Moving the point (x,y) shades its quadrant and unfolds that case's computation of ∣xy∣=∣x∣⋅∣y∣ — the four cases (and the axes) cover the whole plane. And from c=22 two branches fork and rejoin at "irrational a,b exist with ab rational" without ever revealing which branch is true — the flavor of non-constructive existence.
∣xy∣=∣x∣⋅∣y∣
c=22≈1.6325
(22)2=22=2
Examples & Exercises
Prove completely by cases: ∣xy∣=∣x∣∣y∣ for all real x,y. Cover all four sign cases (the zero case folds into case 1) and apply the definition of ∣t∣ (t if t≥0, −t if t<0) directly in each case.
∣xy∣=∣x∣∣y∣∀x,y∈R
x<0<y⇒∣xy∣=−(xy)=(−x)⋅y=∣x∣∣y∣
(x,y)=(−2,3): case 3 (x<0<y) — ∣xy∣=∣−6∣=6=2⋅3=∣x∣∣y∣.Show proof
Case 1: x≥0, y≥0. Then xy≥0, so ∣xy∣=xy. Also ∣x∣=x and ∣y∣=y, so ∣x∣∣y∣=xy — both sides agree. (The case x=0 or y=0 folds in here: xy=0 gives ∣xy∣=0=∣x∣∣y∣.)
Case 2: x>0, y<0. Then xy<0, so ∣xy∣=−(xy). Since −xy=x⋅(−y) and ∣x∣=x, ∣y∣=−y, we get ∣x∣∣y∣=x⋅(−y) — both sides agree.
Case 3: x<0, y>0. Then xy<0, so ∣xy∣=−(xy)=(−x)⋅y. Since ∣x∣=−x and ∣y∣=y, we get ∣x∣∣y∣=(−x)⋅y — both sides agree.
Case 4: x<0, y<0. Then xy>0, so ∣xy∣=xy. Since ∣x∣=−x and ∣y∣=−y, we get ∣x∣∣y∣=(−x)⋅(−y)=xy — both sides agree. The four cases cover every (x,y)∈R2 with nothing left out, so ∣xy∣=∣x∣∣y∣ holds for all real x,y. ∎
Prove non-constructively: there exist irrational numbers a,b with ab rational. Put c=22 and split into "if c is rational / if c is irrational". Rigorously justify the exponent step (22)2=22⋅2=22=2 from the power law (uv)w=uvw (u>0), and explain why this proof is non-constructive.
c=22≈1.6325269194381528
c∈Q⇒a=b=2;c∈/Q⇒a=c,b=2,ab=2
The existence fork: from c=22≈1.6325 two branches split and rejoin at "existence". c2≈2.0000000000.Show proof
That 2 is irrational is known (see the 'sqrt2-irrational' scene problems). Put c=22 — an irrational power of an irrational. Without asking whether c is rational or irrational, split into two cases.
Case 1: c is rational. Put a=b=2: then a,b are irrational and ab=22=c is rational — done.
Case 2: c is irrational. Put a=c, b=2: then a,b are irrational, and applying the power law (uv)w=uvw (valid for real u>0 and real v,w) with u=2, v=w=2 gives ab=(22)2=22⋅2=22=2 — rational. Numerically too: c2≈2.0000000000.
In either case irrational a,b exist with ab rational, completing the proof. The proof is non-constructive: it never says which pair (a,b) works — (2,2) if case 1 holds, (c,2) if case 2 holds — because whether c is rational or irrational is never decided anywhere in the proof. (The Gelfond–Schneider theorem does imply c is in fact transcendental, hence irrational, so case 2 is the true one — but the proof above never uses that.) ∎
Prove by cases (n even / n odd): every integer square is congruent to 0 or 1 modulo 4. Use this to show that x2+y2=3 has no integer solutions.
n=2k⇒n2=4k2≡0(mod4);n=2k+1⇒n2=4(k2+k)+1≡1(mod4)
x2+y2(mod4)∈{0,1,2}∋3
(x,y)=(2,2): case 1 (x,y≥0) — ∣xy∣=4=2⋅2=∣x∣∣y∣.Show proof
Case 1: n is even, n=2k (k∈Z). Then n2=4k2, so n2≡0(mod4).
Case 2: n is odd, n=2k+1. Then n2=4k2+4k+1=4(k2+k)+1, so n2≡1(mod4). The two cases cover every integer with nothing left out, so every integer square is 0 or 1 modulo 4.
Now suppose x2+y2=3 had an integer solution (proof by contradiction). Since x2(mod4),y2(mod4)∈{0,1}, their sum x2+y2(mod4) lies in {0,1,2}: 0+0=0, 0+1=1, 1+1=2. But 3≡3(mod4) is not in this set — a contradiction. Hence x2+y2=3 has no integer solutions. ∎