MA103

Introduction to Abstract Mathematics

Lecture Notes, First Half

Martin Anthony

Preface by Martin Anthony

The text of these notes is mainly an edited version of the first half of a subject guide I
wrote for the University of London International Programmes.
I thank Michele Harvey for her help with the material on complex numbers. I am
grateful to Keith Martin, Jan van den Heuvel and Amol Sasane for carefully reading a
draft of the subject guide and for suggesting ways in which to improve it.
These notes also incorporate materials written in previous years by Jan van den
Heuvel and Graham Brightwell and I am grateful to them for allowing me to use
these.
Thanks also to Mark Baltovic for help with typesetting.

These lecture notes were edited by Peter Allen. I am very grateful to Martin Anthony
for writing all the good content; the mistakes are my fault.
Contents

Contents

1 Introduction 7
1.1 What is this course about? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.1 How to get the most out of this course (and all the other maths
courses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1.2 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.1.3 Learning objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.1.4 Topics covered (first half of the course) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2 Moodle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 Activities and sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2 Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets 14

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 Mathematical statements and proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Examples of Mathematical Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 Introduction to proving statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Some basic logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.1 Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2 Conjunction and disjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4 If-then statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5 Logical equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6 Converse statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7 Contrapositive statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.8 What is a proof? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.9 Working backwards to obtain a proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.10 What is not a proof? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.11 Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.11.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.11.2 Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.11.3 Health warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2
Contents

2.11.4 Unions and intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.11.5 Arbitrary unions and intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.11.6 Universal sets and complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.11.7 Sets and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.11.8 Cartesian products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.11.9 Power sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.12 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.12.1 Quantifiers and arbitrary unions and intersections; empty sets . . 37
2.13 Proof by contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.14 Some terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.15 General advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.15.2 How to write mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.15.3 How to do mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.15.4 How to become better in mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.16 Non-examinable: set theory—take 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.17 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.18 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.19 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.20 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3 Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction 51

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Mathematical structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.3 Natural numbers: an axiomatic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3.1 Greatest and least elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 The principle of induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4.1 Proof by induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4.2 An example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.3 Induction: why be careful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.5 Summation formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.6 Recursively defined sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.7 Using the axioms for the natural numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7.1 Why do we give proofs from the axioms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.8 Why the Principle of Induction works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3
Contents

3.9 Non-examinable: There’s only one N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.10 Non-examinable philosophical interlude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.11 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.12 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.13 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.14 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4 Functions and counting 75

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.1 Basic definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.2 Composition of functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3 Bijections, surjections and injections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.1 An example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4 Inverse functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.1 Definition, and existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.5 Functions on sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6 Counting as a bijection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.7 The pigeonhole principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.7.1 The principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.7.2 What will be on the exam? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.7.3 Some applications of the Pigeonhole Principle . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.8 A generalised form of PP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9 Infinite sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.10 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.11 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.12 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.13 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5 Equivalence relations and the integers 93

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.2 Equivalence relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.2.1 Relations in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.2.2 The special properties of equivalence relations . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3 Equivalence classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4
Contents

5.4 Construction of the integers from the natural numbers . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.5 Ordering the integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.6 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.7 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.8 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.9 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

6 Divisibility and prime numbers 106

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.2 Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3 Quotients and remainders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.4 Representation of integers with respect to a base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.5 Greatest common divisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.6 The Euclidean algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.7 Some consequences of the Euclidean algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.8 Prime numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.9 Prime factorization: the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic . . . . . . . 115
6.9.1 The Fundamental Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.9.2 Proof of the Fundamental Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.9.3 Non-examinable: why the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
isn’t obvious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.10 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.11 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.12 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.13 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

7 Congruence and modular arithmetic 124

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.2 Congruence modulo m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.2.1 The congruence relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.2.2 Congruence classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.2.3 What did we just learn? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.3 Zm and its arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7.4 Invertible elements in Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.5 Solving equations in Zm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.5.1 Single linear equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.5.2 Systems of linear equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5
Contents

7.6 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

7.7 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.8 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.9 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

8 Rational, real and complex numbers 137

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8.2 Rational numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.2.1 An important equivalence relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.2.2 Rational numbers as equivalence classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.2.3 Doing arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.3 Rational numbers and real numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.3.1 Non-examinable: what are the real numbers exactly? . . . . . . . 143
8.3.2 Real numbers: a ‘sketchy’ introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.3.3 Rationality and repeating patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.3.4 Irrational numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.3.5 ‘Density’ of the rational numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.4 Countability of rationals and uncountability of real numbers . . . . . . . 148
8.4.1 Countability of the rationals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
8.4.2 Uncountability of the real numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.5 Complex numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.5.2 Complex numbers: a formal approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.5.3 Complex numbers: a more usual approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
8.5.4 Roots of polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.5.5 The complex plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.5.6 Polar form of z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.5.7 Exponential form of z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.6 Learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.7 Sample exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.8 Comments on selected activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.9 Solutions to exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6
1

Chapter 1
Introduction

In this very brief introduction, I aim to give you an idea of the nature of this subject
and to advise on how best to approach it. I also give general information about these
notes and recommended reading.

1.1 What is this course about?

There are two main concepts in this course, and they are the two main concepts you
will learn, use, and re-use throughout your degree. After you have finished your
degree, you might never again use some of the mathematics you learn: but the ways
of thinking which you will be shown, will practice, and will steadily improve
through your time here will stay with you. These ways of thinking which you spend
three years training are what in the end prepare you for your future career. These
concepts are abstraction and proof.
You probably saw before at least some idea of what a mathematical proof is (but it is
fine if you did not—we will cover it!), and you probably do not know what
‘abstraction’ should be (which is also fine). So I will begin by giving an example of
abstraction which you met long ago. Choose a number, multiply it by itself, then add
your chosen number four times, and finally add four. For example:

1 × 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 9 = 3 × 3 = (1 + 2) × (1 + 2)
2 × 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 4 = 16 = 4 × 4 = (2 + 2) × (2 + 2)
3 × 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 4 = 25 = 5 × 5 = (3 + 2) × (3 + 2) and so on . . .

These are concrete examples. You probably see that there is a pattern to the answers we
get. We can write it more generally:

x × x + 4 × x + 4 = ( x + 2) × ( x + 2) .

This is a mathematical statement. It’s something which is either true or false

(depending on what x is). It means the same as the following English:

Choose a number, multiply it by itself, then add your chosen number four times, and
finally add four. You will get the same answer as if you add two to your chosen number
to get a new number, then multiply the new number by itself.

Writing x in an equation, rather than ‘your chosen number’ in an English phrase, is

an example of a (simple) abstraction. Here the purpose is to simplify the presentation.
There is no need to write equations with xs in them; you could do it all in words—and

7
1. Introduction
1
indeed long ago that is what people did. Of course, it’s hard to get anything done like
that. If you show the equation to a small child, it won’t mean anything to them, while
they can read and understand the sentence. But once you understand what the
symbols in the equation mean, then it’s much quicker and easier to read or write.
Now we come to proof. Is the statement above (however it’s written) true for some
other values of x than the three we checked by calculation? And if so, why? The
purpose of a proof is not just to be certain that a statement is true. It also explains why
a statement is true. As you probably know, the statement we wrote is true for all
integers. Here is a proof.
Proof.

( x + 2) × ( x + 2)
=( x + 2) × x + ( x + 2) × 2 (multiplication distributes over addition)
= x × x + 2 × x + ( x + 2) × 2 (multiplication distributes over addition)
=x × x + 2 × x + x × 2 + 2 × 2 (multiplication distributes over addition)
=x × x + 2 × x + x × 2 + 4 (2 × 2 = 4)
=x × x + 2 × x + 2 × x + 4 (multiplication is commutative)
= x × x + (2 + 2) × x + 4 (multiplication distributes over addition)
=x × x + 4 × x + 4 (2 + 2 = 4)

We can see that each line is equal to the previous one, for any integer x, because of the
reason given on the right. Most of the reasons are axioms—statements which we are
assuming to be true—and a couple are little calculations which you should check. So
in particular the first and last lines are equal for any integer x, in other words the
statement
( x + 2) × ( x + 2) = x × x + 4 × x + 4
is true for any integer x. That’s what we wanted to prove.

Of course, you will never want to write down a proof in this kind of detail. You
would much rather write at most a couple of lines of algebra expanding out the
brackets, just as you would have done in school, or simply write ’it is obvious that
( x + 2) × ( x + 2) = x × x + 4 × x + 4’. This is fine. You just need to be aware that
when you write ‘it is obvious...’ that you are promising that if someone really wants
to see the details, you would be able to write out the details as above.
Let’s go back to abstraction. These axioms we wrote down above (multiplication
distributes over addition, multiplication is commutative) are statements which you
presumably agree are true for the integers. Of course, they are also true for other
numbers—they are true for real numbers, or complex numbers. That means that the
proof we wrote down works equally well for real numbers, or complex numbers. So
you know, for instance, that

(4.5 + 6i + 2) × (4.5 + 6i + 2) = (4.5 + 6i ) × (4.5 + 6i ) + 4 × (4.5 + 6i ) + 4

is a true statement. This is a second reason abstraction is important: it is a time- and

memory-saving device. You can prove something once—or remember one fact—in an
abstract setting and use it in many different concrete examples.

8
1.1. What is this course about?
1
Next term, we’ll give axiomatic definitions of a group and a vector space, and start
proving theorems about abstract groups (and vector spaces). Here ‘abstract’ means
we don’t assume anything about the group except the axioms. This will seem painful
and useless at first: you’ll (by then) know a few concrete examples of groups and of
vector spaces. It will usually be easier to see how to prove the theorems for the
concrete examples. Usually you will have some idea already why the theorems
should be true in the examples, while you won’t have much intuition for how
abstract groups behave. The natural response will be that you don’t want to study
abstract groups, you want to work with the concrete examples you know. But this is
the wrong reaction. The reason is that you will then only learn about the concrete
examples you already know, and you will suffer as soon as in future courses you see
new examples of groups and are expected to immediately know a bunch of facts
about them (and also in the exam, where we will likely test your ability to work with
a new example of an abstract structure).
In this course, we need to work with precise definitions and statements, and you will
need to know these. Not only will you need to know these, but you will have to
understand them, and be able (through the use of them) to demonstrate that you
understand them. Simply learning the definitions without understanding what they
mean is not going to be adequate. I hope that these words of warning don’t
discourage you, but I think it’s important to make it clear that this is a subject at a
higher conceptual level than most of the mathematics you are likely to have studied
before. This does not mean it is incredibly hard and you will struggle. It is not
incredibly hard, and you are quite capable of doing well in this course (or you would
not be here). It does mean, though, that if you are used to getting through school
courses by memorising material without understanding it, then now is the time to
change that (and, by the way, no-one will hire you for your memorisation ability—a
computer does that better!).
In this course, you will learn how to prove mathematical statements precisely. This is a
very different sort of mathematics from that which you will have encountered in
many other mathematics courses you have previously taken, where the emphasis is
on solving problems through calculation. In Abstract Mathematics, one has to be able
to produce convincing mathematical arguments as to why a given mathematical
statement is true or false. For example, a prime number is defined to be a positive
integer greater than 1 that is only divisible by itself and the number 1 (so 7 is a prime
number, but 8 is not). The statement “There are infinitely many prime numbers” is a
mathematical statement, and it is either true (there are infinitely many prime
numbers) or false (there are only a finitely many prime numbers). In fact, the
statement is true. But why? There’s no quick ‘calculation’ we can do to establish the
truth of the statement. What is needed is a proof: a watertight, logical argument. This
is the type of problem we consider in this course.

9
1. Introduction
1
1.1.1 How to get the most out of this course (and all the other
maths courses)
There are two theories about mathematical ability (and intelligence in general). One
theory says that you have what you are born with. The other says that (just like
strength or stamina) it’s something you develop by practice. Various studies have
shown that broadly similar number of students believe each theory, but the ones who
believe ability is something you develop are consistently the ones who do better—and
almost all academic mathematicians believe ability is something you learn and train.
Some people are faster than others, but speed is in the end not all that useful: no
matter how fast you are, if you switch off and coast for a while, you will have trouble
catching up with people who pay attention and work on understanding their courses.
In particular—and this is different to school maths—we will always assume you
understood the previous lectures and courses, and we will use things from those
previous lectures and courses all the time. If you do understand the previous
material—even if you are not so fast—you’ll understand a good deal of the current
lecture (maybe all of it, maybe not quite) in real time, and you won’t need to spend
much time after the lecture going over the material. If you don’t really understand
the previous material, you won’t have a chance to understand large parts of the
lecture and you’ll have to do even more work afterwards to catch up.
In this course, all the theory will be introduced in the lectures, together with some
examples. There will be extra examples sessions (which don’t exist in most
courses—don’t expect them!), which you do not have to attend but which may well
be useful. In the lectures and examples sessions, you should be trying to understand
what is going on. Don’t waste time copying things down which will appear on
Moodle (which is essentially everything). Certainly don’t waste time with a
newspaper or games on your phone, which annoys me and distracts your classmates.
No-one is taking attendance in the lectures; if you’re not going to pay attention, go to
a café instead. If you do not understand something I said or wrote, then probably
either I didn’t explain it properly or I made a mistake, so you should ask questions
(louder, or put your hand up, if I don’t hear). If I ask a question, I really want an
answer. Probably you need to think about the question to answer it, so I will wait
until someone does answer.
For many of you there will be some point in the lectures where you do not
immediately understand what I say, and when you ask a question the answer is still
not very useful. You should keep asking me to explain better in such a situation. It is
possible that I will eventually say that I want to move on and you should think about
it after the lecture. That doesn’t mean I think you are stupid, it generally means I am
failing to understand what exactly you don’t understand, or maybe I do understand
but cannot think of a good way to explain it on the spot. In either case, if you try to
formulate clearly exactly what it is that you do not like (which will take time, which
is why you should do it after the lecture), you will probably find that doing so also
helps you figure out what is going on; once you understand something deeply in this
way you will not forget it. But it would still be useful to tell me about it after the
lecture, so that I can improve the lectures for next year (and if possible give some
more explanation on Moodle directly).

