ITM 153

Discrete Structure

TU BITM · Semester 2 · BITM curriculum and programme regulation

Requirement
required
Credits
3
Study Guide
10 units available

Chapter notes

Authoritative study guide across 10 syllabus units

Open a unit to read its study notes.

Unit 1: Logic and Proofs· 10 LHs· ~12 marks

Part 1: Core Concepts (2 Marks)

  • Proposition: A declarative statement that is either definitively True (TT) or False (FF), but not both simultaneously.
  • Tautology vs. Contradiction: A tautology is a compound proposition that evaluates to True for all possible truth values of its propositional variables (e.g., p∨¬pp \lor \neg p); a contradiction evaluates to False in every circumstance (p∧¬pp \land \neg p).
  • Modus Ponens: A foundational rule of inference stating: If premise pp is true and implication p→qp \to q is true, then conclusion qq must be true:
    p,p→q  ⟹  qp, \quad p \to q \implies q
  • Proof by Contradiction (Reductio ad Absurdum): A proof method where to prove proposition pp, one assumes its negation ¬p\neg p is true and derives a logical contradiction (r∧¬rr \land \neg r), proving pp must be true.

Part 2: Structural Frameworks (10 Marks)

Rules of Inference Matrix for Mathematical Proofs

Rule of Inference Tautological Formulation Name of Rule
p, p -> q [p and (p -> q)] -> q Modus Ponens
~q, p -> q [~q and (p -> q)] -> ~p Modus Tollens
p -> q, q -> r [(p -> q) and (q -> r)] -> (p ->r) Hypothetical Syllogism
p or q, ~p [(p or q) and ~p] -> q Disjunctive Syllogism
p p -> (p or q) Addition
p and q (p and q) -> p Simplification
p or q, ~p or r [(p or q) and (~p or r)] -> (q or) Resolution

Part 3: Distinction Tables

Basis of Comparison Direct Proof Proof by Contraposition
Premise Assumption Assume pp is directly True Assume ¬q\neg q (negation of conclusion) is True
Derivation Target Direct deductive steps leading to qq Deductive steps leading to ¬p\neg p
Equivalence Basis Follows natural implication p→qp \to q Relies on logical equivalence p→q≡¬q→¬pp \to q \equiv \neg q \to \neg p
Best Applied When Hypothesis pp contains simple algebraic structure Negation ¬q\neg q reveals clear structural factors

Part 4: Worked Problems & Exam Traps

Worked Proof: Irrationality of 2\sqrt{2} by Contradiction

  1. Assume the contrary: Suppose 2\sqrt{2} is rational.
    2=ab(a,b∈Z,b≠0,gcd⁡(a,b)=1)\sqrt{2} = \frac{a}{b} \quad (a, b \in \mathbb{Z}, b \ne 0, \gcd(a, b) = 1)
  2. Square both sides:
    2=a2b2  ⟹  a2=2b22 = \frac{a^2}{b^2} \implies a^2 = 2b^2
  3. Since a2a^2 is even, aa must be even. Let a=2ka = 2k.
    (2k)2=2b2  ⟹  4k2=2b2  ⟹  b2=2k2(2k)^2 = 2b^2 \implies 4k^2 = 2b^2 \implies b^2 = 2k^2
  4. Since b2b^2 is even, bb must also be even.
  5. Contradiction: Both aa and bb share a common factor of 2, contradicting gcd⁡(a,b)=1\gcd(a, b) = 1.
    ∴2 is irrational.\therefore \sqrt{2} \text{ is irrational.}

TU Exam Trap: Do not confuse the converse (q→pq \to p) or inverse (¬p→¬q\neg p \to \neg q) with the contrapositive (¬q→¬p\neg q \to \neg p). Only the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original conditional statement p→qp \to q.