Contrapositive
The contrapositive of an implication is logically equivalent to it, and often easier to prove directly — especially when the conclusion is a "not" statement or when gives you nothing to compute with.
The contrapositive is not the converse. "If it rains, the ground is wet" has contrapositive "if the ground is dry, it is not raining" (true) and converse "if the ground is wet, it is raining" (false — sprinklers). Confusing the two is the single most common logical error, in and out of mathematics.
Prove: if is odd then is odd. Directly, " odd" gives — and then what? Contrapositive: if is even, , then is even. Done.
Prove: if is irrational, then is irrational or is irrational. The contrapositive negates both sides, and the negation of " irrational or irrational" is " rational AND rational". So we prove: if and are rational, then is rational (with ). The contrapositive turned a statement about an unknown irrational into a computation with fractions.
Prove: if is even, then is odd. Contrapositive: if is even, then is odd. With : , odd.
Proving the converse by mistake. In the last example, "if is odd then is even" is also true — but it is the converse, a different theorem. Writing it up proves nothing about the original. Before starting, write the contrapositive out in full and check that both halves are negated and swapped.
Prove: if is even, then is even.
Show the answerHide the answer
Contrapositive: if is odd, , then is odd.
Contradiction
To prove by contradiction: assume and deduce something impossible (, a number that is both even and odd, a smaller element of a set that had a smallest element). Then cannot hold, so does. It is the right tool for "there is no…", "is irrational", "infinitely many".
Contradiction is more powerful than the contrapositive because you get to assume the WHOLE negation, including whatever structure " is false" carries — a smallest counterexample, an explicit fraction , a largest prime. Its cost is that a proof by contradiction, once the contradiction appears, tells you nothing about why is true. Prefer a direct proof when one exists; reach for contradiction when the negation gives you something concrete to work with.
Suppose in lowest terms. Then , so is even, so is even (proved in What a Proof Is), . Then , , so is even too. Both even contradicts lowest terms.
Suppose there are finitely many: . Let . has a prime factor ; is some ; but leaves remainder on division by , so . Contradiction.
To prove every has property : suppose not, and let be the SMALLEST failure (well-ordering). Use the fact that everything below works to show works too — contradiction.
Assuming the negation and then proving directly without ever using the assumption. That is a direct proof wearing a costume; the "contradiction" is fake. If you never used , delete it.
Prove that there is no largest even integer.
Show the answerHide the answer
Suppose is the largest even integer. Then is even (as gives ) and larger than . Contradiction.
Contradiction With Numbers
To prove a number is irrational, assume it equals with integers , clear the fraction, and derive something impossible about integers — usually a parity clash, a divisibility that cannot hold, or two different prime factorizations of one number.
Irrationality is a negative property: it says what a number is not. There is nothing to compute with until you assume the opposite, and then you have two integers and an equation between them. That is why almost every irrationality proof is a proof by contradiction, and why the contradiction almost always lives in the integers rather than in the original number.
Suppose with positive integers (it is positive since ). Then , and raising to the power gives . The left side is even (as ) and the right side is odd. Contradiction.
Prove there are no integers with . Suppose there were. Then . The two factors differ by , an even number, so they have the same parity. They cannot both be odd, since their product is even; so both are even, and then their product is divisible by . But . Contradiction.
Suppose with rational. Squaring, , so is rational. Now show is not: if in lowest terms, then is even, so ; then , so , which makes even and hence even. Both and even contradicts lowest terms.
The proof has two layers, and each is a contradiction. The first layer reduces the claim to a simpler one (squaring removes one root); the second is the familiar lowest-terms argument. Finding that reduction is the real idea — squaring once turns a sum of two roots into a single root, which the standard argument can handle.
" and are irrational, so their sum is irrational." Sums of irrationals can be rational: . The conclusion above is true, but only the argument in the example proves it.
Let be rational and irrational. Prove that is irrational.
Show the answerHide the answer
Suppose with rational. Then , a difference of two rationals, which is rational (). That contradicts irrational.
Choosing a Method
For "if then ": a direct proof assumes and reaches ; a proof by contrapositive assumes not- and reaches not-; a proof by contradiction assumes AND not- and reaches any impossibility. Contradiction assumes the most, so it is the most permissive — and the least informative.
A practical rule: look at the conclusion. If is a positive, computable property ("is even", "divides", "equals"), try direct first. If is a negative ("is not", "is irrational", "no solution") or an "or", its negation is positive and concrete — try the contrapositive. If you need both and not- at once, or the negation hands you an extreme object (a largest prime, a smallest counterexample), use contradiction.
Claim: if is odd, then is odd.
Direct. , an odd number minus an even one, so odd.
Contrapositive. If then is even.
Contradiction. Suppose is odd and is even. Then is even — impossible.
The third is the second with extra words; when a contradiction proof never uses until the last line, rewrite it as a contrapositive.
Claim: there is no smallest positive rational number. Suppose were one. Then is rational, positive, and smaller than . Contradiction. The negation handed us a specific object, the supposed smallest one, and we broke it by halving; neither a direct proof nor a contrapositive has anything to start from.
Negating incorrectly. The negation of " is odd and prime" is " is even OR is not prime", not " is even and not prime". A contradiction proof built on the wrong negation assumes too much, and its "contradiction" proves nothing.
Prove: if for real numbers , then or . Which method did you choose, and why?
Show the answerHide the answer
Contrapositive: if and , then — add the two inequalities. The conclusion was an "or", so its negation is an "and" of two usable inequalities, which is exactly what the contrapositive needs.
Why It Works
An implication is false in exactly one situation: true, false. The contrapositive is false in exactly one situation: "not " true and "not " false — that is, false and true. It is the same situation. Two statements that fail in exactly the same cases are true in exactly the same cases, so they are equivalent, and proving either one proves the other.
Every statement is true or false, and none is both. If assuming "not " leads, by valid steps, to a statement that is both true and false — " is in lowest terms, and are both even" — then "not " cannot be true, because valid steps from a true statement never reach a false one. So is true. The whole method rests on that one fact about valid reasoning, which is why every step after the assumption must be justified as carefully as in a direct proof.
The same row-by-row check shows why the converse is NOT equivalent: fails when is true and false, a different row from the one where fails. So one can be true while the other is false, as with "if then ".