10
1.1. What is this course about?
1
There will also be problems set every week, some online (for which you’ll see results
immediately) and some which you will solve and hand in to your class teacher, who
will mark them and discuss in the next class. The marks you get do not affect your
result in the course. The purpose of the problems is for you to practice and check you
really know what is going on. If you get stuck, hand in half a solution with ‘I don’t
know what to do next’ and your class teacher will tell you (either written on the
work, or maybe many people were stuck in the same place and the class teacher will
go over it in class; usually then there will be a short comment like ‘Will discuss in
class’). Then you learn something. If you don’t hand anything in, or you only hand in
the problems you could solve, you don’t learn anything. The written comments on
your work, and the explanations in class, are the most important piece of feedback
you get—but you only get it if you show us something on which we can give
feedback. On that note—please do not copy work from someone else (or from last
year’s solutions). Doing this is a waste of your time and ours.
Finally, there are office hours and the Maths Support Centre. If you don’t understand
something, you should first try to figure it out for yourself—if you manage, then you
won’t forget it (and you should be happy with yourself). But if you get stuck, then
you should not wait and hope that it magically gets clear. It probably will not, and
you will suffer because you don’t understand something I am assuming you do
understand in my lectures. So go to office hours or the Support Centre and ask
questions. You have already paid for those office hours; use them. You can also try
talking with your friends on the course and seeing if you can figure out what’s going
on—group work can be fun and productive.
You can, of course, also read books (in these notes you’ll see references to a couple
which might be useful). But you do not need to do this. If you really want even more
problems to solve, then you can find them in textbooks, but you will likely feel you
already have enough work. If you don’t understand something I say in the lecture,
and it doesn’t get clear when you talk to friends or go to office hour or try to solve the
week’s problems, you might try reading a textbook to see if a different presentation
helps. However this is really a last resort.

1.1.2 Aims
The course is designed to enable you to:

develop your ability to think in a critical manner;

formulate and develop mathematical arguments in a logical manner;

improve your skill in acquiring new understanding and expertise;

acquire an understanding of basic abstract mathematics, and the role of logical

argument in mathematics.

1.1.3 Learning objectives

Having taken this subject, you should:

11
1. Introduction
1
have a knowledge of basic mathematical concepts in discrete mathematics,
algebra, and real analysis;

be able to use formal notation correctly and in connection with precise

statements in English (or indeed any other natural language);

be able to solve mathematical problems in discrete mathematics, algebra and real

analysis;

be able to find and formulate simple proofs.

1.1.4 Topics covered (first half of the course)

Descriptions of topics to be covered appear in the relevant chapters. However, it is
useful to give a brief overview at this stage. These notes cover the first half of this
course. Here, we are concerned primarily with proof, logic, and number systems. We
will first investigate how precise mathematical statements can be formulated, and
here we will use the language and symbols of mathematical logic. We will then study
how one can prove or disprove mathematical statements. Next, we look at some
important ideas connected with functions, relations, and numbers. For example, we
will look at prime numbers and learn what special properties these important
numbers have, and how one may prove such properties.
Some of this material is intended to help you prepare for the second half of this
course; the rest is intended to prepare you for the second-year and later mathematics
courses. All of it is examinable, with the exception of sections which are clearly
marked ‘non-examinable’. Just to be clear — some of the non-examinable material
will be useful for understanding the course (and I’ll probably talk about it in
lectures), some is background which you will not need to understand the course (but
which you might find interesting, and which I will probably not talk about in
lectures). The way I choose what material is examinable and what is not, is I try to
come up with a good exam question; if I can’t, then I’ll mark it as non-examinable.
That means, anything in the course marked as examinable is material which I know
how to test in an exam.

1.2 Moodle
All information and materials for this course are on Moodle:
http://moodle.lse.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1989
On the course Moodle page, you will find assignments, solutions, lecture notes, and
so on.

1.3 Reading
There are many books that would be useful for this subject, since abstract
mathematics is a components of almost all university-level mathematics degree

12
1.4. Activities and sample exercises
1
programmes.
For the first half of the course (the part covered by these notes), the following two

R
books are recommended.
Biggs, Norman L., Discrete Mathematics, Second edition. (Oxford University

R Press, 2002). [ISBN 0198507178].

Eccles, P.J., An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning: numbers, sets and functions.
(Cambridge University Press, 1997). [ISBN 0521597188].
There is one topic that neither of these covers, which is the topic of Complex
Numbers. However, this is a topic that is well-covered in a number of other textbooks
and I have included a fairly full treatment of it in these notes to compensate for the
fact that it is not covered in these two recommended textbooks.

1.4 Activities and sample exercises

Throughout the chapters of these notes, you’ll find ‘activities’. These are things for
you to do or think about as you read, just to reaffirm that you’ve understood the
material.
At the end of each chapter of these notes you will find some sample exercises
together with solutions. These are not the exercises that will be assigned for classes,
but are additional to those. They are a very useful resource. You should try them once
you think you have mastered a particular chapter. Really try them: don’t just simply
read the solutions provided. Make a serious attempt before consulting the solutions.
Note that the solutions are often just sketch solutions, to indicate to you how to
answer the questions.

13
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

2 Chapter 2
Mathematical statements, proof, logic,
and sets

RR Biggs, N.L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapters 1–3.

Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapters 1–4 and 6.

2.1 Introduction
In this course, we want to make precise mathematical statements and establish
whether they are true or not—we want to prove things. But for that, we have to first
understand what a proof is. We will look at fairly simple types of mathematical
statement, in order to emphasise techniques of proof. Some of these statements are
going to be interesting, others are not so interesting—bear in mind that what you are
doing in this part of the course is learning the rules of the game: the play (and more
of the fun) comes later.
In later chapters (such as those on numbers, analysis and algebra) we will use these
proof techniques extensively. You might think that some of the things we prove in
this chapter are very obvious and hardly merit proving, but proving even ‘obvious’
statements can be quite tricky sometimes, and it is good preparation for proving
more complicated things later.

2.2 Mathematical statements and proof

To introduce the topics of mathematical statement and proof, we start by giving some
explicit examples. Later in the chapter we give some general theory and principles.
Our discussion of the general theory is limited because this is not a course in logic. We
need enough logic to understand what mathematical statements mean and how we
might prove or disprove them. We don’t need to start talking about things like which
statements are provable and which statements are true (and whether those are the
same or not). There are interesting mathematical things to say there (and interesting
philosophical things), but you don’t need to know them in order to do mathematics.

2.2.1 Examples of Mathematical Statements

Consider the following statements (in which, you should recall that the natural
numbers are the positive integers):

14
2.2. Mathematical statements and proof

(a) 20 is divisible by 4.

(b) 21 is not divisible by 7.

2
(c) 21 is divisible by 4.

(d) 21 is divisible by 3 or 5.

(e) 50 is divisible by 2 and 5.

(f) n2 is even.

(g) For every natural number n, the number n2 + n is even.

(h) There is a natural number n such that 2n = 2n .

(i) If n is even, then n2 is even.

(j) For all odd numbers n, n2 is odd.

(k) For natural numbers n, n2 is even if and only if n is even.

√
(l) There are no natural numbers m and n such that 2 = m/n.
These are all mathematical statements, of different sorts (all of which will be
discussed in more detail in the remainder of this chapter).
Statements (a) to (e) are straightforward propositions about certain numbers, and these
are either true or false. Statements (d) and (e) are examples of compound statements.
Statement (d) is true precisely when either one (or both) of the statements ‘21 is
divisible by 3’ and ‘21 is divisible by 5’ is true. Statement (e) is true precisely when
both of the statements ‘50 is divisible by 2’ and ‘50 is divisible by 5’ are true.
Statement (f) is different, because the number n is not specified and whether the
statement is true or false will depend on the value of the so-called ‘free variable’ n.
Such a statement is known as a predicate.
Statement (g) makes an assertion about all natural numbers and is an example of a
universal statement.
Statement (h) asserts the existence of a particular number and is an example of an
existential statement.
Statement (i) can be considered as an assertion about all even numbers, and so it is a
universal statement, where the ‘universe’ is all even numbers. But it can also be
considered as an implication, asserting that if n happens to be even, then n2 is even.
Statement (j) is a universal statement about all odd numbers. It can also be thought of
(or rephrased) as an implication, for it says precisely the same as ‘if n is odd, then n2
is odd’.
Statement (k) is an ‘if and only if’ statement: what it says is that n2 is even, for a
natural number n, precisely when n is even. But this means two things: namely that n2
is even if n is even, and n is even if n2 is even. Equivalently, it means that n2 is even if
n is even and that n2 is odd if n is odd. So statement (k) will be true precisely if (i)
and (j) are true.

15
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Statement (l) asserts the non-existence of a certain pair of numbers (m, n). Another
way of thinking about this√ statement is that it says that for all choices of (m, n), it is
not the case that m/n = 2. (This is an example of the general rule that a
2 non-existence statement can be thought of as a universal statement, something to be
discussed later in more detail.)
It’s probably worth giving some examples of things that are not proper mathematical
statements.
‘6 is a nice number’ is not a mathematical statement. This is because ‘nice number’
has no mathematical meaning. However, if, beforehand, we had defined ‘nice number’
in some way, then this would not be a problem. For example, suppose we said:

Let us say that a number is nice if it is the sum of all the positive numbers
that divide it and are less than it.
Then ‘6 is a nice number’ would be a proper mathematical statement, and it would be
true, because 6 has positive divisors 1, 2, 3, 6 and 6 = 1 + 2 + 3. But without defining
what ‘nice’ means, it’s not a mathematical statement. Definitions are important1 .
‘n2 + n’ is not a mathematical statement, because it does not say anything about
n2 + n. It is not a mathematical statement in the same way that ‘David Cameron’ is
not a sentence: it makes no assertion about what David Cameron is or does.
However, ‘n2 + n > 0’ is an example of a predicate with free variable n and, for a
particular value of n, this is a mathematical statement. Likewise, ‘for all natural
numbers n, n2 + n > 0’ is a mathematical statement.

2.2.2 Introduction to proving statements

We’ve seen, above, various types of mathematical statement, and such statements are
either true or false. But how would we establish the truth or falsity of these?
We can, even at this early stage, prove (by which we mean establish the truth of) or
disprove (by which we mean establish the falsity of) most of the statements given
above. Before we do this, we need to be sure that we really know precisely what all
the statements mean. We already said what we mean by the ‘natural numbers’, and I
assume you know what the algebra means (i.e. that n2 means n multipled by n, and
so on). We haven’t formally defined ‘divisible’, though, and you might not have seen
this in school. So we need to do that:
Let us say that a natural number n is divisible by a natural number d if we can write
n = d · k for some natural number k. We say that a natural number is even if it is
divisible by 2, and odd if it is not.
Note that saying n is divisible by d is the same thing as saying that if we try to divide
n by d we get no remainder. This definition is probably what you thought ‘divisible’
meant when you read the statements in the previous section—now you know you
were right, and you know everyone else will (by definition!) agree with you. For the
rest of your degree, we’ll assume you know what ‘divisible’ means, and the meaning
1 Usually
we say that a natural number which is equal to the sum of all smaller positive numbers
which divide it is perfect. The reason for using ‘nice’ in the text is because that term is not commonly
defined!

16
2.2. Mathematical statements and proof

will not be changed. We might say ‘divisible means when we try to divide we get no
remainder’, or some other phrase which has the same mathematical meaning: the
precise words aren’t important. What is important is that the mathematical meaning
is now fixed.
2
Now that we’re all clear on exactly what the statements mean, let’s prove them.

(a) 20 is divisible by 4.
This statement is true. Since 20 = 5 × 4, we see that (by the definition) 20 is
divisible by 4. And that’s a proof! It’s utterly convincing, watertight, and not
open to debate. Nobody can argue with it, not even a sociologist! Isn’t this fun?
Well, maybe it’s not that impressive in such a simple situation, but we will
certainly prove more impressive results later.
(b) 21 is not divisible by 7.
This is false. It’s false because 21 is divisible by 7, because 21 = 3 × 7.
(c) 21 is divisible by 4.
This is false, as can be established in a number of ways. First, we note that if the
natural number m satisfies m ≤ 5, then m × 4 will be no more than 20. And if
m ≥ 6 then m × 4 will be at least 24. Well, any natural number m is either at most
5 or at least 6 so, for all possible m, we do not have m × 4 = 21 and hence there is
no natural number m for which m × 4 = 21. In other words, 21 is not divisible by
4. Another argument (which is perhaps more straightforward, but which relies
on properties of rational numbers rather than just simple properties of natural
numbers) is to note that 21/4 = 5.25, and this is not a natural number, so 21 is
not divisible by 4. (This second approach is the same as showing that 21 has
remainder 1, not 0, when we divide by 4.)
Most of you are probably completely happy with these proofs. Maybe one or two
of you would like to know things like: why is there no natural number between 5
and 6? Do we need to prove it? We’ll get to that in the next chapter.
(d) 21 is divisible by 3 or 5.
As we noted above, this is a compound statement. It is true precisely if one (or
both) of the following statements is true:
(i) 21 is divisible by 3
(ii) 21 is divisible by 5.
Statement (i) is true, because 21 = 7 × 3. Statement (ii) is false. Because at least
one of these two statements is true, statement (d) is true.
(e) 50 is divisible by 2 and 5.
This is true. Again, this is a compound statement and it is true precisely if both of
the following statements are true:
(i) 50 is divisible by 2
(ii) 50 is divisible by 5.
Statements (i) and (ii) are indeed true because 50 = 25 × 2 and 50 = 10 × 5. So
statement (e) is true.

17
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

(f) n2 is even
As mentioned above, whether this is true or false depends on the value of n. For
2 example, if n = 2 then n2 = 4 is even, but if n = 3 then n2 = 9 is odd. So, unlike
the other statements (which are propositions), this is a predicate P(n). The
predicate will become a proposition when we assign a particular value to n to it,
and the truth or falsity of the proposition can then be established. You probably
implicitly assume that n has to be a natural number, but there isn’t actually
anything in the statement to tell you that—maybe n is a matrix, in which case it’s
not even clear what ‘even’ should mean for a matrix (we only defined ‘even’ for
natural numbers). If we assume n is a natural number, then (i) and (j) cover all
the possibilities.

(g) For every natural number n, the number n2 + n is even

Here’s our first non-immediate, non-trivial, proof. How on earth can we prove
this, if it is true, or disprove it, if it is false? Suppose it was false. How would you
convince someone of that? Well, the statement says that for every natural number
n, n2 + n is even. So if you managed (somehow!) to find a particular N for which
N 2 + N happened to be odd, you could prove the statement false by simply
observing that ‘When n = N, it is not the case that n2 + n is even.’ And that
would be the end of it. So, in other words, if a universal statement about natural
numbers is false, you can prove it is false by showing that its conclusion is false
for some particular value of n. But suppose the statement is true. How could you
prove it. Well, you could prove it for n = 1, then n = 2, then n = 3, and so on, but
at some point you would expire and there would still be numbers n that you
hadn’t yet proved it for. And that simply wouldn’t do, because if you proved it
true for the first 9999 numbers, it might be false when n = 10000. So what you
need is a more sophisticated, general argument that shows the statement is true
for any arbitrary n.
Now, it turns out that this statement is true. So we need a nice general argument
to establish this. Well, here’s one approach. We can note that n2 + n = n(n + 1).
The numbers n and n + 1 are consecutive natural numbers. So one of them is odd
and one of them is even. When you multiply any odd number and any even
number together, you get an even number, so n2 + n is even. Are you convinced?
Maybe not? We really should be more explicit. Suppose n is even. What that
means is that, for some integer k, n = 2k. Then n + 1 = 2k + 1 and hence

n(n + 1) = 2k (2k + 1) = 2 (k (2k + 1)) .

