Skip to content
Part IA Michaelmas, Lent Term

Examinable Proofs Reference

This document consolidates all proofs you should be able to reproduce under exam conditions, organised by topic.


Part I: Proofs

1. Irrationality of 2\sqrt{2}

Theorem: 2\sqrt{2} is irrational.

Proof:

Suppose for contradiction 2=pq\sqrt{2} = \frac{p}{q} where gcd⁡(p,q)=1\gcd(p, q) = 1.

Squaring: 2=p2q22 = \frac{p^2}{q^2}, so p2=2q2p^2 = 2q^2.

Thus p2p^2 is even, so pp is even. Write p=2kp = 2k.

Substituting: 4k2=2q24k^2 = 2q^2, so q2=2k2q^2 = 2k^2.

Thus q2q^2 is even, so qq is even.

But pp and qq both even contradicts gcd⁡(p,q)=1\gcd(p, q) = 1. □\square


2. Infinitude of Primes (Euclid)

Theorem: There are infinitely many primes.

Proof:

Suppose finitely many primes: p1,…,pnp_1, \ldots, p_n.

Let N=p1⋯pn+1N = p_1 \cdots p_n + 1.

Since N>1N > 1, NN has a prime divisor pp.

If p=pip = p_i for some ii, then p∣p1⋯pnp \mid p_1 \cdots p_n and p∣Np \mid N, so p∣(N−p1⋯pn)=1p \mid (N - p_1 \cdots p_n) = 1.

No prime divides 1. Contradiction.

Thus pp is not in our list. □\square


3. Fermat’s Little Theorem

Theorem: If pp is prime and p∤ap \nmid a, then ap−1≡1(modp)a^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{p}.

Proof:

Consider a,2a,…,(p−1)a(modp)a, 2a, \ldots, (p-1)a \pmod{p}.

Non-zeroness: Each ia≢0(modp)ia \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p} since p∤ap \nmid a and p∤ip \nmid i.

Distinctness: If ia≡ja(modp)ia \equiv ja \pmod{p}, then p∣(i−j)ap \mid (i-j)a. By Euclid’s lemma, p∣(i−j)p \mid (i-j). But ∣i−j∣<p|i-j| < p, so i=ji = j.

Thus {a,2a,…,(p−1)a}\{a, 2a, \ldots, (p-1)a\} = {1,2,…,p−1}(modp)\{1, 2, \ldots, p-1\} \pmod{p}.

Taking products: ap−1(p−1)!≡(p−1)!(modp)a^{p-1}(p-1)! \equiv (p-1)! \pmod{p}.

Since gcd⁡((p−1)!,p)=1\gcd((p-1)!, p) = 1, cancel: ap−1≡1(modp)a^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{p}. □\square


Part II: Sets, Relations, Functions

4. Relational Composition is Associative

Theorem: (T∘S)∘R=T∘(S∘R)(T \circ S) \circ R = T \circ (S \circ R).

Proof:

a((T∘S)∘R)d  ⟺  ∃c.aRc∧c(T∘S)da((T \circ S) \circ R)d \iff \exists c. aRc \land c(T \circ S)d   ⟺  ∃c,b.aRc∧cSb∧bTd\iff \exists c, b. aRc \land cSb \land bTd

a(T∘(S∘R))d  ⟺  ∃b.a(S∘R)b∧bTda(T \circ (S \circ R))d \iff \exists b. a(S \circ R)b \land bTd   ⟺  ∃b,c.aRc∧cSb∧bTd\iff \exists b, c. aRc \land cSb \land bTd

Both equivalent to ∃b,c.aRc∧cSb∧bTd\exists b, c. aRc \land cSb \land bTd. □\square


5. Identity Laws for Composition

Theorem: idB∘R=R=R∘idA\text{id}_B \circ R = R = R \circ \text{id}_A.

