Quantifiers
A universal claim ("for all , ") needs a proof that works for an arbitrary and is refuted by ONE counterexample. An existential claim ("there exists with ") is proved by ONE example (or a non-constructive argument) and refuted only by a proof covering every . Negating swaps them: not-for-all is there-exists-not.
Most errors in reading a problem are quantifier errors. "Every even number greater than is a sum of two primes" is refuted by a single even number that is not; it is proved only by an argument for all of them — which is why it is still open. "There is a prime between and " is proved by showing one exists for each ; it is not refuted by ": is prime, but so what". Underline the quantifiers before you start.
"For every integer there is an integer with " is true: given , take (the may depend on ). "There is an integer such that for every integer , " is false: whatever is proposed, the choice breaks it. The same words in a different order make a different claim, and the second one says that a largest integer exists.
Claim: is prime for every natural number . It is prime for . At : . False. One case suffices; forty successes did not.
Claim: for every there are consecutive composite numbers. Proof: are consecutive numbers, and is divisible by for each from to (both terms are), while being larger than .
Write the negation of: "for every there exists such that for all , ."
Show the answerHide the answer
"There exists such that for every there is some with ." (Each quantifier flips; the inner inequality negates.)
Finding Counterexamples
To refute "for all , if then ", produce one with true and false. Look first at the smallest cases, the boundary cases (, , negatives, equal values), and at values that make an expression factor.
A counterexample is a complete disproof; nothing else needs to be written once it is checked. The search, though, is not random. Formulas that "always give primes" fail where the formula becomes a product; claims about all real numbers fail at or at negatives; patterns in small cases fail as soon as a new phenomenon appears that the small cases were too small to show.
Claim: the sum of two irrational numbers is irrational. Counterexample: and are both irrational, and their sum is , which is rational. The boundary case — numbers that cancel — was the place to look.
Claim: if is prime, then is prime. The small cases agree: give , all prime. But gives . False. Four confirmations were a reason to look harder, not a proof.
Put points on a circle in general position and join every pair; count the regions inside. For the counts are — surely ? For there are . The correct count, , agrees with up to and then falls behind. Five cases fitted a false pattern.
Offering an object that does not satisfy the hypothesis. To refute "if is prime then is odd", the number is useless — it is odd and not prime, so the claim says nothing about it. The counterexample is .
Claim: is prime for every positive integer . Find a counterexample, and explain where to look for it.
Show the answerHide the answer
give , all prime. At every term is a multiple of : . Look where the variable equals the constant term, because then the constant can be factored out.
Uniqueness and "If and Only If"
To prove uniqueness: suppose and both have the property, and show . To prove " if and only if ": prove and separately (or write a chain of reversible steps and SAY they are reversible).
"Exactly one" is two claims: at least one (existence) and at most one (uniqueness). They are proved by different methods, and a proof that does only one has proved only one. The same holds for "if and only if": it is two implications, and the two directions often need different ideas.
Claim: has exactly one real solution. Existence: works, since . Uniqueness: if and , then , so .
In any group, the identity is unique: if and are both identities, then (the first equality because is an identity, the second because is).
An integer is divisible by iff its last two digits form a number divisible by . Write with . Since , iff — one line, both directions, because "" is a genuine equivalence.
Proving only one direction of an iff, or proving existence and calling it uniqueness. "There is a solution" and "there is exactly one solution" are different theorems.
Prove: an integer is odd if and only if is odd.
Show the answerHide the answer
() gives , odd. () Contrapositive: if is even, , then is even.
Existence Without Construction
A constructive existence proof exhibits the object. A non-constructive proof shows the object must exist — by pigeonhole, by contradiction, or by cases one of which must hold — without saying which it is. Both are complete proofs.
Constructive proofs are more informative, and when a construction is available it is usually the better proof. But some existence facts have no reasonable construction, and some have one far harder than the non-constructive argument. What a non-constructive proof must not do is claim more than it shows: it proves "at least one of these works", not which.
If are rational, then is rational (a sum of rationals divided by ) and lies strictly between them, since . Constructive: the number is named.
At a party of people, two have the same number of friends at the party. Each count is one of . But and cannot both occur: someone friends with everyone rules out someone friends with no one. So the counts take at most values, and two coincide. We know two such people exist; the proof does not say who.
There exist irrational with rational. Consider . If it is rational, take . If it is irrational, take and : then . One of the two cases holds, so such exist.
Reading more into a non-constructive proof than it gives. The last argument does not show that is irrational (it is, but proving that takes a deep theorem); it shows only that one of the two pairs works.
Prove that between any two rational numbers there is an irrational number.
Show the answerHide the answer
Take . Since , . If were rational, then would be a quotient of non-zero rationals, hence rational — false. So is irrational.
Putting It Together
Claim: every positive integer can be written as with and odd, in exactly one way. Existence: divide by as long as the result is even; this stops, because the quotients are positive integers that keep decreasing. If it stops after divisions at the odd number , then . Uniqueness: suppose with odd and, say, . Dividing by gives , which is even — contradiction. So , and then .
"The positive solution of is unique: if and then , so ." The step is false in general ( and ); it holds here only because both are assumed POSITIVE, and the proof must say so. Without that word the same argument would "prove" has one real solution.
Prove that there is exactly one prime such that , and are all prime.
Show the answerHide the answer
Existence: gives . Uniqueness: , , leave remainders , , (mod ), which are three different remainders, so one of the three numbers is divisible by . A prime divisible by is itself. gives and gives , neither prime, so .