Because k (2k + 1) is an integer, this shows that n2 + n = n(n + 1) is divisible by

2; that is, it is even. We supposed here that n was even. But it might be odd, in
which case we would have n = 2k + 1 for some integer k. Then

n(n + 1) = (2k + 1)(2k + 2) = 2 ((2k + 1)(k + 1)) ,

which is, again, even, because (2k + 1)(k + 1) is an integer.

Right, we’re really proving things now. This is a very general statement,
asserting something about all natural numbers, and we have managed to prove
it. I find that quite satisfying, don’t you?

18
2.2. Mathematical statements and proof

(h) There is a natural number n such that 2n = 2n .

This is an existential statement, asserting that there exists n with 2n = 2n . Before
diving in, let’s pause for a moment and think about how we might deal with 2
such statements. If an existential statement like this is true we would need only
to show that its conclusion (which in this case is 2n = 2n ) holds for some
particular n. That is, we need only find an n that works. If the statement is false,
we have a lot more work to do in order to prove that it is false. For, to show that
it is false, we would need to show that, for no value of n does the conclusion
holds. Equivalently, for every n, the conclusion fails. So we’d need to prove a
universal statement and, as we saw in the previous example, that would require
us to come up with a suitably general argument.
In fact, this statement is true. This is because when n = 1 we have
2n = 2 = 21 = 2n ; we’re done.
We could also use n = 2 to prove this statement is true: we have
2n = 2 · 2 = 4 = 22 = 2n . But to prove an existential statement to be true, it’s
enough to find one example; once we saw n = 1 is such an example, we don’t
need to care that n = 2 is also an example.

(i) If n is even, then n2 is even

This is true. The most straightforward way to prove this is to assume that n is
some (that is, any) even number and then show that n2 is even. So suppose n is
even. Then n = 2k for some integer k (by definition) and hence n2 = (2k )2 = 4k2 .
This is even because it is 2(2k2 ) and 2k2 is an integer.

(j) For all odd numbers n, n2 is odd.

This is true. The most straightforward way to prove this is to assume that n is any
odd number and then show that n2 is also odd. So suppose n is odd. Then
n = 2k + 1 for some integer k and hence n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1. To
establish that this is odd, we need to show that it can be written in the form
2K + 1 for some integer K. Well, 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 + 2k ) + 1. This is indeed of
the form 2K + 1, where K is the integer 2k2 + 2k. Hence n2 is odd.
Another way to prove this result is to prove that if n2 is even then n must be
even. We won’t do that right now, because to do it properly requires a result we
meet later concerning the factorisation of numbers into prime numbers. But
think about the strategy for a moment. Suppose we were able to prove the
following statement, which we’ll call Q:
Q: if n2 is even then n is even.
Why would that establish what we want (namely that if n is odd then n2 is odd).
Well, one way is to observe that Q is what’s called the contrapositive of statement
(j) that we’re trying to prove, and the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the
initial statement. (This is a bit of formal logic, and we will discuss this more
later). But there’s another way of thinking about it, which is perhaps easier to
understand at this stage. Suppose we have proved statement Q and suppose that
n is odd. Then it must be the case that n2 is odd. For, if n2 was not odd, it would
be even and then Q would tell us that this means n is even. But we have assumed
n is odd. It cannot be both even and odd, so we have reached a contradiction. By

19
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

assuming that the opposite conclusion holds (n2 even) we have shown that
something impossible happens. This type of argument is known as a proof by
contradiction and it is often very powerful. We will see more about this later.
2
(k) For natural numbers n, n2 is even if and only if n is even.
This is true. What we have shown in proving (i) and (j) is that if n is even then n2
is even, and if n is odd then n2 is odd. The first, (statement (i)) establishes that if n
is even, then n2 is even. The second of these (statement (j)) establishes that n2 is
even only if n is even. This is because it shows that n2 is odd if n is odd, from
which it follows that if n2 is even, n must not have been odd, and therefore must
have been even. ‘If and only if’ statements if this type are very important. As we
see here, the proof of such statements breaks down into the proof of two ‘If-then’
statements.
√
(l) There are no natural numbers m and n such that 2 = m/n.
This is, in fact, true, though we defer the proof for now, until we know more
about factorisation of numbers into prime numbers. We merely comment that the
easiest way to prove the statement is to use a proof by contradiction.
These examples hopefully demonstrate that there are a wide range of statements and
proof techniques, and in the rest of this chapter we will explore these further.
Right now, one thing I hope comes out very clearly from these examples is that to
prove a mathematical statement, you need to know precisely what it means. Well,
that sounds obvious, but you can see how detailed we had to be about the meanings
(that is, the definitions) of the terms ‘divisible’, ‘even’ and ‘odd’. Definitions are very
important.

2.3 Some basic logic

Mathematical statements can be true or false. Let’s denote ‘true’ by T and ‘false’ by F.
Given a statement, or a number of statements, it is possible to form other statements.
This was indicated in some of the examples above (such as the compound
statements). A technique known as the use of ‘truth tables’ enables us to define
‘logical operations’ on statements, and to determine when such statements are true.
This is all a bit vague, so let’s get down to some concrete examples.

2.3.1 Negation
The simplest way to take a statement and form another statement is to negate the
statement. The negation of a statement P is the statement ¬ P (sometimes just denoted
‘not P’), which is defined to be true exactly when P is false. This can be described in
the very simple truth table, Table 2.1:

20
2.3. Some basic logic

P ¬P
T F
F T
2
Table 2.1: The truth table for ‘negation’ or ‘not’

What does the table signify? Quite simply, it tells us that if P is true then ¬ P is false
and if P is false then ¬ P is true.

Example 2.1 If P is ‘20 is divisible by 3’ then ¬ P is ‘20 is not divisible by 3’.

Here, P is false and ¬ P is true.

It has, I hope, been indicated in the examples earlier in this chapter, that to disprove a
universal statement about natural numbers amounts to proving an existential
statement. That is, if we want to disprove a statement of the form ‘for all natural
numbers n, property p(n) holds’ (where p(n) is some predicate, such as ‘n2 is even’)
we need only produce some N for which p( N ) fails. Such an N is called a
counterexample. Equally, to disprove an existential statement of the form ‘there is some
n such that property p(n) holds’, one would have to show that for every n, p(n) fails.
That is, to disprove an existential statement amounts to proving a universal one. But,
now that we have the notion of the negation of a statement we can phrase this a little
more formally. Proving that a statement P is false is equivalent to proving that the
negation ¬ P is true. In the language of logic, therefore, we have the following:

The negation of a universal statement is an existential statement.

The negation of an existential statement is a universal statement.

More precisely,

The negation of the universal statement ‘for all n, property p(n) holds’ is the
existential statement ‘there is n such that property p(n) does not hold’.

The negation of the existential statement ‘there is n such that property p(n)
holds’ is the universal statement ‘for all n, property p(n) does not hold’.
We could be a little more formal about this, by defining the negation of a predicate
p(n) (which, recall, only has a definitive true or false value once n is specified) to be
the predicate ¬ p(n) which is true (for any particular n) precisely when p(n) is false.
Then we might say that

The negation of the universal statement ‘for all n, the statement p(n) is true’ is
the existential statement ‘there is n such that ¬ p(n) is true’.

The negation of the existential statement ‘there is n such that p(n) is true’ is the
universal statement ‘for all n, the statement ¬ p(n) is true’.
Now, let’s not get confused here. None of this is really difficult or new. We meet such
logic in everyday life. If I say ‘It rains every day in London’ then either this statement
is true or it is false. If it is false, it is because on (at least) one day it does not rain. The

21
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

negation (or disproof) of the statement ‘On every day, it rains in London’ is simply
‘There is a day on which it does not rain in London’. The former is a universal
statement (‘On every day, . . . ’) and the latter is an existential statement (‘there is a
2 day . . . ’). Or, consider the statement ‘There is a student who enjoys reading these
lecture notes’. This is an existential statement (‘There is . . . ’). This is false if ‘No
student enjoys reading these lecture notes’. Another way of phrasing this last
statement is ‘Every student reading these lecture notes does not enjoy it’. This is a
more awkward expression, but it emphasises that the negation of the initial,
existential statement, is a universal one (‘Every student . . . ’).
The former is an existential statement (‘there is something I will write that . . . ’) and
the latter is a universal statement (‘everything I write will . . . ). This second example
is a little more complicated, but it serves to illustrate the point that much of logic is
simple common sense.

2.3.2 Conjunction and disjunction

There are two very basic ways of combining propositions: through the use of ‘and’
(known as conjunction) and the use of ‘or’ (known as disjunction).
Suppose that P and Q are two mathematical statements. Then ‘P and Q’, also denoted
P ∧ Q, and called the conjunction of P and Q, is the statement that is true precisely
when both P and Q are true. For example, statement (e) above, which is
‘50 is divisible by 2 and 5’
is the conjunction of the two statements

50 is divisible by 2
50 is divisible by 5.
Statement (e) is true because both of these two statements are true.
Table 2.2 gives the truth table for the conjunction P and Q:

P Q P∧Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Table 2.2: The truth table for ‘and’

What Table 2.2 says is simply that P ∧ Q is true precisely when both P and Q are true
(and in no other circumstances).
Suppose that P and Q are two mathematical statements. Then ‘P or Q’, also denoted
P ∨ Q, and called the disjunction of P and Q, is the statement that is true precisely
when P, or Q, or both, are true. For example, statement (d) above, which is
‘21 is divisible by 3 or 5’
is the disjunction of the two statements

22
2.4. If-then statements

21 is divisible by 3

21 is divisible by 5.
Statement (d) is true because at least one (namely the first) of these two statements is
2
true.
Note one important thing about the mathematical interpretation of the word ‘or’. It is
always used in the ‘inclusive-or’ sense. So P ∨ Q is true in the case when P is true, or
Q is true, or both. In some ways, this use of the word ‘or’ contrasts with its use in
normal everyday language, where it is often used to specify a choice between
mutually exclusive alternatives. (For example ‘You’re either with us or against us’.)
But if I say ‘Tomorrow I will wear brown trousers or I will wear a yellow shirt’ then,
in the mathematical way in which the word ‘or’ is used, the statement would be true
if I wore brown trousers and any shirt, any trousers and a yellow shirt, and also if I
wore brown trousers and a yellow shirt. You might have your doubts about my dress
sense in this last case, but, logically, it makes my statement true.
Table 2.2 gives the truth table for the disjunction P and Q:

P Q P∨Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Table 2.3: The truth table for ‘or’

What Table 2.3 says is simply that P ∨ Q is true precisely when at least one of P and Q
is true.

2.4 If-then statements

It is very important to understand the formal meaning of the word ‘if’ in
mathematics. The word is often used rather sloppily in everyday life, but has a very
precise mathematical meaning. Let me give you an example. Suppose I tell you ‘If it
rains, then I wear a raincoat’, and suppose that this is a true statement. Well, then,
suppose it rains. You can certainly conclude I will wear a raincoat. But what if it does
not rain? Well, you can’t conclude anything. My statement only tells you about what
happens if it rains. If it does not, then I might, or I might not, wear a raincoat: and
whether I do or not does not affect the truth of the statement I made. You have to be
clear about this: an ‘if-then’ statement only tells you about what follows if something
particular happens.
More formally, suppose P and Q are mathematical statements (each of which can
therefore be either true or false). Then we can form the statement denoted P ⇒ Q (‘P
implies Q’ or, equivalently, ‘if P, then Q’), which has as its truth table Table 2.4. (This
type of statement is known as an if-then statement or an implication.)

23
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

P Q P⇒Q
T T T
T F F
2 F T T
F F T

Table 2.4: The truth table for ‘P ⇒ Q’

Note that the statement P ⇒ Q is false only when P is true but Q is false. (To go back
to the previous example, the statement ‘If it rains, I wear a raincoat’ is false precisely
if it does rain but I do not wear a raincoat.) This is tricky, so you may have to spend a
little time understanding it. As I’ve suggested, perhaps the easiest way is to think
about when a statement ‘if P, then Q’ is false.
The statement P ⇒ Q can also be written as Q ⇐ P. There are different ways of
describing P ⇒ Q, such as:

if P then Q

P implies Q

P is sufficient for Q

Q if P

P only if Q

Q whenever P

Q is necessary for P.
All these mean the same thing. The first two are the ones I will use most frequently.
If P ⇒ Q and Q ⇒ P then this means that Q will be true precisely when P is. That is
Q is true if and only if P is. We use the single piece of notation P ⇐⇒ Q instead of the
two separate P ⇒ Q and Q ⇐ P. There are several phrases for describing what
P ⇐⇒ Q means, such as:

P if and only if Q (sometimes abbreviated to ‘P iff Q’)

P is equivalent to Q

P is necessary and sufficient for Q

Q is necessary and sufficient for P.

The truth table is shown in Table 2.5, where we have also indicated the truth or falsity
of P ⇒ Q and Q ⇒ P to emphasise that P ⇐⇒ Q is the same as the conjunction
( P ⇒ Q ) ∧ ( Q ⇒ P ).

24
2.5. Logical equivalence

P Q P⇒Q Q⇒P P ⇐⇒ Q
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F F 2
F F T T T

Table 2.5: The truth table for ‘P ⇐⇒ Q’

What the table shows is that P ⇐⇒ Q is true precisely when P and Q are either both
true or both false.

Activity 2.1 Look carefully at the truth table and understand why the values for
P ⇐⇒ Q are as they are. In particular, try to explain in words why the truth table
is the way it is.

2.5 Logical equivalence

Two statements are logically equivalent if when either one is true, so is the other, and if
either one is false, so is the other. For example, for statements P and Q, the statements
¬( P ∨ Q) and ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q are logically equivalent. We can see this from the truth table,
Table 2.6, which shows that, in all cases, the two statements take the same logical
value T or F). (This value is highlighted in bold.)

P Q P∨Q ¬( P ∨ Q) ¬P ¬Q ¬P ∧ ¬Q
T T T F F F F
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T T T T

Table 2.6: The truth tables for ¬( P ∨ Q) and ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q

The fact that ¬( P ∨ Q) and ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q are logically equivalent is quite easy to

understand. The statement P ∨ Q is true if and only if at least one of P, Q is true. The
statement is therefore false precisely when both P and Q are false, which means ¬ P
and ¬ Q are both true, which means ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q is true. Again, we can understand these
things fairly easily with some common sense. If I tell you ‘I will wear brown trousers
or I will wear a yellow shirt’ then this is a false statement only if I do not wear brown
trousers and I do not wear a yellow shirt.
Now that we know the meaning of ⇐⇒, we can see that to say that ¬( P ∨ Q) and
¬ P ∧ ¬ Q are logically equivalent is to say that ¬( P ∨ Q) ⇐⇒ ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q.

Activity 2.2 Show that the statements ¬( P ∧ Q) and ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q are logically

equivalent. [This shows that the negation of P ∧ Q is ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q. That is, ¬( P ∧ Q) is
equivalent to ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q.]