Proof:

a(idB∘R)b  ⟺  ∃c.aRc∧c idB b  ⟺  ∃c.aRc∧c=b  ⟺  aRba(\text{id}_B \circ R)b \iff \exists c. aRc \land c\,\text{id}_B\,b \iff \exists c. aRc \land c = b \iff aRb.

a(R∘idA)b  ⟺  ∃c.a idA c∧cRb  ⟺  ∃c.a=c∧cRb  ⟺  aRba(R \circ \text{id}_A)b \iff \exists c. a\,\text{id}_A\,c \land cRb \iff \exists c. a = c \land cRb \iff aRb. □\square


6. Reflexive-Transitive Closure is Smallest Preorder

Theorem: R∘∗R^{\circ *} is the smallest preorder containing RR.

Proof:

R∘∗R^{\circ *} is a preorder: reflexive (contains id\text{id}), transitive (path concatenation).

R⊆R∘∗R \subseteq R^{\circ *}: Clear since R∘1=RR^{\circ 1} = R.

Smallest: Let PP be a preorder with R⊆PR \subseteq P. By induction on nn: R∘n⊆PR^{\circ n} \subseteq P.

  • Base: id⊆P\text{id} \subseteq P by reflexivity.
  • Step: R∘(n+1)=R∘R∘n⊆P∘P⊆PR^{\circ(n+1)} = R \circ R^{\circ n} \subseteq P \circ P \subseteq P by transitivity.

Thus R∘∗=⋃nR∘n⊆PR^{\circ *} = \bigcup_n R^{\circ n} \subseteq P. □\square


7. Equivalence Relations ↔\leftrightarrow Partitions Bijection

Theorem: Φ:EqRel(A)→Part(A)\Phi : \text{EqRel}(A) \to \text{Part}(A) by Φ(E)={[a]E:a∈A}\Phi(E) = \{[a]_E : a \in A\} is a bijection.

Proof:

Well-defined: Equivalence classes partition AA (non-empty by reflexivity, disjoint by transitivity/symmetry, cover by definition).

Inverse: Given partition PP, define E={(a,b):∃B∈P.a,b∈B}E = \{(a, b) : \exists B \in P. a, b \in B\}.

This is an equivalence relation (reflexive: aa in unique block; symmetric: trivial; transitive: blocks disjoint).

Inverses: Check Φ−1(Φ(E))=E\Phi^{-1}(\Phi(E)) = E (elements in same class iff equivalent) and Φ(Φ−1(P))=P\Phi(\Phi^{-1}(P)) = P (blocks are the equivalence classes). □\square


8. Isomorphisms are Bijective

Theorem: f:A→Bf : A \to B is an isomorphism iff ff is bijective.

Proof:

(⇒)(\Rightarrow): If f−1f^{-1} exists: injective (if f(a1)=f(a2)f(a_1) = f(a_2), then a1=f−1(f(a1))=f−1(f(a2))=a2a_1 = f^{-1}(f(a_1)) = f^{-1}(f(a_2)) = a_2); surjective (for bb, b=f(f−1(b))b = f(f^{-1}(b))).

(⇐)(\Leftarrow): Define f−1(b)=f^{-1}(b) = the unique aa with f(a)=bf(a) = b. Verify f−1∘f=idf^{-1} \circ f = \text{id} and f∘f−1=idf \circ f^{-1} = \text{id}. □\square


9. Sections and Idempotents

Theorem: (s,r)(s, r) section-retraction pair ↔\leftrightarrow e=s∘re = s \circ r idempotent.

Proof:

(⇒)(\Rightarrow): e∘e=s∘r∘s∘r=s∘id∘r=s∘r=ee \circ e = s \circ r \circ s \circ r = s \circ \text{id} \circ r = s \circ r = e.

(⇐)(\Leftarrow): Given idempotent ee, let B=Im(e)B = \text{Im}(e). Define r(a)=e(a)r(a) = e(a), s(b)=bs(b) = b (inclusion). Then r(s(b))=e(b)=br(s(b)) = e(b) = b since b∈Im(e)b \in \text{Im}(e) means b=e(a)b = e(a) for some aa. □\square


10. Cantor’s Theorem

Theorem: No surjection A↠P(A)A \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{P}(A) exists.

Proof:

Suppose e:A↠P(A)e : A \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{P}(A). Define U={x∈A:x∉e(x)}U = \{x \in A : x \notin e(x)\}.

