b_2)</math> and <math>c(a_1, a_2)=(ca_1, ca_2)</math>. We show that <math>V</math> is not a vector


In Proof 2, the only thing that is shown is that <math>(0, 0)</math> is not the additive identity. For Proof 2 to be correct, either plug in a vector that is not <math>(0, 0)</math> or show that <math>(0, 0)</math> is the additive identity by some other means, which introduces a contradiction.
space over <math>R</math>.


==Nikita==
==Nikita==

Latest revision as of 19:31, 7 November 2014

Boris

Subtle Errors in Proofs

Check out these proofs:

Proof 1

Let , be subspaces of a vector space .

We show that is a subspace .

Assume that is a subspace.
Let , .
Then .
Then .
Then .
Case 1: :
Since and has additive inverses, then .
Then .
Case 2: :
Since and has additive inverses, then .
Then .
Then .
Then . Q.E.D.
Proof 2

Let . Then , define

and .

We show that is not a vector space over .

We show that is not commutative.
Let .
Then .
Then is not commutative.
Then is not a vector space. Q.E.D.


Can you spot the subtle error in each?


In Proof 1, the equivalence of (2) the last line and (1) the "let" statement to the second last line is not obvious:

(1) Let . [Many lines] Then .

(2) Then .


Rewrite sentences (1) and (2) into a form that is easier to compare:

(1) .

(2) .


For Proof 1 to be correct, we must show that sentences (1) and (2) are equivalent. Alternatively, alter the structure of Proof 1 into a proof by contradiction.


In Proof 2, the only thing that is shown is that is not the additive identity. For Proof 2 to be correct, either plug in a vector that is not or show that is the additive identity by some other means, which introduces a contradiction.

Nikita