25
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

2.6 Converse statements

2 Given an implication P ⇒ Q, the ‘reverse’ implication Q ⇒ P is known as its

converse. Generally, there is no reason why the converse should be true just because
the implication is. For example, consider the statement ‘If it is Tuesday, then I buy the
Guardian newspaper.’ The converse is ‘If I buy the Guardian newspaper, then it is
Tuesday’. Well, I might buy that newspaper on other days too, in which case the
implication can be true but the converse false. We’ve seen, in fact, that if both P ⇒ Q
and Q ⇒ P then we have a special notation, P ⇐⇒ Q, for this situation. Generally,
then, the truth or falsity of the converse Q ⇒ P has to be determined separately from
that of the implication P ⇒ Q.

Activity 2.3 What is the converse of the statement ‘if the natural number n
divides 4 then n divides 12’? Is the converse true? Is the original statement true?

2.7 Contrapositive statements

The contrapositive of an implication P ⇒ Q is the statement ¬ Q ⇒ ¬ P. The
contrapositive is logically equivalent to the implication, as Table 2.7 shows. (The
columns highlighted in bold are identical.)

P Q P⇒Q ¬P ¬Q ¬Q ⇒ ¬P
T T T F F T
T F F F T F
F T T T F T
F F T T T T

Table 2.7: The truth tables for P ⇒ Q and ¬ Q ⇒ ¬ P.

If you think about it, the equivalence of the implication and its contrapositive makes
sense. For, ¬ Q ⇒ ¬ P says that if Q is false, P is false also. So, it tells us that we cannot
have Q false and P true, which is precisely the same information as is given by
P ⇒ Q.
So what’s the point of this? Well, sometimes you might want to prove P ⇒ Q and it
will, in fact, be easier to prove instead the equivalent (contrapositive) statement
¬ Q ⇒ ¬ P. We will see many examples of this through your degree—for now, see
Biggs, section 3.5 for an example.

2.8 What is a proof?

You should probably have some idea of what a proof is by now: you start with some
statements you’re assuming to be true (usually called axioms), from these statements
you deduce others (using the rules of logic) and eventually you get to the statement

26
2.8. What is a proof?

you wanted to prove. If you are being very formal, you should write down every
single step.
If you write down every single step, you’re in a great position if someone wants to 2
argue with your proof. If someone doesn’t agree with your conclusion—the
statement you’re proving—it’s their problem to find a mistake in your proof. That
means they have to point at some statement in your proof and say that they do not
believe it. Now there are two sorts of statements in your proof: ones which follow
logically from earlier statements, and your axioms. If the doubter says they don’t
believe something which follows logically from earlier statements, then they have to
point at one of these earlier statements and say they don’t like that one either (or they
tell you they don’t believe in logic, in which case you can safely stop listening).
Eventually they will either be convinced you were right all along, or they will get
back to one of your axioms and say they disagree with that. Now, if you have some
strange non-standard axiom, then there might even be a good reason to argue. But if
you stick to standard axioms, like ‘addition of natural numbers is commutative’, then
no-one is going to argue—which means you will convince everyone that what you
claim is true. This is the gold standard of proof.
The problem with writing down every single step is that it takes a very long time to
actually get anywhere. Look back to the proof on page 8—it takes eight lines to do a
piece of algebra which you would normally write out in one line, and even that proof
skips the steps of proving from axioms that 2 × 2 = 2 + 2 = 4 (which we’ll see how to
do in the next chapter). You don’t want to spend the next three years taking pages
and pages to write out simple algebra, so we need to agree on a way to write proofs
which is shorter. There are two ways to do this, and we will use both.
The first way is that, as we go through the course (and the degree) we will make for
ourselves a library of true statements—ones which we already proved—and we will
not repeat the proofs every time we want to use them. So, for example, we already
proved that for every natural number n, the number n2 + n is even (We didn’t really
write out every single step—if you don’t like that, try doing it yourself). Next time we
want to know that n2 + n is even for some natural number n, we won’t need to prove
it, we can just say ‘proved in MA103’. There’s nothing much anyone can object to
here—it’s clear that we could have written out a gold standard proof just by
copying-and-pasting in the proof from MA103.
The second way we will save time is by not writing out every single step. When you
need to do a piece of algebra, do it just as you did in school, and we will assume you
do know how to justify all the steps by going back to the axioms (or at least that you
know where to look in order to find out how). We will also sometimes save steps by
saying that something is ‘obvious’, or ‘clear’. When you (or I) write ‘obvious’ or
‘clear’ in a proof, it is there to tell the reader that there are some steps missing, that
you (or I) know what those steps are, and that the reader should have no trouble
figuring out what the missing steps are. What this also means is: if you cannot
explain why a statement is true, then you cannot write that it is ‘obvious’ in a
proof. You will need to make a judgement of how many steps it is OK to skip.
You will quickly get used to what is and what is not acceptable as a proof—assuming
you do the weekly exercises—because your class teacher will correct you. What you
should keep in mind is that whatever you write as a proof should be something

27
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

which you could expand out to a gold standard proof if you were forced to, either
from memory or because you know where to look for the missing pieces and
previously proved statements.
2
As we go on, those ‘missing pieces and previously proved statements’ will get pretty
long: there will be proofs you write later this year in a page or two which might take
a hundred or more pages to write out in ‘gold standard’ style. For an example (which
you shouldn’t expect to understand when you read this the first time; but it will make
sense when you’re revising) think about how to prove that a piece of simple algebra
with the rational numbers makes sense, in terms of the axioms for the natural
numbers. We prove in this course that you can do it (which is enough—if I know
something is possible, I don’t have to actually do it to check it works)—but try
actually doing it!

2.9 Working backwards to obtain a proof

As you will see in this course, it is not easy to prove statements. On occasion, you
may be asked to prove some statement which you can simply look at and
immediately an idea comes to your mind of what you have to write down to prove it.
Usually, that’s not going to be the case. You need to try different strategies. There isn’t
any universal method which works — at least, if there is humanity has not found it
— but there are some strategies which can help. Here is one of them.
We’ve already seen, in the examples earlier in this chapter, how some statements may
be proved directly. For example, in order to prove a universal statement ‘for all n,
P(n)’ about natural numbers, we would need to provide a proof that starts by
assuming that n is any given (that is, arbitrary) natural number and show the desired
conclusion holds. To disprove such a statement (which is the same as proving its
negation), we would simply need to find a single value of n for which P(n) is false
(and such an n is known as a counterexample).
However, some statements are difficult to prove directly. It is sometimes easier to
‘work backwards’. Suppose you are asked to prove something, such as an inequality
or equation. It might be easier to see how to do so if the end-result (the inequality or
equation you are required to prove) is simplified, or expanded, or re-written in some
way. Here’s an example.

Example 2.2 Prove the statement that: ‘if a, b are real numbers and a 6= b, then
ab < ( a2 + b2 )/2’.
It’s certainly not immediately obvious how to approach this. But let’s start with
what we want to prove. This is the inequality ab < ( a2 + b2 )/2, which can be
rewritten as a2 + b2 − 2ab > 0. Now, this can be simplified as ( a − b)2 > 0 and
maybe now you can see why it is true: the given fact that a 6= b means that
a − b 6= 0 and hence ( a − b)2 is a positive number. So we see why the statement is
true. To write down a nice proof, we can now reverse this argument, as follows:
Proof Since a 6= b, a − b 6= 0 and, hence, ( a − b)2 > 0. But ( a − b)2 = a2 + b2 − 2ab.
So we have a2 + b2 > 2ab and, therefore, ab < ( a2 + b2 )/2, as required.

28
2.10. What is not a proof?

There are a few things to note here. First, mathematics is a language and what you
write has to make good sense. Often, it is tempting to make too much use of symbols
rather than words. But the words used in this proof, and the punctuation, make it
easy to read and give it a structure and an argument. You should find yourself using
2
words like ‘so, ‘hence’, ‘therefore, ‘since’, ‘because’, and so on. Do use words and
punctuation and, whatever you do, do not replace them by symbols of your own
invention! Also do not use the symbols ‘∴’ and ‘ ∵0 . You may have seen these in
school, but they make your work hard to read. Write the English words instead! A
second thing to note is the use of the symbol ‘ ’. There is nothing particularly special
about this symbol: others could be used. What it achieves is that it indicates that the
proof is finished. There is no need to use such a symbol, but you will find that
textbooks do make much use of symbols to indicate when proofs have ended. It
makes the reader’s life easier: when you see the symbol, you know that you are
meant to be convinced and that what follows will be a comment, or the next piece of
material. Otherwise you might be left wondering whether the proof is finished yet.
The final, very important, thing to note is that even if you work backwards to get a
proof, you need to write it down forwards. Otherwise you do not have a proof.

2.10 What is not a proof?

There are several common mistakes made by students when they are asked to prove
something. Some of the most common are:
(1) The goose’s mistake: ‘proof by example’. In January, a goose hatches from an egg.
Every day, the farmer feeds it. Towards the middle of December, the goose is sure
that it will be fed every day forever...
Whenever you are supposed to prove ‘for all...’ statements, you need to do all the
cases not one or two; whenever you want a counterexample to ‘there exists...’
statements, than means you have to show all the possibilities fail, not just that the
most obvious one fails. This probably sounds obvious written out like this, but
nevertheless probably about half of you will make the goose’s mistake at some point.
(2) The ends justify the means. You are in a park and buy an ice-cream; a small child
snatches it away from you. In the end, you will get your ice-cream back—explain
how.
That means: write a story. The first and last lines are given: ‘You are in a park and buy
an ice-cream; a small child snatches it away from you’ and ‘You get your ice-cream
back’. What’s in the middle is important. Maybe it’s ‘You have a long discussion of
comparative morality with the child. It realises the error of its ways’.
You’re used to ‘doing maths’ meaning making a calculation, and the point of a
calculation is to ‘get the right answer’. Now, of course, it can happen that you make
two mistakes in a calculation which happen to cancel out and you get the right
answer even though you made mistakes—but you have to be really lucky for that to
happen. Normally, if you make mistakes you get the wrong answer. So you’re used to
thinking (maybe subconsciously) that if the last line is right, then everything else was
probably also good.

29
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

We’re not doing calculations in this course, though, we’re doing proofs. When you
write a proof, you usually know the first and last lines before anything else: the first
line is what you’re assuming, and the last line is what you want to prove. What is
2 important is actually what’s in the middle which explains why the last line is true. If
(when) you get a proof back from your class teacher marked as wrong even though
‘the answer is right’, before complaining, think: does it make a difference to the story
if the middle line is instead ‘You pull out your gun and shoot the child’?
(3) Working in reverse to obtain a proof but then not writing the proof out forwards.
For example, consider trying to prove the following trigonometric identity: for all
x ∈ R, we have
(cos x )2 − sin x = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x . (2.1)
If you just work in reverse, your proof might be:
Proof.

We want (cos x )2 − sin x = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x

so − sin x = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x − (cos x )2 subtracting (cos x )2
2
so (sin x )2 = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x − (cos x )2 squaring both sides
2 2
so 0 = 1 − 1 + sin x ) − (sin x ) = 0 adding (sin x )2 ,

where to get to the last line we used the identity (sin x )2 + (cos x )2 = 1, which holds
for all x ∈ R. The last line is true, so we are done.

Note that normally you wouldn’t write justifications for each line of simple
algebra—it’s obvious enough how we got from each line to the next—but I wanted to
do this here for extra clarity.
This is not a valid proof—what it shows is that if the identity we want to prove, (2.1),
holds, then 0 = 0, which is a true statement. But a proof is supposed to end with the
statement you want to prove, not start with it.
That might seem picky—after all, it looks pretty much like what we did in
Example 2.2, just we didn’t bother to reverse the argument so the statement we want
is at the end. Well, let’s try reversing it.
Proof, take 2. We have

0 = 1 − 1 + sin x )2 − (sin x )2
2
so (sin x )2 = 1 − 1 + sin x subtracting (sin x )2
2
so (sin x )2 = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x − (cos x )2 since 1 = (sin x )2 + (cos x )2
so − sin x = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x − (cos x )2 taking square roots
so (cos x )2 − sin x = 1 − (sin x )2 + sin x adding (cos x )2

which is what we wanted to prove.

Looks better—but wait! The first two ‘so’s are fine, but the third ‘so’, ‘taking square
roots’, boils down to ‘If a2 = b2 then a = b’ — and that’s not true; it could equally

30
2.11. Sets

well be that a = −b. There is a problem with the proof here — and the reason is that
we are trying to prove a false statement! In fact,

(cos π2 )2 − sin π2 = 02 − 1 = −1 but 1 − (sin π2 )2 + sin π2 = 1 − 12 + 1 = 1 . 2

so the ‘identity’ simply isn’t true.
What you should learn from this example is that it is not being picky to insist on
writing arguments (especially calculations with algebra) properly so that the
statement to be proved comes at the end not the beginning. It is very easy to do some
operation to both sides which is not reversible—in this example, squaring—without
noticing and ‘prove’ a false statement. If you write a proof properly, i.e. forwards,
then you are more likely to notice a potential problem.

2.11 Sets

2.11.1 Basics
You have probably already met some basic ideas about sets and there is not too much
more to add at this stage, but they are such an important idea in abstract mathematics
that they are worth discussing here.
Loosely speaking, a set may be thought of as a collection of objects. A set is usually
described by listing or describing its members, or elements, inside curly brackets. For
example, when we write A = {1, 2, 3}, we mean that the objects belonging to the set
A are the numbers 1, 2, 3 (or, equivalently, the set A consists of the numbers 1, 2 and
3). Equally (and this is what we mean by ‘describing’ its members), this set could
have been written as

A = {n | n is a whole number and 1 ≤ n ≤ 3}.

Here, the symbol | stands for ‘such that’. Often, the symbol ‘:’ is used instead, so that
we might write
A = {n : n is a whole number and 1 ≤ n ≤ 3}.

When x is an object in a set A, we write x ∈ A and say ‘x belongs to A’, or ‘x is in A’,

or ‘x is a member of A’. If x is not in A we write x 6∈ A.
As another example, the set

B = { x ∈ N | x is even}

has as its members the set of positive even integers. Here we are specifying the set by
describing the defining property of its members.
One point which is important is that it doesn’t make sense to say that an object is in a
set twice. It’s either in or not, and this is the end. We’ll avoid writing obvious
repetitions, like S = {1, 2, 3, 1}. That is a set, and it is the same as the set {1, 2, 3};
whichever way I write it, it contains 1, 2 and 3 and nothing else. But sometimes it will
be painful to write a description avoiding repetition.

31
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Sometimes it is useful to give a constructional description of a set. For example,

C = {n2 | n ∈ N} is the set of natural numbers known as the ‘perfect squares’.
2 We could also write D = {z2 | z ∈ Z}, where Z is the set of all (not just positive)
integers. The difference between C and D is simple: D contains 0 and C does not.
That’s the only difference. By definition (−3)2 = 9 is in D, but it is also in C, because
32 = 9 is by definition in C. It doesn’t matter that our definition of D repeats some
elements (like 9 = (−3)2 = 32 ).
The set which has no members is called the empty set and is denoted by ∅. The empty
set may seem like a strange concept, but it is useful to define. Think about
lengths—‘zero centimetres’ is a funny length, but if we didn’t want to use it, we
would have trouble with the question ‘How much longer is a metre than 100
centimetres?’.