Since ee surjective, ∃a.e(a)=U\exists a. e(a) = U.

Is a∈Ua \in U?

  • If yes: a∈U⇒a∉e(a)=Ua \in U \Rightarrow a \notin e(a) = U. Contradiction.
  • If no: a∉U⇒a∈e(a)=Ua \notin U \Rightarrow a \in e(a) = U. Contradiction.

Thus no such ee exists. □\square


11. Well-Founded Induction

Theorem: If (∀y≺x.P(y))⇒P(x)(\forall y \prec x. P(y)) \Rightarrow P(x) for all xx, then ∀x.P(x)\forall x. P(x).

Proof:

Suppose S={x:¬P(x)}≠∅S = \{x : \neg P(x)\} \neq \emptyset.

By well-foundedness, SS has minimal element mm.

For all y≺my \prec m: y∉Sy \notin S, so P(y)P(y) holds.

By assumption, P(m)P(m) holds, contradicting m∈Sm \in S.

Thus S=∅S = \emptyset. □\square


Part III: Formal Languages and Automata

12. Rule Induction

Theorem: If SS is closed under all rules in RR, then XR⊆SX_R \subseteq S.

Proof:

Induction on derivation height.

Base: Axioms have height 1. Since SS closed under rules with no premises, axioms are in SS.

Step: Derivation of height n+1n+1 uses rule u1,…,ukv\frac{u_1, \ldots, u_k}{v} where each uiu_i derived by height ≤n\leq n.

By IH, each ui∈Su_i \in S. Since SS closed under the rule, v∈Sv \in S. □\square


13. Subset Construction Correctness

Theorem: L(P(M))=L(M)L(\mathcal{P}(M)) = L(M).

Proof:

Soundness (L(P(M))⊆L(M)L(\mathcal{P}(M)) \subseteq L(M)): DFA path s′→Sn∩F≠∅s' \to S_n \cap F \neq \emptyset. Build NFA path by tracing elements in each SiS_i back to NFA states. Some qf∈Sn∩Fq_f \in S_n \cap F reachable from ss.

Completeness (L(M)⊆L(P(M))L(M) \subseteq L(\mathcal{P}(M))): NFA path s⇒wqfs \Rightarrow_w q_f. Track reachable states SiS_i at each step. qf∈Snq_f \in S_n, so Sn∩F≠∅S_n \cap F \neq \emptyset. □\square


14. Kleene’s Theorem

Theorem: LL is regular iff L=L(R)L = L(R) for some regex RR.

Proof:

Regex ⇒\Rightarrow NFA: Inductive construction (Thompson) for ε\varepsilon, ∅\emptyset, symbols, union, concat, star. Each preserves language.

NFA ⇒\Rightarrow Regex: Region decomposition. Compute R(q,S,q′)R(q, S, q') for paths through regions. Eliminate all states: L(M)=⋃qf∈FR(s,Q,qf)L(M) = \bigcup_{q_f \in F} R(s, Q, q_f). □\square


15. Pumping Lemma

Theorem: For LL regular, ∃p.∀w∈L\exists p. \forall w \in L with ∣w∣≥p|w| \geq p: w=xyzw = xyz with ∣xy∣≤p|xy| \leq p, ∣y∣≥1|y| \geq 1, and ∀i.xyiz∈L\forall i. xy^iz \in L.

Proof:

Let DFA have nn states. Set p=np = n.

For ∣w∣≥n|w| \geq n: computation visits n+1n+1 states. By pigeonhole, some state repeated.

Let xx = prefix before loop, yy = loop, zz = suffix.

  • ∣xy∣≤n=p|xy| \leq n = p (loop within first nn states)
  • ∣y∣≥1|y| \geq 1 (loop non-trivial)
  • Can repeat or omit loop; stays accepting. □\square

Summary

These 15 proofs form the core of examinable material. Key strategies:

  1. Contradiction: Assume negation, derive 2\sqrt{2}, primes, Cantor
  2. Induction: Natural numbers, derivation height, state elimination
  3. Construction: Explicit bijections, automata constructions
  4. Unfolding definitions: Relational composition, closure properties