What are the main methods of mathematical proof beyond induction, and when is each appropriate for establishing or refuting a statement?
Methods of proof including direct proof, proof by contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and the use of a single counterexample to disprove a universal statement, together with the language of quantifiers and implication
A focused answer to the VCE Specialist Mathematics Unit 3 key-knowledge point on methods of proof. Direct proof, contrapositive, proof by contradiction, disproof by counterexample, and the logic of quantifiers and implication, with a verified worked proof.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
VCAA wants you to prove and disprove mathematical statements using the main methods: direct proof, proof by contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and disproof by a single counterexample. You also need the logical language of implication and quantifiers so you know exactly what a statement claims and what would establish or refute it.
Implication and quantifiers
Most statements to prove have the form "if then ", written . The converse and the contrapositive "not not " are different statements: the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original, but the converse is not.
A universal statement ("for all , ...") claims something about every case. An existential statement ("there exists such that ...") claims at least one case works. The way you prove or disprove each depends on this structure.
Direct proof
Assume the hypothesis and deduce by valid steps. For example, to prove "the sum of two even integers is even", write the integers as and , add to get , and note this is even. Direct proof is the default when the path from to is clear.
Proof by contrapositive
To prove , prove the equivalent "not not ". This helps when the negation of is easier to work with. For instance, "if is even then is even" is awkward directly, but the contrapositive "if is odd then is odd" follows at once: gives , which is odd.
Proof by contradiction
Assume the statement is false, then derive something impossible. The classic example is proving is irrational: assume in lowest terms, square to get , deduce is even, then is even, contradicting "lowest terms". Since the assumption leads to contradiction, the original statement holds.
Disproof by counterexample
A universal statement is false if even one case fails, so a single counterexample disproves it. To disprove "every prime is odd", give the example , which is prime and even. You do not need to explain why other primes are odd; one exception is enough.
Examples in context
Example 1. To disprove " is prime for all positive integers ", use , which gives a multiple of .
Example 2. "The product of two odd integers is odd" is a direct proof: .
Try this
Q1. State the contrapositive of "if it rains then the ground is wet". [1 mark]
- Cue. If the ground is not wet then it did not rain.
Q2. Disprove "every multiple of is odd". [1 mark]
- Cue. is a multiple of and is even.
Q3. Outline a proof by contradiction that there is no largest integer. [2 marks]
- Cue. Assume is largest; then is larger, a contradiction.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of VCAA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
2023 VCAA1 marksConsider the following statement. 'If my football team plays badly, then they are not training enough.' Which one of the following statements is the contrapositive of the statement above? A. If they are not training enough, then my football team plays badly. B. If my football team plays badly, then they need more training. C. If they are training enough, then my football team does not play badly. D. If my football team doesn't play badly, then they are training enough. E. If they are training enough, then my football team will most likely win.
Show worked answer →
The answer is C.
The contrapositive of "if P then Q" is "if not Q then not P". It is logically equivalent to the original statement.
Identify the parts: P is "my football team plays badly" and Q is "they are not training enough".
Negate each: not Q is "they are training enough", and not P is "my football team does not play badly".
Assemble "if not Q then not P": "If they are training enough, then my football team does not play badly." That is option C.
Common trap: option A is the converse and option D is the inverse, neither of which is logically equivalent to the original.
2025 VCAA1 marksA tiger is a type of cat. Consider the following statement. 'If I have a tiger, then I have a cat.' The contrapositive of this statement is A. if I do not have a tiger, then I do not have a cat. B. if I have a cat, then I have a tiger. C. if I do not have a cat, then I do not have a tiger. D. if I do not have a tiger, then I have a different type of cat.
Show worked answer →
The answer is C.
Write the statement as "if P then Q" with P = "I have a tiger" and Q = "I have a cat". The contrapositive is "if not Q then not P".
Negate each part: not Q is "I do not have a cat" and not P is "I do not have a tiger".
So the contrapositive is "if I do not have a cat, then I do not have a tiger", which is option C, and it is true.
Option A is the inverse and option B is the converse; neither is guaranteed true (a cat need not be a tiger).
2025 VCAA1 marksConsider the following statement. 'If f''(0) = 0, then the graph of f necessarily has a point of inflection at x = 0.' A counter-example that disproves this statement is when A. f(x) = arcsin(x). B. f(x) = x^2 / 12. C. f(x) = x^(1/3). D. f(x) = x^4.
Show worked answer →
The answer is D.
A counterexample must satisfy the hypothesis f''(0) = 0 yet fail the conclusion, that is, have no point of inflection at x = 0.
Test D, f(x) = x^4. Then f'(x) = 4x^3 and f''(x) = 12x^2, so f''(0) = 0, satisfying the hypothesis. But f''(x) = 12x^2 is greater than or equal to 0 for all x and does not change sign at x = 0, so the concavity does not change: x = 0 is a minimum, not a point of inflection. This disproves the statement.
Why the others fail: for A, arcsin(x) has f''(0) = 0 but the concavity does change there, so it is a genuine inflection (not a counterexample). For C, f''(0) does not exist. For B, f''(x) = 1/6, so f''(0) is not 0.