2.11.2 Subsets
We say that the set S is a subset of the set T, and we write S ⊆ T, if every member of S
is a member of T. For example, {1, 2, 5} ⊆ {1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 40}. (Be aware that some texts
use ⊂ where we use ⊆.) What this means is that the statement

x∈S⇒x∈T

is true.
A rather obvious, but sometimes useful, observation is that, given two sets A and B,
A = B if and only if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A. So to prove two sets are equal, we can prove
that each of these two ‘containments’ holds. That might seem clumsy, but it is, in
many cases, the best approach.
For any set A, the empty set, ∅, is a subset of A. You might think this is strange,
because what it means is that ‘every member of ∅ is also a member of A’. But ∅ has
no members—how can that be true? Let’s go back to the logic: ‘every member of ∅ is
also a member of A’ means ‘for each x, if x in ∅ then x ∈ A’. Check the truth table of
if—then (⇒). The only way some x can be a counterexample to this statement is if x is
in ∅ and not in A. But there is no x such that x ∈ ∅, by definition—so we proved
∅ ⊆ A.

2.11.3 Health warning

It’s very easy to get confused about what sets are equal, what are members and what
are subsets of a set. I’m about to give an example, which right now will look like a
deliberate attempt to trick you. But things like this will show up later, not as a trick,
and you need to get it right.
Consider the set S = {0, 1, {0, 1}, {2}}. What are its members and subsets? Well, 0 is a
member. And so is 1, and so is {0, 1}, and so is {2}. But 2 is not a member of S.
Furthermore, {0, 1} is a subset of S (because 0 and 1 are both members of S) and so is
{{0, 1}}. These are two different sets — {0, 1} 6= {{0, 1}}. And there are some other
subsets of S too — try to write them all out; you should get 16 in total.
If you don’t like the statements above, maybe think of it this way. Any

32
2.11. Sets

(mathematical) object can go in a set, so the number 1 can go in, or a function can go
in, or even another set. This is just the same thing as saying that you can put a
(normal) object in a parcel, so an apple can go in a parcel, or an orange can go in a
parcel, or a parcel full of sweets can go in another parcel, and so on. If you think a
2
parcel containing a parcel full of sweets is the same as a parcel full of sweets (or it’s
the same as just having a lot of sweets), think back to childhood games of
Pass-the-Parcel. Just like that game, it really matters how many of the { and } set
brackets there are, and what exactly they go round.

2.11.4 Unions and intersections

Given two sets A and B, the union A ∪ B is the set whose members belong to A or B
(or both A and B): that is,

A ∪ B = { x | x ∈ A or x ∈ B}.

Equivalently, to use the notation we’ve learned,

x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ ( x ∈ A) ∨ ( x ∈ B).

Example 2.3 If A = {1, 2, 3, 5} and B = {2, 4, 5, 7}, then A ∪ B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7}.

Similarly, we define the intersection A ∩ B to be the set whose members belong to both
A and B:
A ∩ B = { x | x ∈ A and x ∈ B}.
So,
x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ ( x ∈ A) ∧ ( x ∈ B).

2.11.5 Arbitrary unions and intersections

Often we will want to take the union of a lot of sets, for example
A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 ∪ A4 ∪ A5 . This is a pain to write out in this way, and if we wanted to
take the union of infinitely many sets, we wouldn’t be able to do it at all. So we define
a notation which lets us write such a thing easily.
Suppose that I is a set, which we will call the index set, and that for each i ∈ I we have
some set Ai (so in the example above, I = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}). Then we define the arbitrary
union [
Ai
i∈ I
for the set
x | x ∈ Ai for at least one i ∈ I .

Similarly, we define the arbitrary intersection

\
Ai
i∈ I

33
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

for the set

x | x ∈ Ai for all i ∈ I } .
2 You should check for yourself that
[
Ai
i ∈{1,2,3,4,5}

really defines the same set as A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 ∪ A4 ∪ A5 , and similarly with the

arbitrary intersection.
One final warning: what do these definitions mean if I = ∅? It’s not very obvious,
and we need to talk about universal sets to understand it. We’ll get back to this later;
for now, just think of as a convenient way to avoid writing a long string of ∪s.
S

2.11.6 Universal sets and complements

We’ve been a little informal about what the possible ‘objects’ in a set might be. In fact,
we haven’t been very clear about what exactly is and is not a set—this is a genuine
difficulty. See Section 2.16 for a brief discussion of this. In this course, we will take the
(not very rigorous!) point of view that anything we claim is a set, really is. In order
for this to make some kind of sense, we will always work with respect to some
‘universal set’ E. For example, if we are thinking about sets of natural numbers, the
universal set (the possible candidates for membership of the sets we might want to
consider) is the set N of all natural numbers.
This might seem like an unnecessary complication, but it is essential. Suppose I tell
you that the set A is the set of all even natural numbers. What are the objects that do
not belong to A? Well, in the context of natural numbers, it is all odd natural
numbers. The context is important (and it is this that is encapsulated in the universal
set). Without that context (or universal set), then there are many other objects that we
could say do not belong to A, such as negative integers, apples, bananas and
elephants. (I could go on, but I hope you get the point!)
Given a universal set E and a subset A of E, the complement of A (sometimes called
the complement of A in E) is denoted by E \ A and is
E \ A = { x ∈ E | x 6 ∈ A }.
If the universal set is clear, the complement of A is sometimes denoted by Ā or Ac
(with textbooks differing in their notation).
Suppose A is any subset of E. Because each member of E is either a member of A, or
is not a member of A, it follows that
A ∪ ( E \ A) = E.

2.11.7 Sets and logic

There are a great many comparisons and analogies between set theory and logic.
Using the shorthand notation for complements, one of the ‘De Morgan’ laws of
complementation is that
A ∩ B = Ā ∪ B̄.

34
2.11. Sets

This looks a little like the fact (observed in an earlier Learning Activity) that ¬( P ∧ Q)
is equivalent to ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q. And this is more than a coincidence. The negation
operation, the conjunction operation, and the disjunction operation on statements
behave entirely in the same way as the complementation, intersection, and union
2
operations (in turn) on sets. In fact, when you start to prove things about sets, you
often end up giving arguments that are based in logic.
For example, how would we prove that A ∩ B = Ā ∪ B̄? We could argue as follows:

x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∩ B
⇐⇒ ¬( x ∈ A ∩ B)
⇐⇒ ¬(( x ∈ A) ∧ ( x ∈ B))
⇐⇒ ¬( x ∈ A) ∨ ¬( x ∈ B)
⇐⇒ ( x ∈ Ā) ∨ ( x ∈ B̄)
⇐⇒ x ∈ Ā ∪ B̄.

What the result says is, in fact, easy to understand: if x is not in both A and B, then
that’s precisely because it fails to be in (at least) one of them.
For two sets A and B (subsets of a universal set E), the complement of B in A, denoted
by A \ B, is the set of objects that belong to A but not to B. That is,

A \ B = { x ∈ A | x 6 ∈ B }.

Activity 2.4 Prove that A \ B = A ∩ ( E \ B).

2.11.8 Cartesian products

For sets A and B, the Cartesian product A × B is the set of all ordered pairs ( a, b), where
a ∈ A and b ∈ B. For example, if A = B = R then A × B = R × R is the set of all
ordered pairs of real numbers, usually denoted by R2 .
There is often a confusion between sets of two elements and ordered pairs (or more
generally ordered tuples, also called vectors). They’re visually different: { a, b} is a set
with two elements (a and b, which are not the same) whereas ( a, b) is the ordered pair
whose first element is a and second element is b (and a and b might be the same, for
example if you are to go 3 metres North and 3 metres East, i.e. follow the vector (3, 3),
units in metres). Usually people have no trouble remembering the difference when
working with vectors in Rn , but get the two confused when working with other
things. If you are told that {sugar, salt} are in jars in the cupboard, you know you
don’t need to go buy more. If you are told that there is {salt, sugar} there, you’ve just
been told the same thing again. You know you don’t want to confuse (salt, sugar) and
(sugar, salt), otherwise your tea will taste nasty. So if someone tells you that
{salt, sugar} are on the table, you’d probably ask which is which—is it (salt, sugar)
from left to right, or (sugar, salt)? In normal life you’re happy with the idea that
{salt, sugar}, (sugar, salt) and (salt, sugar) are three different things.

35
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

2.11.9 Power sets

For a set A, the set of all subsets of A, denoted P ( A), is called the power set of A. Note
2 that the power set is a set of sets. For example, if A = {1, 2, 3}, then

P ( A) = {∅, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3}} .

Activity 2.5 Write down the power set of the set A = {1, 2, 3, 4}.

Activity 2.6 Suppose that A has n members, where n ∈ N. How many members
does P ( A) have?

2.12 Quantifiers
We have already met the ideas of universal and existential statements involving
natural numbers. More generally, given any set E, a universal statement on E is one of
the form ‘for all x ∈ E, P( x )’. This statement is true if P( x ) is true for all x in E, and it
is false if there is some x in E (known as a counterexample) such that P( x ) is false. We
have a special symbol that is used in universal statements: the symbol ‘∀’ means ‘for
all’. So the typical universal statement can be written as

∀ x ∈ E, P( x ).
(The comma is not necessary, but I think it looks better.) An existential statement on E
is one of the form ‘there is x ∈ E such that P( x )’, which is true if there is some x ∈ E
for which P( x ) is true, and is false if for every x ∈ E, P( x ) is false. Again, we have a
useful symbol, ‘∃’, meaning ‘there exists’. So the typical existential statement can be
written as
∃ x ∈ E, P( x ).
Here, we have omitted the phrase ‘such that’, but this is often included if the
statement reads better with it. For instance, we could write

∃n ∈ N, n2 − 2n + 1 = 0,
but it would probably be easier to read

∃n ∈ N such that n2 − 2n + 1 = 0.
Often ‘such that’ is abbreviated to ‘s.t.’. (By the way, this statement is true because
n = 1 satisfies n2 − 2n + 1 = 0.)
We have seen that the negation of a universal statement is an existential statement
and vice versa. In symbols, ¬(∀ x ∈ E, P( x )) is logically equivalent to ∃ x ∈ E, ¬ P( x );
and ¬(∃ x ∈ E, P( x )) is logically equivalent to ∀ x ∈ E, ¬ P( x ).
With these observations, we can now form the negations of more complex statements.
Consider the statement
∀n ∈ N, ∃m ∈ N, m > n.

36
2.12. Quantifiers

Activity 2.7 What does the statement ∀n ∈ N, ∃m ∈ N, m > n mean? Is it true?

What would the negation of the statement be? Let’s take it gently. First, notice that 2
the statement is
∀n ∈ N, (∃m ∈ N, m > n).
The parentheses here do not change the meaning. According to the rules for negation
of universal statements, the negation of this is
∃n ∈ N, ¬(∃m ∈ N, m > n).
But what is ¬(∃m ∈ N, m > n)? According to the rules for negating existential
statements, this is equivalent to ∀m ∈ N, ¬(m > n). What is ¬(m > n)? Well, it’s just
m ≤ n. So what we see is that the negation of the initial statement is
∃n ∈ N, ∀m ∈ N, m ≤ n.
We can put this argument more succinctly, as follows:
¬ (∀n ∈ N(∃m ∈ N, m > n)) ⇐⇒ ∃n ∈ N, ¬(∃m ∈ N, m > n)
⇐⇒ ∃n ∈ N, ∀m ∈ N, ¬(m > n)
⇐⇒ ∃n ∈ N, ∀m ∈ N, m ≤ n.

2.12.1 Quantifiers and arbitrary unions and intersections; empty

sets
Another way of defining arbitrary union is
[
Ai = x | ∃i ∈ I, x ∈ Ai ,
i∈ I
and the arbitrary intersection is
\
Ai = x | ∀i ∈ I, x ∈ Ai .
i∈ I
Check that you see these definitions agree with the ones we gave earlier!
Now, what exactly do we do if I is an empty set? Well, for union it is intuitively clear:
the union of no sets had better be an empty set. That’s what the definition above says.
If I is empty, there is no i ∈ I, so whatever the condition after ‘∃i ∈ I’ is is irrelevant.
The statement ‘∃ X ∈ ∅, P( x )’ is False whatever P( x ) is. This looks obvious written
like this, but if P( x ) is a statement that looks ‘obviously true’ you will be tempted to
say that ‘∃ X ∈ ∅, P( x )’ should be True, and then you will run into trouble.
For the arbitrary intersection, it is not so clear what the right answer should be — and
in fact we will avoid using this notation — but what the answer should be is that
\
Ai = E
i ∈∅
where E is the universal set we’re working in. Why? Well, because ‘∀ x ∈ ∅, P( x )’ is
True whatever P( x ) is, so by definition every x we are considering is in the arbitrary
intersection of no sets. This might sound strange, and for sets it is a bit funny. But it is
important in logic: and again, if P( x ) is some statement that looks ‘obviously false’
then you will be tempted to say that ‘∀ x ∈ ∅, P( x )’ should be False and get into
trouble.

37
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

2.13 Proof by contradiction

2 We’ve seen a small example of proof by contradiction earlier in the chapter. Suppose
you want to prove P ⇒ Q. One way to do this is by contradiction. What this means is
that you suppose P is true but Q is false (in other words, that the statement P ⇒ Q is
false) and you show that, somehow, this leads to a conclusion that you know,
definitely, to be false.
Here’s an example.

Example 2.4 There are no integers m, n such that 6m + 8n = 1099.

To prove this by contradiction, we can argue as follows:

Suppose that integers m, n do exist such that 6m + 8n = 1099. Then since 6 is even, 6n
is also even; and, since 8 is even, 8n is even. Hence 6m + 8n, as a sum of two even
numbers, is even. But this means 1099 = 6m + 8n is an even number. But, in fact, it is
not even, so we have a contradiction. It follows that m, n of the type required do not
exist.

This sort of argument can be a bit perplexing when you first meet it. What’s going on
in the example just given? Well, what we show is that if such m, n exist, then
something impossible happens: namely the number 1099 is both even and odd. Well,
this can’t be. If supposing something leads to a conclusion you know to be false, then
the initial supposition must be false. So the conclusion is that such integers m, n do
not exist.
Probably the most famous proof by contradiction is Euler’s proof that there are
infinitely many prime numbers. A prime number is a natural number greater than 1
which is only divisible by 1 and itself. Such numbers have been historically of huge
importance in mathematics, and they are also very useful in a number of important
applications, such as information security. The first few prime numbers are
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, . . . . A natural question is: does this list go on forever, or is there a largest
prime number? In fact, the list goes on forever: there are infinitely many prime
numbers. We’ll mention this result again later. A full, detailed, understanding of the
proof requires some results we’ll meet later, but you should be able to get the flavour
of it at this stage. So here it is, a very famous result:

There are infinitely many prime numbers.

