Existence, Uniqueness and Counterexamples

Study Sheet

Existence, Uniqueness and Counterexamples

The four kinds of claims and what each needs

Quantifiers

Concept
"For all" and "there exists"

A universal claim ("for all xx, P(x)P(x)") needs a proof that works for an arbitrary xx and is refuted by ONE counterexample. An existential claim ("there exists xx with P(x)P(x)") is proved by ONE example (or a non-constructive argument) and refuted only by a proof covering every xx. Negating swaps them: not-for-all is there-exists-not.

Most errors in reading a problem are quantifier errors. "Every even number greater than 22 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 nn and 2n2n" is proved by showing one exists for each nn; it is not refuted by "n=5n = 5: 77 is prime, but so what". Underline the quantifiers before you start.

Example
The order of quantifiers

"For every integer xx there is an integer yy with y>xy > x" is true: given xx, take y=x+1y = x + 1 (the yy may depend on xx). "There is an integer yy such that for every integer xx, y>xy > x" is false: whatever yy is proposed, the choice x=yx = y breaks it. The same words in a different order make a different claim, and the second one says that a largest integer exists.

Example
One counterexample kills a universal claim

Claim: n2+n+41n^2 + n + 41 is prime for every natural number nn. It is prime for n=0,1,…,39n = 0, 1, \ldots, 39. At n=40n = 40: 402+40+41=40⋅41+41=41240^2 + 40 + 41 = 40\cdot41 + 41 = 41^2. False. One case suffices; forty successes did not.

Example
Existence by construction

Claim: for every nn there are nn consecutive composite numbers. Proof: (n+1)!+2,(n+1)!+3,…,(n+1)!+(n+1)(n + 1)! + 2, (n + 1)! + 3, \ldots, (n + 1)! + (n + 1) are nn consecutive numbers, and (n+1)!+j(n + 1)! + j is divisible by jj for each jj from 22 to n+1n + 1 (both terms are), while being larger than jj. ■\blacksquare

Try it
Try it: negate

Write the negation of: "for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there exists NN such that for all n>Nn > N, ∣an∣<ε|a_n| < \varepsilon."

Show the answer

"There exists ε>0\varepsilon > 0 such that for every NN there is some n>Nn > N with ∣an∣≥ε|a_n| \ge \varepsilon." (Each quantifier flips; the inner inequality negates.)

Finding Counterexamples

Concept
One case, chosen well

To refute "for all xx, if P(x)P(x) then Q(x)Q(x)", produce one xx with P(x)P(x) true and Q(x)Q(x) false. Look first at the smallest cases, the boundary cases (00, 11, 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 00 or at negatives; patterns in small cases fail as soon as a new phenomenon appears that the small cases were too small to show.

Example
Irrational plus irrational

Claim: the sum of two irrational numbers is irrational. Counterexample: 2\sqrt2 and −2-\sqrt2 are both irrational, and their sum is 00, which is rational. The boundary case — numbers that cancel — was the place to look.

Example
Primes in, primes out?

Claim: if pp is prime, then 2p−12^p - 1 is prime. The small cases agree: p=2,3,5,7p = 2, 3, 5, 7 give 3,7,31,1273, 7, 31, 127, all prime. But p=11p = 11 gives 211−1=2047=23⋅892^{11} - 1 = 2047 = 23\cdot89. False. Four confirmations were a reason to look harder, not a proof.

Example
A pattern that breaks
5 points: 16 regions6 points: 31 regions
Five points: 16=2416 = 2^4 regions. Six points: 3131, not 25=322^5 = 32.

Put nn points on a circle in general position and join every pair; count the regions inside. For n=1,2,3,4,5n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 the counts are 1,2,4,8,161, 2, 4, 8, 16 — surely 2n−12^{n-1}? For n=6n = 6 there are 3131. The correct count, (n4)+(n2)+1\binom n4 + \binom n2 + 1, agrees with 2n−12^{n-1} up to n=5n = 5 and then falls behind. Five cases fitted a false pattern.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Offering an object that does not satisfy the hypothesis. To refute "if nn is prime then nn is odd", the number 99 is useless — it is odd and not prime, so the claim says nothing about it. The counterexample is 22.

Try it
Try it: a prime-making formula

Claim: n2−n+11n^2 - n + 11 is prime for every positive integer nn. Find a counterexample, and explain where to look for it.

Show the answer

n=1,…,10n = 1, \ldots, 10 give 11,13,17,23,31,41,53,67,83,10111, 13, 17, 23, 31, 41, 53, 67, 83, 101, all prime. At n=11n = 11 every term is a multiple of 1111: 121−11+11=121=112121 - 11 + 11 = 121 = 11^2. Look where the variable equals the constant term, because then the constant can be factored out.

Uniqueness and "If and Only If"

Concept
Two halves each

To prove uniqueness: suppose xx and yy both have the property, and show x=yx = y. To prove "PP if and only if QQ": prove P⇒QP \Rightarrow Q and Q⇒PQ \Rightarrow P 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.

