The Shape of a Direct Proof
To prove "if then " directly: assume ; rewrite using definitions; manipulate until appears in the form of its definition; state . Every "if–then" statement is proved this way unless there is a reason to do otherwise.
The hardest part of a direct proof is usually the middle — the algebra or the counting — and the most common failure is at the ends: forgetting to state what is assumed, or stopping one line before the conclusion has actually been reached in the required form. Ending a proof with "" is not the same as ending with "which is even".
Prove: if and then . Proof. Since , for some integer ; since , for some integer . Then , and is an integer, so .
Prove: for real , . Proof. because squares are non-negative. Expanding, , so . (Written forwards. It was found backwards: start from the goal, subtract, recognize a square.)
Prove: for real , . Proof. Because , the numbers and are real. Apply the previous inequality to them: , that is, . Divide by .
The hypothesis is used exactly once, to make the square roots real; without it the claim is not even meaningful. Notice also what the proof does not do: it does not redo the algebra of the previous example. A proved result is a tool, and the substitution , is how you pick it up. Equality holds exactly when , that is, when .
Scratch work may start from the conclusion and work toward something known. The written proof must run the other way — from known to conclusion — or it proves nothing.
Starting the write-up with the statement to be proved and manipulating it. ", so , which is true" assumes what it wants to prove; the steps happen to be reversible here, but the proof must SAY so, or be written in the right direction. The same pattern "proves" : square both sides to get , which is true.
Prove that the sum of any three consecutive integers is divisible by .
Show the answerHide the answer
Let the integers be . Their sum is , and is an integer, so the sum is divisible by .
Cases
When the hypothesis splits naturally (even/odd, positive/negative/zero, ), prove the claim in each case. The cases must be exhaustive — every possibility covered — and the conclusion must be the SAME in every case.
Cases work because of a simple rule of logic: if " or " is true, and leads to , and leads to , then is true. The art is choosing the split. Split on the feature the conclusion depends on — for squares, the remainder mod or mod ; for absolute values, the sign — and each case becomes a direct proof with one extra fact to use.
Case 1: . Then , even. Case 2: . Then , even. Both cases give even; every integer is in one of them.
Claim: every perfect square leaves remainder or on division by . Case : , remainder . Case : , remainder . Consequence: a sum of two squares leaves remainder , or , never . So , which leaves remainder , is not a sum of two squares — proved without trying a single pair.
Claim: if , then and . First, cases on mod : if then leaves remainder ; if then leaves remainder . So each of leaves remainder or , and their sum leaves , or . It leaves only when both leave , which happens only when and .
Cases that miss something (" positive or negative" forgets zero), or proving a different conclusion in each case and calling it done. A split into " and " is also incomplete: it forgets .
Prove that for every integer , is divisible by .
Show the answerHide the answer
Write . Among three consecutive integers one is a multiple of (cases : the multiple is , , respectively). So the product is divisible by .
Divisibility Arguments
If and , then for all integers and . Proof: and , so .
This one line is behind most divisibility proofs. To show that two numbers share no common factor bigger than , combine them — multiply each by a well-chosen integer and subtract — until what is left is . Any common divisor divides the combination, so it divides . The only creative step is choosing the multipliers, and they are usually the coefficients of swapped.
Prove: if and , then . Proof. Write and . Then , a multiple of .
Prove: for every positive integer . Proof. Let be a positive common divisor. By the combination rule divides , so .
Prove: for every positive integer , the fraction is in lowest terms. Proof. Let divide both and . Then divides . So , and the numerator and denominator have no common factor.
The multipliers and are the coefficients of , swapped, so that the terms cancel. That is the whole trick; what is left is a constant, and if the constant is the fraction never simplifies. If it had come out as , the conclusion would only be that any common factor divides , and you would check parity separately.
Running the rule backwards. ", so and " is false: , yet . Divisibility of a combination says nothing about the pieces unless you also know it for all but one of them.
Prove that is in lowest terms for every positive integer .
Show the answerHide the answer
If divides and , it divides . So .
Putting It Together
Claim: the sum of two rational numbers is rational.
Broken 1. "Let and . Then , which is rational." Flaw: the same letters for both numbers, so this proves only that is rational.
Broken 2. "Let and . Then , which is rational." Flaw: the algebra is wrong — , not . A one-line number check exposes it.
Repair. "Let and with integers and . Then . The numerator and denominator are integers, and because neither factor is . So is rational. " The hypothesis is used, visibly, at the one place it is needed.
Claim: the difference of the squares of two consecutive odd numbers is divisible by . Proof. Let the numbers be and , with an integer. Then , which is divisible by . (Check: .)
Prove that for any integers and , if is even, then is divisible by .
Show the answerHide the answer
Suppose with an integer. Then is even too. So , divisible by .