Proof. (Informally written for the sake of exposition) Suppose not. That is, suppose
there are only a finite number of primes. Then there’s a largest one. Let’s call it M.
Now consider the number

X = (2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × · · · × M ) + 1,

which is the product of all the prime numbers (2 up to M), with 1 added. Notice that
X > M, so X is not a prime (because M is the largest prime). If a number X is not
prime, that means that it has a divisor p that is a prime number and which satisfies
1 < p < X. [This is the key observation: we haven’t really proved this yet, but we will
later.] But p must therefore be one of the numbers 2, 3, 5, . . . , M. However, X is not

38
2.14. Some terminology

divisible by any of these numbers, because it has remainder 1 when divided by any of
them. So we have reached a contradiction: on the one hand, X must be divisible by
one of these primes, and on the other, it is not. So the initial supposition that there
were not infinitely many primes simply must be wrong. We conclude there are
2
infinitely many primes.

This proof has been written in a fairly informal and leisurely way to help explain
what’s happening. It could be written more succinctly and a bit more formally:
Proof. Suppose the set of prime numbers is not infinite. Then there are t prime
numbers, for some integer t. In other words, the set of prime numbers is { p1 , . . . , pt }.
Consider the integer N = p1 × p2 × · · · × pt + 1. Now N is bigger than any of
p1 , . . . , pt , so (by our assumption that p1 , . . . , pt are all the prime numbers) it cannot
be prime. And by construction N is not divisible by any of p1 , . . . , pt (if we divide by
any of them we have a remainder of 1). And since 2 and 3 are prime, certainly N is at
least 7, in particular it is bigger than 1. But any integer bigger than 1 is either prime or
it is divisible by a prime number, which is a contradiction.

This proof is still missing a few things—which you can see a bit more clearly because
it’s written formally. Why does the first sentence imply the second? Well, we didn’t
formally define the word ‘infinite’ yet. When we do, you’ll see that the second
sentence is just writing out the definition of ‘not infinite’, also known as ‘finite’. And
we still didn’t prove the final sentence—but hopefully it is a bit more clear what
exactly we do need to prove. It’s worth thinking about this a little bit now—what
exactly is missing? We defined a prime number to be an integer greater than 1 which
is only divisible by 1 and itself. So we need to know what to do if we are given an
integer bigger than 1 which is not prime.
The other point which we should be careful about is the following. Suppose that we
take the first t prime numbers, multiply them together and add one. What we just
proved is that either we will get a new prime number or what we get will be divisible
by a prime number which isn’t one of the first t primes. We don’t have any idea which
of these two things will happen. If you try this for the first few values of t, you see
2+1 = 3
2×3+1 = 7
2 × 3 × 5 + 1 = 31
2 × 3 × 5 × 7 + 1 = 211
2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 + 1 = 2311
which are all prime. It’s tempting to think this pattern will continue, but in fact
2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × 13 + 1 = 30031 = 59 × 509
is not prime.

2.14 Some terminology

At this point, it’s probably worth introducing some important terminology. When, in
Mathematics, we prove a true statement, we often say we are proving a Theorem, or a

39
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Proposition. (Usually the word ‘Proposition’ is used if the statement does not seem
quite so significant as to merit the description ‘Theorem’.) A theorem that is a
preliminary result leading up to a Theorem is often called a Lemma, and a minor
2 theorem that is a fairly direct consequence of, or special case of, a theorem is called a
Corollary, if it is not significant enough itself to merit the title Theorem. For your
purposes, it is important just to know that these words all mean true mathematical
statements. You should realise that these terms are used subjectively: for instance, the
person writing the mathematics has to make a decision about whether a particular
result merits the title ‘Theorem’ or is, instead, merely to be called a ‘Proposition’.

2.15 General advice

2.15.1 Introduction
Proving things is difficult. Inevitably, when you read a proof, in the textbooks or in
these notes, you will ask ‘How did the writer know to do that?’ and you will often
find you asking yourself ‘How can I even begin to prove this?’. This is perfectly
normal. This is where the key difference between abstract mathematics and more
‘methods-based’ mathematics lies. If you are asked to differentiate a function, you
just go ahead and do it. It might be technically difficult in some cases, but there is no
doubt about what approaches you should use. But proving something is more
difficult. You might try to prove it, and fail. That’s fine: what you should do in that
case is try another attack. Keep trying until you crack it. (I suppose this is a little bit
like integration. You’ll know that there are various methods, but you don’t
necessarily know which will work on a particular integral, so you should try one, and
keep trying until you manage to find the integral.) Abstract mathematics should
always be done with a large pile of scrap paper at your disposal. You are unlikely to
be able to write down a perfect solution to a problem straight away: some ‘scratching
around’ to get a feel for what’s going on might well be needed, and some false starts
might be pursued first. If you expect to be able to envisage a perfect solution in your
head and then write it down perfectly, you are placing too much pressure on
yourself. You will only be able to do this for easy problems, and we aren’t going to be
doing easy problems. Your lecturers may give the impression of being able to
produce perfect solutions effortlessly, but this is a result of lots of practice and doing
the work in advance of the lecture (i.e. cheating). When we come across a problem we
haven’t seen before, we also try things which turn out not to work.
In this chapter I have tried to indicate that there are methodical approaches to proof
(such as proof by contradiction, for example). What you have to always be able to do
is to understand precisely what it is that you have to prove. That sounds obvious, but
it is something the importance of which is often underestimated. Once you
understand what you need to show (and, here, working backwards a little from that
end-point might be helpful, as we’ve seen), then you have to try to show it. And you
must know when you have done so! So it is inevitable that you will have to take a
little time to think about what is required: you cannot simply ‘dive in’ like you might
to a differentiation question.
All this becomes much easier as you practice it. You should attempt problems from

40
2.15. General advice

the textbooks (and also the problems below). Problems are a valuable resource and
you are squandering this resource if you simply turn to the answers (should these be
available). It is one thing to ‘agree’ with an answer, or to understand a proof, but it is
quite a different thing to come up with a proof yourself. There is no point in looking
2
at the answer before you have tried hard yourself to answer the problem. By trying
(and possibly failing), you will learn more than simply by reading answers. Exam
questions will be different from problems you have seen, so there is no point at all in
‘learning’ answers. You need to understand how to approach problems and how to
answer them for yourself.

2.15.2 How to write mathematics

You should write mathematics in English!! You shouldn’t think that writing
mathematics is just using formulae. A good way to see if your writing makes sense is
by reading it aloud (where you should only read what you really have written, not
adding extra words). If it sounds like nonsense, a sequence of loose statements with
no obvious relations, then you probably need to write it again.
Don’t use more symbols than necessary.
Since many people seem to think that mathematics involves writing formulae, they
often use symbols to replace normal English words. An eternal favourite is the
double arrow “=⇒” to indicate that one thing follows from the other. As in :

x2 = 1 =⇒ x = 1 or x = −1.

This is not only pure laziness, since it’s just as easy to write :

x2 = 1, hence x = 1 or x = −1.

But it is even probably not what was meant! The implication arrow “=⇒” has a
logical meaning “if . . . , then . . . ”. So if you write “x2 = 1 =⇒ x = 1 or x = −1”, then
that really means “if x2 = 1, then x = 1 or x = −1”. And hence this gives no real
information about what x is. On the other hand, writing

I know x2 = 1, hence x = 1 or x = −1,

means that now we know x = 1 or x = −1 and can use that knowledge in what
follows.
Some other unnecessary symbols that are sometimes used are “∴” and “ ∵ ”. They
mean something like “therefore/hence” and “since/because”. It is best not to use
them, but to write the word instead. It makes things so much easier to read.

Provide all information required.

A good habit is to start by writing what information is given and what question
needs to be answered. For instance, suppose you are asked to prove the following :
Problem 2.1 For any natural numbers a, b, c with c ≥ 2, there is a natural number n
such that an2 + bn + c is not a prime.

A good start to an answer would be :

41
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Given : natural numbers a, b, c, with c ≥ 2.

To prove : there is a natural number n such that an2 + bn + c is not a prime.
2 At this point you (and any future reader) has all the information required, and you
can start thinking what really needs to be done.

2.15.3 How to do mathematics

In a few words : by trying and by doing it yourself !!

Try hard
The kind of questions you will be dealing with in this subject often have no obvious
answers. There is no standard method to come to an answer. That means that you
have to find out what to do yourself. And the only way of doing that is by trial and
error.
So once you know what you are asked to do (plus all the information you were
given), the next thing is to take a piece of paper and start writing down some possible
next steps. Some of them may look promising, so have a better look at those and see if
they will help you. Hopefully, after some (or a lot) of trying, you see how to answer
the question. Then you can go back to writing down the answer. This rough working
is a vital part of the process of answering a question (and, in an examination, you
should make sure your working is shown). Once you have completed this part of the
process, you will then be in a position to write the final answer in a concise form
indicating the flow of the reasoning and the arguments used.
Keep trying
You must get used to the situation that not every question can be answered
immediately. Sometimes you immediately see what to do and how to do it. But other
times you will realise that after a long time you haven’t got any further.
Don’t get frustrated when that happens. Put the problem aside, and try to do another
question (or do something else). Look back at the question later or another day, and
see if it makes more sense then. Often the answer will come to you as some kind of
“ah-ha” flash. But you can’t force these flashes. Spending more time improves the
chances they happen, though.
Don’t get the idea that you are looking for ‘the right answer’. That might seem
funny—in every mathematics class you ever took so far, you were probably told that
the point of mathematics is ‘to find the right answer’. This is not true. We would like
to know which statements are true and which are false—but usually there are lots of
different correct ways to prove a statement is true. They are all ‘right answers’. So
don’t be surprised if your answer to a problem is not the same as the model solution
but it is marked as correct—that just means you found a different way to solve the
problem, which is fine.
If you need a long time to answer certain questions, you can consider yourself in
good company. For the problem known as “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, the time
between when the problem was first formulated and when the answer was found
was about 250 years.
Finally, you should not be unhappy if you find some problems you can’t solve at all.

42
2.15. General advice

What about the following: Suppose I take the first t primes, multiply them together
and add one (remember we saw this when we proved that there are infinitely many
primes). We know the result is sometimes prime and sometimes not, depending on t
(we saw examples of both). Are there infinitely many values of t such that we get a
2
prime number? No-one knows the answer; that problem has been open for over 2 300
years.

Do it yourself
Here is one (of many possible) solutions to Problem 2.1:
Given : natural numbers a, b, c, with c ≥ 2.
To prove : there is a natural number n such that an2 + bn + c is not a prime.
By definition, a natural number p is prime if p ≥ 2 and the only divisors of p are 1
and p itself.
Hence to prove : there is a natural number n for which an2 + bn + c is smaller than 2
or it has divisors other than 1 or itself.
Let’s take n = c. Then we have an2 + bn + c = ac2 + bc + c.
But we can write ac2 + bc + c = c ( ac + b + 1), which shows that ac2 + bc + c has c
and ac + b + 1 as divisors.
Moreover, it’s easy to see that neither c nor ac + b + 1 can be equal to 1 or to
ac2 + bc + c.
We’ve found a value of n for which an2 + bn + c has divisors other than 1 or itself.

The crucial step in the answer above is the one in which I choose to take n = c. Why
did I choose that? Because it works. How did I get the idea to take n = c? Ah, that’s
far less obvious. Probably some rough paper and lots of trying was involved. In the
final answer, no information about how this clever idea was found needs to be given.
You probably have no problems following the reasoning given above, and hence you
may think that you understand this problem. But being able to follow the answer,
and being able to find the answer yourself are two completely different matters.
And it is the second skill you are suppose to acquire in this course. (And hence the
skill that will be tested in the examination.) Once you have learnt how to approach
questions such as the above and come up with the clever trick yourself, you have
some hope of being able to answer other questions of a similar type.
But if you only study answers, you will probably never be able to find new
arguments for yourself. And hence when you are given a question you’ve never seen
before, how can you trust yourself that you have the ability to see the “trick” that that
particular question requires ?
For many, abstract mathematics seems full of clever “tricks”. But these tricks have
always been found by people working very hard to get such a clever idea, not by
people just studying other problems and the tricks found by other people.

2.15.4 How to become better in mathematics

One thing you might consider is doing more questions. The books are a good source
of exercises. Trying some of these will give you extra practice.
But if you want to go beyond just being able to do what somebody else has written

43
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

down, you must try to explore the material even further. Try to understand the
reason for things that are maybe not explicitly asked.
2 As an illustration of thinking that way, look again at the formulation of the example
we looked at before :
For any natural numbers a, b, c with c ≥ 2, there is a natural number n such that
an2 + bn + c is not a prime.
Why is it so important that c ≥ 2 ? If you look at the proof in the previous section,
you see that that proof goes wrong if c = 1. (Since we want to use that c is a divisor
different from 1.) Does that mean the statement is wrong if c = 1 ? (No, but a different
proof is required.)
And what happens if we allow one or more of a, b, c to be zero or negative?
And what about more complicated expression such as an3 + bn2 + cn + d for some
numbers a, b, c, d with d ≥ 2 ? Could it be possible that there is an expression like this
for which all n give prime numbers ? If you found the answer to the original question
yourself, then you probably immediately see that the answer has to be “no”, since
similar arguments as before work. But if you didn’t try the original question yourself,
and just studied the ready-made answer, you’ll be less well equipped to answer more
general or slightly altered versions.
Once you start thinking like this, you are developing the skills required to be good in
mathematics. Trying to see beyond what is asked, asking yourself new questions and
seeing which you can answer, is the best way to train yourself to become a
mathematician.

2.16 Non-examinable: set theory—take 2

What is a set, exactly? It’s supposed to be a mathematical object, which contains other
mathematical objects. That sounds like a definition—why not just say that anything
goes; put a bunch of objects in a bag and you have a set, which you can name (and in
turn you can put it in further sets.
One of the properties we would rather like to have sets to have is that we can write
things like
n ∈ N : n is even

statement P(s) (whose

and say that this too is a set. More generally, if we have some
truth depends on s) and a set S, we would like to say that s ∈ S : P(s) is true is a
set. We’ll see that this kind of statement shows up continually throughout your
degree programme.
Now, so far this looks fine—if ‘anything goes’ then certainly this is OK. But if
‘anything goes’, we can also ask about the set of all mathematical objects—this would
also be a set, let’s call it U for ‘universe’. And we can write our favourite statement
P(s), for example P(s) could be the statement ‘s is not a member of s’. In that case we
get a set
X = s ∈ U : P(s) is true .

