14-240/Tutorial-October7: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 61: Line 61:




In Proof 1, the equivalence of the last line and the "let" statement to the second last line is not obvious:
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>.
(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>.
Line 75: Line 75:




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 or into proof in which you assume that one of the conditions in the disjunction is satisfied.
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.





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