Proof by Cases and Existence Proofs

Moving the point (x,y)(x, y) shades its quadrant and unfolds that case's computation of ∣xy∣=∣x∣⋅∣y∣|xy| = |x|\cdot|y| — the four cases (and the axes) cover the whole plane. And from c=22c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} two branches fork and rejoin at "irrational a,ba, b exist with aba^b rational" without ever revealing which branch is true — the flavor of non-constructive existence.

∣xy∣=∣x∣⋅∣y∣|xy| = |x|\cdot|y|
c=22≈1.6325c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} \approx 1.6325
(22)2=22=2\big(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}\big)^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{2} = 2

Examples & Exercises

Prove completely by cases: ∣xy∣=∣x∣ ∣y∣|xy| = |x|\,|y| for all real x,yx, y. Cover all four sign cases (the zero case folds into case 1) and apply the definition of ∣t∣|t| (tt if t≥0t \ge 0, −t-t if t<0t < 0) directly in each case.

∣xy∣=∣x∣ ∣y∣∀x,y∈R|xy| = |x|\,|y| \qquad \forall x, y \in \mathbb{R}
x<0<y  ⇒  ∣xy∣=−(xy)=(−x)⋅y=∣x∣ ∣y∣x < 0 < y \;\Rightarrow\; |xy| = -(xy) = (-x) \cdot y = |x|\,|y|
(x,y)=(−2,3)(x, y) = (-2, 3): case 3 (x<0<yx < 0 < y) — ∣xy∣=∣−6∣=6=2⋅3=∣x∣ ∣y∣|xy| = |-6| = 6 = 2 \cdot 3 = |x|\,|y|.
Show proof
  1. Case 1: x≥0x \ge 0, y≥0y \ge 0. Then xy≥0xy \ge 0, so ∣xy∣=xy|xy| = xy. Also ∣x∣=x|x| = x and ∣y∣=y|y| = y, so ∣x∣ ∣y∣=xy|x|\,|y| = xy — both sides agree. (The case x=0x = 0 or y=0y = 0 folds in here: xy=0xy = 0 gives ∣xy∣=0=∣x∣ ∣y∣|xy| = 0 = |x|\,|y|.)
  2. Case 2: x>0x > 0, y<0y < 0. Then xy<0xy < 0, so ∣xy∣=−(xy)|xy| = -(xy). Since −xy=x⋅(−y)-xy = x \cdot (-y) and ∣x∣=x|x| = x, ∣y∣=−y|y| = -y, we get ∣x∣ ∣y∣=x⋅(−y)|x|\,|y| = x \cdot (-y) — both sides agree.
  3. Case 3: x<0x < 0, y>0y > 0. Then xy<0xy < 0, so ∣xy∣=−(xy)=(−x)⋅y|xy| = -(xy) = (-x) \cdot y. Since ∣x∣=−x|x| = -x and ∣y∣=y|y| = y, we get ∣x∣ ∣y∣=(−x)⋅y|x|\,|y| = (-x) \cdot y — both sides agree.
  4. Case 4: x<0x < 0, y<0y < 0. Then xy>0xy > 0, so ∣xy∣=xy|xy| = xy. Since ∣x∣=−x|x| = -x and ∣y∣=−y|y| = -y, we get ∣x∣ ∣y∣=(−x)⋅(−y)=xy|x|\,|y| = (-x) \cdot (-y) = xy — both sides agree. The four cases cover every (x,y)∈R2(x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 with nothing left out, so ∣xy∣=∣x∣ ∣y∣|xy| = |x|\,|y| holds for all real x,yx, y. ∎

Prove non-constructively: there exist irrational numbers a,ba, b with aba^b rational. Put c=22c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} and split into "if cc is rational / if cc is irrational". Rigorously justify the exponent step (22)2=22⋅2=22=2\big(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}\big)^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2} \cdot \sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{2} = 2 from the power law (uv)w=uvw(u^v)^w = u^{vw} (u>0u > 0), and explain why this proof is non-constructive.