44
2.17. Learning outcomes

Now, you might notice this statement P(s) is a bit funny—how can a set possibly be a
member of itself? Well, actually if U is a set, it is a mathematical object so it has to
contain itself. That might already raise a warning sign that strange things are going to
happen, but it’s not actually a logical contradiction; it’s just a bit funny.
2
But what about this set X? Well, by definition X contains everything which is not a
member of itself (and nothing else). So it certainly contains anything which isn’t a set
(because something which isn’t a set doesn’t contain anything at all, let alone itself).
And it certainly contains a lot of sets, like ∅ and {1, 2, 53}. OK, does X contain X?
Well, if not, then by definition it should. So X must contain X. But then by definition,
X cannot contain X. That’s a logical contradiction, pointed out by Bertrand Russell.
It’s really nothing more than a mathematical version of the ‘Barber of Seville’, who
shaves everyone in Seville that doesn’t shave themself. Who shaves the Barber?
What this logical contradiction tells us is that ‘anything goes’ is not OK. Some things
are not sets. We need to give some rules which allow you to construct new sets from
old sets; some axioms of set theory. This is what most mathematicians do (when we
think about such things at all!), and usually we use some axioms called ZFC. These
axioms don’t, for instance, allow you to construct a ‘set of everything’; in fact, they
don’t allow any set to contain itself (because you have to construct new sets from old
sets you already have). These rules don’t—as far as we know—lead to logical
contradictions like Russell’s. If you are worried about trying to explain everything in
mathematics, then a good place to start is with ZFC set theory.
However, ZFC set theory is hard work; you spend a lot of time and energy proving
things which look ‘obvious’, to an even greater extent than you’ll see in the next
chapter (where we discuss axioms for the natural numbers). We had to make a choice:
do we spend all of MA103 building up the basics of mathematics from set theory, so
that you have one (hopefully) consistent foundation for the rest of your degree? Or
do we want to actually do some mathematics? We chose to do the latter, which means
that in this course we are going to assume some things are true without proving
them. In particular, we are going to assume statements like that there is such a thing
as the set of natural numbers N, that it makes sense to talk about sets of pairs such as
{( a, b) : a, b ∈ N}, and so on. All these are things which one can prove from the ZFC
axioms, but we will not do so.
If you dislike this, you should go study ZFC set theory (in the summer, when you
have time!). However don’t expect it to be particularly easy, and don’t expect it to be
an ‘answer to everything’. You’ll still need to assume that ZFC set theory itself makes
sense; there is no proof that it makes sense.

2.17 Learning outcomes

At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

demonstrate an understanding of what mathematical statements are

prove whether mathematical statements are true or false

negate statements, including universal statements and existential statements

45
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

construct truth tables for logical statements

use truth tables to determine whether logical statements are logically equivalent
2 or not

demonstrate knowledge of what is meant by conjunction and disjunction

demonstrate understanding of the meaning of ‘if-then’ statements and be able to

prove or disprove such statements

demonstrate understanding of the meaning of ‘if and only if’ statements and be
able to prove or disprove such statements

find the converse and contrapositive of statements

prove statements by proving their contrapositive

prove results by various methods, including directly, by the the method of proof
by contradiction, and by working backwards

demonstrate understanding of the key ideas and notations concerning sets

prove results about sets

use existential and universal quantifiers

be able to negate statements involving several different quantifiers

2.18 Sample exercises

Exercise 2.1
Is the following statement about natural numbers n true or false? Justify your answer by
giving a proof or a counterexample:

If n is divisible by 6 then n is divisible by 3.

What are the converse and contrapositive of this statement? Is the converse true? Is the
contrapositive true?

Exercise 2.2
Is the following statement about natural numbers n true or false? Justify your answer by
giving a proof or a counterexample:

If n is divisible by 2 then n is divisible by 4.

What are the converse and contrapositive of this statement? Is the converse true? Is the
contrapositive true?

Exercise 2.3
Prove that ¬( P ∧ Q) and ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q are logically equivalent.

46
2.19. Comments on selected activities

Exercise 2.4
Prove that the negation of P ∨ Q is ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q.

Exercise 2.5
2
Prove that for all real numbers a, b, c, ab + ac + bc ≤ a2 + b2 + c2 .

Exercise 2.6
Prove by contradiction that there is no largest natural number.

Exercise 2.7
Prove that there is no smallest positive real number.

Exercise 2.8
Suppose A and B are subsets of a universal set E. Prove that

( E × E) \ ( A × B) = (( E \ A) × E) ∪ ( E × ( E \ B)).

Exercise 2.9
Suppose that P( x, y) is a predicate involving two free variables x, y from a set E. (So, for
given x and y, P( x, y) is either true or false.) Find the negation of the statement

∃ x ∈ E, ∀y ∈ E, P( x, y)

2.19 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 2.2 We can do this by constructing a truth table. Consider Table 2.8.
This proves that ¬( P ∧ Q) and ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q are equivalent.

P Q P∧Q ¬( P ∧ Q) ¬P ¬Q ¬P ∨ ¬Q
T T T F F F F
T F F T F T T
F T F T T F T
F F F T T T T

Table 2.8: The truth tables for ¬( P ∧ Q) and ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q

Learning activity 2.3 The converse is ‘if n divides 12 then n divides 4’. This is false.
For instance, n = 12 is a counterexample. This is because 12 divides 12, but it does
not divide 4. The original statement is true, however. For, if n divides 4, then for some
m ∈ Z, 4 = nm and hence 12 = 3 × 4 = 3nm = n(3m), which shows that n divides 12.
Learning activity 2.4 We have

x ∈ A \ B ⇐⇒ ( x ∈ A) ∧ ( x 6∈ B)
⇐⇒ ( x ∈ A) ∧ ( x ∈ E \ B)
⇐⇒ x ∈ A ∩ ( E \ B).

47
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Learning activity 2.5 P ( A) is the set consisting of the following sets:

∅, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {3, 4},
2
{1, 2, 3}, {2, 3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4}.

Learning activity 2.6 The members of P ( A) are all the subsets of A. A subset S is
determined by which of the n members of A it contains. For each member x of A,
either x ∈ S or x 6∈ S. There are therefore two possibilities, for each x ∈ A. It follows
that the number of subsets is 2 × 2 × · · · × 2 (where there are n factors, one for each
element of A). Therefore P ( A) has 2n members.
Learning activity 2.7 The statement means that if we take any natural number n there
will be some natural number m greater than n. Well, this is true. For example,
m = n + 1 will do.

2.20 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 2.1
The statement is true. For, suppose n is divisible by 6. Then for some m ∈ N, n = 6m, so
n = 3(2m) and since 2m ∈ N, this proves that n is divisible by 3.
The converse is ‘If n is divisible by 3 then n is divisible by 6’. This is false. For example,
n = 3 is a counterexample: it is divisible by 3, but not by 6.
The contrapositive is ‘If n is not divisible by 3 then n is not divisible by 6’. This is true,
because it is logically equivalent to the initial statement, which we have proved to be true.

Solution to exercise 2.2

The statement is false. For example, n = 2 is a counterexample: it is divisible by 2, but not
by 4.
The converse is ‘If n is divisible by 4 then n is divisible by 2’. This is true. For, suppose n is
divisible by 4. Then for some m ∈ N, n = 4m, so n = 2(2m) and since 2m ∈ N, this
proves that n is divisible by 2.
The contrapositive is ‘If n is not divisible by 4 then n is not divisible by 2’. This is false,
because it is logically equivalent to the initial statement, which we have proved to be false.
Alternatively, you can see that it’s false because 2 is a counterexample: it is not divisible by
4, but it is divisible by 2.

Solution to exercise 2.3

This can be established by using the truth table constructed in Learning activity 2.2. See the
solution above.

Solution to exercise 2.4

This is established by Table 2.6. That table shows that ¬( P ∨ Q) is logically equivalent to
¬ P ∧ ¬ Q. This is the same as saying that the negation of P ∨ Q is ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q.

48
2.20. Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 2.5

We work backwards, since it is not immediately obvious how to begin. We note that what
we’re trying to prove is equivalent to
2
2 2 2
a + b + c − ab − ac − bc ≥ 0.

This is equivalent to
2a2 + 2b2 + 2c2 − 2ab − 2ac − 2bc ≥ 0,
which is the same as

( a2 − 2ab + b2 ) + (b2 − 2bc + c2 ) + ( a2 − 2ac + c2 ) ≥ 0.

You can perhaps now see how this is going to work, for ( a2 − 2ab + b2 ) = ( a − b)2 and so
on. Therefore the given inequality is equivalent to

( a − b)2 + (b − c)2 + ( a − c)2 ≥ 0.

We know this to be true because squares are always non-negative. If we wanted to write this
proof ‘forwards’ we might argue as follows. For any a, b, c, ( a − b)2 ≥ 0, (b − c)2 ≥ 0 and
( a − c)2 ≥ 0, so
( a − b )2 + ( b − c )2 + ( a − c )2 ≥ 0
and hence
2a2 + 2b2 + 2c2 − 2ab − 2ac − 2bc ≥ 0,
from which we obtain
a2 + b2 + c2 ≥ ab + ac + bc,
as required.

Solution to exercise 2.6

Let’s prove by contradiction that there is no largest natural number. So suppose there is a
largest natural number. Let us call it N. (What we want to do now is somehow show that a
conclusion, or something we know for sure must be false, follows.) Well, consider the
number N + 1. This is a natural number. But since N is the largest natural number, we
must have N + 1 ≤ N, which means that 1 ≤ 0, and that’s nonsense. So it follows that we
must have been wrong in supposing there is a largest natural number. (That’s the only place
in this argument where we could have gone wrong.) So there is no largest natural number.
We could have argued the contradiction slightly differently. Instead of using the fact that
N + 1 ≤ N to obtain the absurd statement that 1 ≤ 0, we could have argued as follows:
N + 1 is a natural number. But N + 1 > N and this contradicts the fact that N is the
largest natural number.

Solution to exercise 2.7

We use a proof by contradiction. Suppose that there is a smallest positive real number and
let’s call this r. Then r/2 is also a real number and r/2 > 0 because r > 0. But r/2 < r,
contradicting the fact that r is the smallest positive real number. (Or, we could argue:
because r/2 is a positive real number and r is the smallest such number, then we must have
r/2 ≥ r, from which it follows that 1 ≥ 2, a contradiction.)

49
2. Mathematical statements, proof, logic, and sets

Solution to exercise 2.8

We need to prove that

2 ( E × E) \ ( A × B) = (( E \ A) × E) ∪ ( E × ( E \ B)).

Now,

( x, y) ∈ ( E × E) \ ( A × B) ⇐⇒ ¬(( x, y) ∈ A × B)
⇐⇒ ¬(( x ∈ A) ∧ (y ∈ B))
⇐⇒ ¬( x ∈ A) ∨ ¬(y ∈ B)
⇐⇒ ( x ∈ E \ A) ∨ (y ∈ E \ B)
⇐⇒ (( x, y) ∈ ( E \ A) × E) ∨ (( x, y) ∈ E × ( E \ B))
⇐⇒ ( x, y) ∈ (( E \ A) × E) ∪ ( E × ( E \ B)).

Solution to exercise 2.9

We deal first with the existential quantifier at the beginning of the statement. So, the
negation of the statement is

∀ x ∈ E, ¬(∀y ∈ E, P( x, y))

which is the same as

∀ x ∈ E, ∃y ∈ E, ¬ P( x, y).

50
Chapter 3
Mathematical structures, natural
numbers and proof by induction 3

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 4.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapters 1–4 and 6.

3.1 Introduction
In this chapter we will discuss what is meant by a ‘mathematical structure’, and
explore some of the properties of one of the most important mathematical structures:
the natural numbers. These will not be new to you, but they shall be explained a little
more formally. The chapter also studies a very powerful proof method, known as
proof by induction. This enables us to prove many universal statements about natural
numbers that would be extremely difficult to prove by other means.
Along the way, we are going to see the first ‘real’ example of Abstract Maths: what
some standard axioms are and what they are good for.

3.2 Mathematical structures

A mathematical structure is a precisely specified object which one can study. We
already saw, informally, several examples in the course:

(1) The natural numbers N = {1, 2, 3, . . . } which come with the operations + and ×,
and the relation <.

(2) The integers Z which come with the operations + and ×, and the relation <.

(3) The rational numbers Q (intuitively, the fractions; numbers which you can write
as ba where a and b are integers and b is not zero), which again come with the
operations + and ×, and the < relation.

(4) The real numbers R (intuitively: points on the number line) which again come
with the operations + and ×, and the < relation.

(5) The complex numbers C which √ are numbers of the form a + bi, where i is a
special symbol representing −1. Again you can add and multiply these, but it’s
not clear what < should be, so we leave it out.

51
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

All these examples are structures where you can do arithmetic as you’re used to it.
Here are another couple of examples. Don’t worry if you haven’t seen these before.
We won’t try to study them just yet; you’ll study them more later this year.

(6) The ‘clock numbers’ Z24 , which are the integers {0, 1, 2, . . . , 23} on a 24-hour
clock, where you add and multiply as you would on a clock; if you get 24 you
3 replace it with 0, if you get 25 you replace it with 1, and so on.

a b
(7) The 2 × 2 matrices where a, b, c, d are real numbers. Here too we can
c d
define addition and multiplication:
0 0
a + a0 b + b0

a b a b
+ 0 0 = and
c d c d c + c0 d + d0
0 0 0
aa + bc0 ab0 + bd0

a b a b
× 0 0 = .
c d c d ca0 + dc0 cb0 + dd0

These still look like structures where you can ‘do arithmetic as you’re used to it’. But
you have to be a little careful now. In Z24 we have 4 × 5 = 20 = 4 × 11. So what
should we say 20/4 is? You’re used to the idea that ‘division by zero’ doesn’t make
sense, but in Z24 ‘division by four’ also doesn’t make sense. When you work with
2 × 2 matrices, then multiplication turns out not to be commutative:

0 1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 0 1 0 1
= but = .
−1 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 −1 −1 0 1 0

Here is a rather different example.

(8) The set of social networks, where a social network consists of a (finite) collection
of people and a relation ‘friends’ between pairs of people.
Think of taking a snapshot of the Facebook network at some moment: there are
something like 1 000 000 000 people in the network, and if I look at any particular pair
I will find they are either friends or they are not. That’s a social network (by the
definition we gave); if we let some time pass, some people join or leave, some pairs of
people friend or de-friend each other, we get a different social network.
It’s not clear what + or × should mean here—how can we multiply social networks?
But I probably don’t have to convince you that there are interesting things to study
here; and in fact the (results of the) mathematical study of networks (‘Graph Theory’)
turns out to be very important in today’s technology. We’re not going to go further
into this in MA103; the point of giving this example is to show you that we can be
interested as mathematicians in things which don’t involve arithmetic.
More or less, any time you find a precise, unambiguous definition of something, then
you have a mathematical structure which you can start studying. Mathematics is a
much broader area than the arithmetic you saw in school. A lot of mathematics is not
about numbers. Of course, not everything interesting is mathematics—you (maybe)
find politics interesting, but you will not be able to come up with a definition of
‘left-wing’ or ‘economically good’ which is generally agreed on, let alone one which

52
3.3. Natural numbers: an axiomatic approach

is precise and unambiguous. We’ll have to leave politics to the political scientists. The
flip side of this is: it’s (more or less) true that all mathematicians agree that all of
mathematics is correct, which keeps fights to a minimum. That’s certainly not true for
political scientists, who (sometimes) write books whose messages boil down to ‘My
idea is right’, ‘You’re wrong’, ‘Am not!’, ‘Wrongy wrongy wrong!’... and so on.

If you’re thinking carefully, you might notice that the structures we mentioned above
aren’t really very clearly defined. What are ‘the points on the number line’? In fact, 3
what are ‘the natural numbers’? We probably all feel we know what is meant by a
positive integer, how to add and multiply them, and that all of us will get the same
answers if we try it. But that’s not good enough. It would be very embarrassing if it
turned out that some of us made different assumptions to others about the natural
numbers, and we started arguing about what statements are true. So let’s find a way
to avoid that right away.

