Direct proof and proof by cases
1.[1p] How should a direct proof of "for every integer , if is odd then is odd" begin?
How should a direct proof of "for every integer , if is odd then is odd" begin?
2.[2p] Which of these statements are true?
Which of these statements are true?
Select all that apply
3.[2p] Put the lines of this proof that if and then in order.
Put the lines of this proof that if and then in order.
By definition, and for some integers and .
Let , and be integers with and .
Substituting, .
Since and are integers, so is .
So is times an integer, and by definition .
Show the answer
a, b, c, d, e
4.[1p] A proof of that treats only the case and the case is complete.
A proof of that treats only the case and the case is complete.
5.[2p] The proof that every odd square is one more than a multiple of writes and gets . What finishes it?
The proof that every odd square is one more than a multiple of writes and gets . What finishes it?
6.[3p] Match each claim to the method its proof in the lesson used.
Match each claim to the method its proof in the lesson used.
If and then
is even for every integer
for all reals
For every there are consecutive non-primes
Some irrational and have rational
cases on signs
a non-constructive existence proof
a constructive existence proof
a direct proof from the definition
cases on parity
Show the answer
If and then : a direct proof from the definition is even for every integer : cases on parity for all reals: cases on signs For every there are consecutive non-primes: a constructive existence proof Some irrational and have rational: a non-constructive existence proof
7.[3p] The proof that some irrational and give rational considers . Which of these are true of it?
The proof that some irrational and give rational considers . Which of these are true of it?
Select all that apply
8.[2p] The constructive proof takes and the numbers to . For , which run of non-primes does it produce?
The constructive proof takes and the numbers to . For , which run of non-primes does it produce?
9.[2p] Why does a direct proof of "if is even then is even" stall?
Why does a direct proof of "if is even then is even" stall?