Example
A unique solution

Claim: 3x−7=113x - 7 = 11 has exactly one real solution. Existence: x=6x = 6 works, since 18−7=1118 - 7 = 11. Uniqueness: if 3x−7=113x - 7 = 11 and 3y−7=113y - 7 = 11, then 3x=3y3x = 3y, so x=yx = y. ■\blacksquare

Example
Unique identity

In any group, the identity is unique: if ee and e′e' are both identities, then e=ee′=e′e = ee' = e' (the first equality because e′e' is an identity, the second because ee is). ■\blacksquare

Example
Iff

An integer is divisible by 44 iff its last two digits form a number divisible by 44. Write n=100a+bn = 100a + b with 0≤b<1000 \le b < 100. Since 4∣100a4 \mid 100a, 4∣n4 \mid n iff 4∣b4 \mid b — one line, both directions, because "4∣100a+b  ⟺  4∣b4 \mid 100a + b \iff 4 \mid b" is a genuine equivalence. ■\blacksquare

Side note
Where it goes wrong

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.

Try it
Try it: iff

Prove: an integer nn is odd if and only if n2n^2 is odd.

Show the answer

(⇒\Rightarrow) n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 gives n2=2(2k2+2k)+1n^2 = 2(2k^2 + 2k) + 1, odd. (⇐\Leftarrow) Contrapositive: if nn is even, n=2kn = 2k, then n2=2(2k2)n^2 = 2(2k^2) is even. ■\blacksquare

Existence Without Construction

Concept
Proving something exists without pointing at it

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.

Example
A rational between two rationals

If a<ba < b are rational, then a+b2\dfrac{a + b}{2} is rational (a sum of rationals divided by 22) and lies strictly between them, since a=a+a2<a+b2<b+b2=ba = \dfrac{a + a}{2} < \dfrac{a + b}{2} < \dfrac{b + b}{2} = b. Constructive: the number is named.

Example
Two guests with the same number of friends

At a party of n≥2n \ge 2 people, two have the same number of friends at the party. Each count is one of 0,1,…,n−10, 1, \ldots, n - 1. But 00 and n−1n - 1 cannot both occur: someone friends with everyone rules out someone friends with no one. So the nn counts take at most n−1n - 1 values, and two coincide. ■\blacksquare We know two such people exist; the proof does not say who.

Example
An irrational power that is rational

There exist irrational a,ba, b with aba^b rational. Consider 22\sqrt2^{\sqrt2}. If it is rational, take a=b=2a = b = \sqrt2. If it is irrational, take a=22a = \sqrt2^{\sqrt2} and b=2b = \sqrt2: then ab=22⋅2=2 2=2a^b = \sqrt2^{\sqrt2\cdot\sqrt2} = \sqrt2^{\,2} = 2. One of the two cases holds, so such a,ba, b exist. ■\blacksquare

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Reading more into a non-constructive proof than it gives. The last argument does not show that 22\sqrt2^{\sqrt2} is irrational (it is, but proving that takes a deep theorem); it shows only that one of the two pairs works.

Try it
Try it: an irrational in between

Prove that between any two rational numbers a<ba < b there is an irrational number.

Show the answer

Take x=a+b−a2x = a + \dfrac{b - a}{\sqrt2}. Since 0<12<10 < \dfrac{1}{\sqrt2} < 1, a<x<ba < x < b. If xx were rational, then 2=b−ax−a\sqrt2 = \dfrac{b - a}{x - a} would be a quotient of non-zero rationals, hence rational — false. So xx is irrational. ■\blacksquare

Putting It Together

Example
Existence and uniqueness in one proof

Claim: every positive integer nn can be written as n=2amn = 2^a m with a≥0a \ge 0 and mm odd, in exactly one way. Existence: divide nn by 22 as long as the result is even; this stops, because the quotients are positive integers that keep decreasing. If it stops after aa divisions at the odd number mm, then n=2amn = 2^a m. Uniqueness: suppose 2am=2bm′2^a m = 2^b m' with m,m′m, m' odd and, say, a<ba < b. Dividing by 2a2^a gives m=2b−am′m = 2^{b-a}m', which is even — contradiction. So a=ba = b, and then m=m′m = m'. ■\blacksquare

Side note
A flawed uniqueness proof

"The positive solution of x2=4x^2 = 4 is unique: if x2=4x^2 = 4 and y2=4y^2 = 4 then x2=y2x^2 = y^2, so x=yx = y." The step x2=y2⇒x=yx^2 = y^2 \Rightarrow x = y is false in general (22 and −2-2); it holds here only because both are assumed POSITIVE, and the proof must say so. Without that word the same argument would "prove" x2=4x^2 = 4 has one real solution.

Try it
Try it: exactly one prime triple

Prove that there is exactly one prime pp such that pp, p+2p + 2 and p+4p + 4 are all prime.

Show the answer

Existence: p=3p = 3 gives 3,5,73, 5, 7. Uniqueness: pp, p+2p + 2, p+4p + 4 leave remainders pp, p+2p + 2, p+1p + 1 (mod 33), which are three different remainders, so one of the three numbers is divisible by 33. A prime divisible by 33 is 33 itself. p+2=3p + 2 = 3 gives p=1p = 1 and p+4=3p + 4 = 3 gives p=−1p = -1, neither prime, so p=3p = 3. ■\blacksquare