Skip to main content
NSWMaths Extension 2Syllabus dot point

How do rigorous logical arguments such as proof by contradiction and counterexample establish or refute mathematical statements?

Use the language of proof, prove results by contradiction and contrapositive, and disprove statements by counterexample

A focused answer to the HSC Maths Extension 2 dot point on the nature of proof. Logical language, implication and equivalence, proof by contradiction, the contrapositive and disproof by counterexample, with rigorous worked examples.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.76 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The language of proof
  3. Direct proof
  4. Proof by contradiction
  5. Proof by contrapositive
  6. Disproof by counterexample

What this dot point is asking

NESA wants you to write and read mathematical arguments with precision. You must use logical language correctly (implication, converse, contrapositive, equivalence, "for all", "there exists"), construct direct proofs, prove statements by contradiction and by the contrapositive, and disprove false statements with a single counterexample.

The language of proof

A statement is a sentence that is either true or false. An implication P  ⟹  QP \implies Q ("if PP then QQ") asserts that whenever PP holds, QQ holds. Here PP is the hypothesis and QQ the conclusion.

Three related statements matter:

  • Converse: Q  ⟹  PQ \implies P. The converse is not logically equivalent to the original.
  • Contrapositive: ¬Q  ⟹  ¬P\lnot Q \implies \lnot P. The contrapositive is logically equivalent to P  ⟹  QP \implies Q.
  • Negation: ¬(P  ⟹  Q)\lnot(P \implies Q), which is true exactly when PP is true and QQ is false.

If both P  ⟹  QP \implies Q and Q  ⟹  PQ \implies P hold, we write P  ⟺  QP \iff Q ("PP if and only if QQ"), and PP and QQ are equivalent. The quantifiers "for all" (∀\forall) and "there exists" (∃\exists) bind variables; negating ∀x P(x)\forall x\, P(x) gives ∃x ¬P(x)\exists x\, \lnot P(x).

Direct proof

A direct proof of P  ⟹  QP \implies Q assumes PP and deduces QQ through valid algebraic or logical steps. For example, to prove that the sum of two even integers is even: let a=2ma = 2m and b=2nb = 2n for integers m,nm, n. Then a+b=2m+2n=2(m+n)a + b = 2m + 2n = 2(m + n), which is a multiple of 22, hence even.

Proof by contradiction

To prove a statement SS by contradiction, assume ¬S\lnot S and derive a logical impossibility (a contradiction such as 1=01 = 0, or a number that is both even and odd). Since the assumption forces an impossibility, ¬S\lnot S is false, so SS is true.

The classic example is the irrationality of 2\sqrt{2}. Suppose, for contradiction, that 2\sqrt{2} is rational. Then 2=pq\sqrt{2} = \dfrac{p}{q} where p,qp, q are integers with no common factor (the fraction is in lowest terms) and q≠0q \neq 0. Squaring gives

2=p2q2⟹p2=2q2.2 = \frac{p^2}{q^2} \quad\Longrightarrow\quad p^2 = 2 q^2.

So p2p^2 is even, which forces pp to be even (if pp were odd, p2p^2 would be odd). Write p=2kp = 2k. Then p2=4k2=2q2p^2 = 4k^2 = 2q^2, so q2=2k2q^2 = 2k^2, meaning q2q^2 is even and hence qq is even. But then pp and qq share the factor 22, contradicting the assumption that pq\dfrac{p}{q} is in lowest terms. The assumption is impossible, so 2\sqrt{2} is irrational.

Proof by contrapositive

Because P  ⟹  QP \implies Q is equivalent to ¬Q  ⟹  ¬P\lnot Q \implies \lnot P, you may prove the contrapositive instead. This is useful when assuming ¬Q\lnot Q gives more concrete information than assuming PP.

For example, prove: if n2n^2 is odd then nn is odd. The contrapositive is: if nn is even then n2n^2 is even. Let n=2mn = 2m. Then n2=4m2=2(2m2)n^2 = 4m^2 = 2(2m^2), which is even. The contrapositive holds, so the original statement holds.

Disproof by counterexample

A statement of the form "for all xx, P(x)P(x)" is false if even one value violates it. To disprove it, supply a single explicit counterexample; you do not need a general argument.

For example, the claim "every odd number is prime" fails because 99 is odd but 9=3×39 = 3 \times 3 is composite. A single value settles it.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of NESA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

2023 HSC3 marksProve that sqrt(23) is irrational.
Show worked answer →

Use proof by contradiction.

Assume, for contradiction, that sqrt(23) is rational. Then sqrt(23) = p/q for integers p, q with q not 0, and we may take p/q in lowest terms (p and q coprime).

Squaring: 23 = p^2/q^2, so p^2 = 23 q^2.

Then 23 divides p^2. Since 23 is prime, 23 must divide p. Write p = 23m for some integer m.

Substitute: (23m)^2 = 23 q^2, so 529 m^2 = 23 q^2, giving q^2 = 23 m^2.

Then 23 divides q^2, and since 23 is prime, 23 divides q.

But now 23 divides both p and q, contradicting that they are coprime.

The assumption is false, so sqrt(23) is irrational.

Mark notes: 1 mark for setting up the contradiction with a coprime fraction, 1 mark for deducing 23 divides p (using that 23 is prime), 1 mark for the symmetric step on q and stating the contradiction.

2022 HSC3 marksProve that for all integers n with n >= 3, if 2^n - 1 is prime, then n cannot be even.
Show worked answer →

Prove the contrapositive: if n is even (and n >= 3, so n >= 4), then 2^n - 1 is not prime.

Suppose n is even, say n = 2m where m is an integer with m >= 2. Then

2^n - 1 = 2^(2m) - 1 = (2^m)^2 - 1 = (2^m - 1)(2^m + 1),

using the difference of two squares.

Both factors are integers greater than 1: since m >= 2, 2^m - 1 >= 3 and 2^m + 1 >= 5.

So 2^n - 1 is a product of two integers each greater than 1, hence composite, so it is not prime.

This proves the contrapositive, which is logically equivalent to the original statement: for n >= 3, if 2^n - 1 is prime then n cannot be even.

Mark notes: 1 mark for setting up the contrapositive with n = 2m, 1 mark for the factorisation (2^m - 1)(2^m + 1), 1 mark for showing both factors exceed 1 so the number is composite.

2024 HSC2 marksExplain why there is no integer n such that (n + 1)^41 - 79 n^40 = 2.
Show worked answer →

Argue using parity (whether numbers are odd or even), splitting into two cases.

Case 1: n is even. Then n + 1 is odd, so (n + 1)^41 is odd. Also 79 n^40 is even (it has the even factor n^40). So (n + 1)^41 - 79 n^40 = odd - even = odd. An odd number cannot equal 2.

Case 2: n is odd. Then n + 1 is even, so (n + 1)^41 is even. Also 79 n^40 is odd (79 is odd and n^40 is odd). So the expression = even - odd = odd, which again cannot equal 2.

In both cases (n + 1)^41 - 79 n^40 is odd, but 2 is even. Therefore no integer n satisfies the equation.

Mark notes: 1 mark for recognising a parity (odd/even) argument is needed, 1 mark for showing the expression is always odd and so cannot equal the even number 2.