c=22≈1.6325269194381528c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} \approx 1.6325269194381528
c∈Q⇒a=b=2;c∉Q⇒a=c, b=2, ab=2c \in \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow a = b = \sqrt{2}; \qquad c \notin \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow a = c,\ b = \sqrt{2},\ a^b = 2
The existence fork: from c=22≈1.6325c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} \approx 1.6325 two branches split and rejoin at "existence". c2≈2.0000000000c^{\sqrt{2}} \approx 2.0000000000.
Show proof
  1. That 2\sqrt{2} is irrational is known (see the 'sqrt2-irrational' scene problems). Put c=22c = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} — an irrational power of an irrational. Without asking whether cc is rational or irrational, split into two cases.
  2. Case 1: cc is rational. Put a=b=2a = b = \sqrt{2}: then a,ba, b are irrational and ab=22=ca^b = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} = c is rational — done.
  3. Case 2: cc is irrational. Put a=ca = c, b=2b = \sqrt{2}: then a,ba, b are irrational, and applying the power law (uv)w=uvw(u^v)^w = u^{vw} (valid for real u>0u > 0 and real v,wv, w) with u=2u = \sqrt{2}, v=w=2v = w = \sqrt{2} gives ab=(22)2=22⋅2=22=2a^b = \big(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}\big)^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2} \cdot \sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{2} = 2 — rational. Numerically too: c2≈2.0000000000c^{\sqrt{2}} \approx 2.0000000000.
  4. In either case irrational a,ba, b exist with aba^b rational, completing the proof. The proof is non-constructive: it never says which pair (a,b)(a, b) works — (2,2)(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2}) if case 1 holds, (c,2)(c, \sqrt{2}) if case 2 holds — because whether cc is rational or irrational is never decided anywhere in the proof. (The Gelfond–Schneider theorem does imply cc is in fact transcendental, hence irrational, so case 2 is the true one — but the proof above never uses that.) ∎

Prove by cases (nn even / nn odd): every integer square is congruent to 00 or 11 modulo 44. Use this to show that x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 has no integer solutions.

n=2k⇒n2=4k2≡0(mod4);n=2k+1⇒n2=4(k2+k)+1≡1(mod4)n = 2k \Rightarrow n^2 = 4k^2 \equiv 0 \pmod 4; \qquad n = 2k+1 \Rightarrow n^2 = 4(k^2+k)+1 \equiv 1 \pmod 4
x2+y2(mod4)∈{0,1,2}∌3x^2 + y^2 \pmod 4 \in \{0, 1, 2\} \not\ni 3
(x,y)=(2,2)(x, y) = (2, 2): case 1 (x,y≥0x, y \ge 0) — ∣xy∣=4=2⋅2=∣x∣ ∣y∣|xy| = 4 = 2 \cdot 2 = |x|\,|y|.
Show proof
  1. Case 1: nn is even, n=2kn = 2k (k∈Zk \in \mathbb{Z}). Then n2=4k2n^2 = 4k^2, so n2≡0(mod4)n^2 \equiv 0 \pmod 4.
  2. Case 2: nn is odd, n=2k+1n = 2k+1. Then n2=4k2+4k+1=4(k2+k)+1n^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 4(k^2 + k) + 1, so n2≡1(mod4)n^2 \equiv 1 \pmod 4. The two cases cover every integer with nothing left out, so every integer square is 00 or 11 modulo 44.
  3. Now suppose x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 had an integer solution (proof by contradiction). Since x2(mod4),y2(mod4)∈{0,1}x^2 \pmod 4, y^2 \pmod 4 \in \{0, 1\}, their sum x2+y2(mod4)x^2 + y^2 \pmod 4 lies in {0,1,2}\{0, 1, 2\}: 0+0=00+0 = 0, 0+1=10+1 = 1, 1+1=21+1 = 2. But 3≡3(mod4)3 \equiv 3 \pmod 4 is not in this set — a contradiction. Hence x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 has no integer solutions. ∎

1. Foundations of Proof