3.3 Natural numbers: an axiomatic approach

In order to clearly and unambiguously define what we mean by ‘the natural
numbers’, we are going to write down a collection of simple statements which we can
all agree are true for the natural numbers—which we call axioms for the natural
numbers—and then we will prove that there is really only one mathematical
structure which satisfies all of these statements. Of course, this course is in English, so
the natural numbers start ‘one, two,...’ and so on; if it was in German I would write
‘eins, zwei,...’. But these are really the same thing; I just need a dictionary to tell me
that ‘mal’ is ‘times’ and ‘siebenundzwanzig’ is ’twenty-seven’. So what we will need
to prove is that any two mathematical structures which satisfy all our axioms are
basically the same; there is a dictionary-style correspondence between them.
At this stage, you probably either don’t see how this can be possible, or you don’t see
where there could be any problem. So let’s state the axioms for the natural numbers,
and then try to explain them. Before you get worried—I do not expect you to learn
these axioms, if you need them for the exam then they will be printed on the exam (as
you can see on last year’s paper). You will need to know how to use these axioms, but
learning them is a waste of time (because you do already know how to do
arithmetic!).

(N1) For all a, b ∈ N we have a + b ∈ N. [Closure under Addition]

(N2) For all a, b ∈ N we have a + b = b + a. [Commutative Law for Addition]

(N3) For all a, b, c ∈ N we have ( a + b) + c = a + (b + c). [Associative Law for

Addition]

(N4) For all a, b ∈ N we have a × b ∈ N. [Closure under Multiplication]

(N5) For all a, b ∈ N we have a × b = b × a. [Commutative Law for Multiplication]

(N6) For all a, b, c ∈ N we have ( a × b) × c = a × (b × c). [Associative Law for

Multiplication]

53
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

(N7) For all a, b, c ∈ N we have a × (b + c) = ( a × b) + ( a × c). [Distributive Law]

(N8) There is a special element of N, denoted by 1, which has the property that for all
n ∈ N we have n × 1 = n.

(N9) For all a, b, c ∈ N, if a + c = b + c, then a = b. [Additive Cancellation]

3 (N10) For all a, b, c ∈ N, if a × c = b × c, then a = b. [Multiplicative Cancellation]

(N11) For all a, b ∈ N, a < b if and only if there is some c ∈ N with a + c = b.

(N12) For all a, b ∈ N, exactly one of the following is true: a = b, a < b, b < a.

(N13) For any non-empty subset S of N, there exists a ∈ S such that a ≤ b for every
b ∈ S. [Well-ordering principle]
Before we go on to work with these axioms, let’s try to say a little bit about them. You
should read the first three axioms as saying ‘addition works the way I think it does’.
These three axioms are also true if you replace the natural numbers N with for
example the real numbers R, or the complex numbers C, or the ‘clock numbers’ Z24 ,
or for adding up 2 × 2 matrices. Of the list of structures in Section 3.2, the only one
we ruled out with these axioms is the social networks, because they don’t have an
‘addition’.
The next three axioms say the same thing for multiplication, and axiom (N7) says
that addition and multiplication work together the way you learnt years ago in
school. Again, these would all be true for R, C and Z24 , as well as for N. But we just
saw that 2 × 2 matrix multiplication is not commutative.
So with these first seven axioms, we certainly haven’t yet given an unambiguous
definition of the natural numbers. But some possibilities have been ruled out, for
example what we are trying to describe cannot be 2 × 2 matrices. The more axioms
we add, the more possibilities are ruled out.
Let’s move on to axiom (N8). This says that there is at least one element in the set N
we’re trying to describe (and multiplying by that element doesn’t change
anything)—if you think about it, the empty set trivially satisfies all of the previous
axioms too, just because there don’t exist any elements to provide a counterexample.
But now the empty set is ruled out. However there are still lots of mathematical
structures left which satisfy (N1)–(N8), for example Z, Q and R.
The axioms (N9) through (N12) again simply say that addition and multiplication
behave the way you expect; and that they interact with < the way you think positive
numbers should. It’s worth pointing out that these axioms together rule out all the
structures we mentioned above except N, because (N11) isn’t true for the rest
(1 + (−1) = 0 but 1 is not smaller than 0). But still there are structures left which are
not N but which satisfy (N1)–(N12), for example the positive real numbers (and
there are more).
Finally we put in the axiom (N13) which says that any non-empty set of natural
numbers has a least element. This axiom is a bit more complicated than the rest, so
let’s check that we understand it intuitively. Suppose I have in mind a set S of natural
numbers. If you want to find out whether it is empty or not, and if not what its least

54
3.3. Natural numbers: an axiomatic approach

element is, you can ask:

Is 1 in the set S?
Is 1 + 1 =2 in the set S?
Is 2 + 1 =3 in the set S? ,

and so on. I might say ‘No’ to the first few questions, but as soon as I say ‘Yes’ you
will tell me ‘OK, then that’s the least element of S’ (and you don’t need to know what
3
else might be in S). If I keep saying ‘No’ forever, then it must mean S is the empty set.
This should justify (intuitively, not formally) that the natural numbers really
satisfy (N13).
Now, this axiom rules out the positive real numbers. There are sets of positive real
numbers which don’t have a least element—can you find one?

Activity 3.1 Think of a set of real numbers that has no least member.

But are we done? Maybe there are still some funny structures which are not the
natural numbers but satisfy all the axioms. Hopefully you agree it isn’t obvious what
the answer is; just because you and I can’t think of such a structure doesn’t mean it
doesn’t exist. We’ll get to that later in the chapter.

The proof we gave back on page 8 uses some of these axioms. But we also assumed
2 + 2 = 4 and 2 × 2 = 4, without proving them. Just for completeness, let’s see how
we can prove those two statements. To begin with, we need to explain what ‘2’ is.
Well, 2 is short-hand for 1 + 1. And 3 is short-hand for 2 + 1, which in turn really
means (1 + 1) + 1, and so on. Now we can prove 2 + 2 = 4.
Proof of 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 2 + (1 + 1) by definition of 2
= (2 + 1) + 1 by axiom (N3)
= 3+1 by definition of 3
=4 by definition of 4 .

That was a pain, and you probably don’t want to see why 2 × 2 = 4. It’s a good
exercise though.

Activity 3.2 Prove using the axioms that 2 × 2 = 4.

Other properties of the natural numbers follow from these axioms. (That is, they can
be proved assuming these axioms.)
For example, we can prove the following.

(P1) For all a, b, c ∈ N, ( a + b) × c = ( a × c) + (b × c).

(P2) If a, b ∈ N satisfy a × b = a, then b = 1.

(P3) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b and b < c, then a < c. [Transitivity]

55
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

(P4) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b then a + c < b + c and a × c < b × c.

(P5) 1 is the least element of N.

(P6) 1 is not equal to 1 + 1.

We don’t need to add these to the axioms because they follow from the axioms we
already have. (We can prove them just from the axioms above.) We’ll come back to
3 this later in the chapter.
In general, we can prove that all the properties of arithmetic which you are used to
are true using these axioms. However, we are not going to do this. It is fiddly and
time-consuming, and you will not learn anything new by doing it. If you are
interested, or worried about whether you are really doing arithmetic right, then you
can find these proofs in books on ‘foundations of mathematics’.
You probably think all the above statements are obvious — but if someone asked you
why 1 is the smallest natural number, how would you answer? Whatever you say, it
has to be some argument which relies on specifically the properties of the natural
numbers (as opposed to, say, the integers or the positive real numbers, for which 1 is
not the smallest element!).
Let me try to be clear about what you are supposed to learn from working with these
axioms. You are supposed to learn how to write proofs about mathematical structures
using the axioms rather than from your intuition about ‘how that structure should
work’. The reason is that later on in your degree course (starting next term in MA103
and continuing), you will need to write proofs using similar axioms about structures
about which you, and I, do not have any intuition, such as ‘groups’. Then you have no
choice but to write a proof from the axioms, and you do not want to have to learn
how to do that from scratch with a complicated and unintuitive structure. So learn it
now, using your intuition as a check. And we will try to get to interesting
statements—ones which you didn’t already know from school—as fast as possible; it
won’t take long.

3.3.1 Greatest and least elements

Let S be a subset of N. We say ` is a least element or least member of S if ` ∈ S and for
all s ∈ S we have ` ≤ s. Similarly, we say g is a greatest element or greatest member of S
if g ∈ S and for all s ∈ S we have g ≥ s.
It’s obvious that some subsets of N do not have a greatest element—for example N
itself doesn’t have a greatest element, nor does the set of even natural numbers, nor
the set of primes (which is, more or less, what we proved in the last chapter). And by
definition the empty set ∅ doesn’t have either a least or a greatest element: it doesn’t
have any elements at all. But axiom (N13), the Well-Ordering Principle, says that
every non-empty subset of N has a least element. For this reason, the Well-Ordering
Principle is sometimes also called the Least Element Principle. It’s a rather special
property of the natural numbers, which doesn’t hold for many other structures, such
as the real numbers.

56
3.4. The principle of induction

3.4 The principle of induction

3.4.1 Proof by induction

One particularly useful principle that follows from the axioms of the natural numbers
given above is the following one, known as the Induction Principle.
3
The Induction Principle: Suppose P(n) is a statement involving natural numbers n.
Then P(n) is true for all n ∈ N if the following two statements are true:

(i) P(1) is true; (‘Base case’)

(ii) For all k ∈ N, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1). (‘Induction step’)

We’ll prove this later in the chapter. Intuitively, the idea is as follows. Suppose you
can prove two things:

P(1) is true, and ∀k ∈ N, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).

Then: because P(1) ⇒ P(2) and P(1) is true, we must have that P(2) is true. Now,
because P(2) ⇒ P(3) and P(2) is true, we must have P(3) is true, and so on. So P(n)
has to be true for all n ∈ N.
Let’s give an example. If you have an infinitely tall ladder, you could let P(n) be the
statement ‘I can climb to the nth rung’. So P(1) is ‘I can climb to the first rung’.
Presumably you can show that’s true, for example by standing on the first rung. That
is proving the base case. Now, the induction step, in this example, is ‘For all k ∈ N, if
I can climb to the kth rung then I can climb to the (k + 1)st rung’. For any given k, it’s
clear this is true — if you can climb to the kth rung, then you just need to climb one
more step to get to the (k + 1)st rung. So this proves the induction step, and what you
can conclude is that you can climb to any rung you like. This is all that induction is,
but it turns out to be very useful.
Before we prove the Induction Principle properly (using the axioms) later in this
chapter, let’s think about how we can use it.
Suppose you want to prove ∀n ∈ N, P(n). This looks tricky: we need to show
something is true for every natural number n. For each individual n, perhaps it is not
so hard—a simple calculation might do the job for P(1), P(2),...—but probably the
calculation gets harder as you try to check larger numbers, and you can’t see how to
write down a calculation with a general n in it. But you can check P(1) is true. At this
point you’re stuck. You might think: perhaps it would help me to know P(k) is true in
order to prove P(k + 1). Well, let’s assume it is and try to prove P(k + 1). What you’re
doing is proving the statement ‘∀k, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1)’, and when you’ve finished it
you are done by the Principle of Induction. Let’s see a few concrete examples.

57
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

3.4.2 An example
Here’s an example of how we might prove by induction a result we proved directly
earlier, in the previous chapter, namely:

∀n ∈ N, n2 + n is even.
3 Let P(n) be the statement ‘n2 + n is even’. Then P(1) is true, because 12 + 1 = 2, and
this is even. (Establishing P(1) is known as proving the base case or the induction
basis.) Next we show that P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1) for any k ∈ N. So we show that if P(k ) is
true, so will be P(k + 1). To do this we assume that P(k ) is true and show that
P(k + 1) is then also true. (The assumption that P(k) is true is known as the inductive
hypothesis.) So suppose P(k ) is true, which means that k2 + k is even. What we need to
do now is show that this means that P(k + 1) is also true, namely that
(k + 1)2 + (k + 1) is even. So we need somehow to relate the expression
(k + 1)2 + (k + 1) to the one we are assuming we know something about, k2 + k. Well,

(k + 1)2 + (k + 1) = k2 + 2k + 1 + k + 1 = (k2 + k) + (2k + 2).

Now, by the ‘inductive hypothesis’ (the assumption that P(k) is true), k2 + k is even.
But 2k + 2 = 2(k + 1) is also even, so (k + 1)2 + (k + 1) is an even number, in other
words P(k + 1) is true. So we have shown that ∀k, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1). It now follows,
by the Principle of Induction, that for all n ∈ N, P(n) is true.
Once we get used to this technique, we can make our proofs more succinct.
The basic way of proving a result ∀n ∈ N, P(n) by induction is as follows:

[The Base Case] Prove P(1) is true.

[The Induction Step] Prove that, for any k ∈ N, assuming P(k ) is true (the
‘inductive hypothesis’), then P(k + 1) is also true.
And that’s all you need to do! The principle of induction then establishes that P(n) is
true for all n ∈ N.

3.4.3 Induction: why be careful?

At least for now, I’m going to insist that when you write a proof by induction, you
really need to write it out formally as in the examples in this chapter. I want to see the
words ‘base case’ appearing with a proof of the base case, I want to see the words
‘induction step’ appearing with a proof of the induction step, and then I want to see a
final line like ‘so by the principle of induction,... ’.
This is not (just) because I am picky; it is because induction is an easy thing to mess
up and ‘prove’ something which isn’t true. Furthermore, later on you may well write
a long complicated proof that uses induction in two or three different places, and
writing it out formally like this gives you some structure and lets you see clearly
where you are using induction and when you are done.
You may get worried about why induction works—it can get confusing, when you
have some complicated statement which you are trying to prove, and especially if

58
3.4. The principle of induction

you are using some variants of induction (see below). Keep in mind that eventually
every induction proof is basically saying that if you can get to the first rung of the
ladder, and you can always climb up to the next step, then you can climb the ladder.
You may alternatively begin to feel that induction is obvious and it’s not clear why
you need all the careful formalities; the examples we will see next mainly look like
‘calculate the first case, then just keep doing the same calculation over and over
again’. Why can’t we simply write in a proof ‘and now keep doing this calculation 3
forever’? The answer is that it is easy to write down something which looks
convincing, where the ‘calculation you do forever’ works for the first one or two
times, but then it stops working because you missed some difficulty which doesn’t
show up in the first one or two cases. Induction is nothing more than ‘and now keep
doing this calculation forever’, except that writing out the formalities forces you to
say in detail exactly what calculation you will do and check it really works.

3.4.4 Variants
Suppose N is some particular natural number and that P(n) is a statement involving
natural numbers n. Then P(n) is true for all n ≥ N if the following two statements are
true:

(i) P( N ) is true;
(ii) For all k ∈ N, k ≥ N, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).
This is a version of the Induction Principle obtained from the standard one by
‘changing the base case’. It can be used to prove a result like the following:
∀n ≥ 4, n2 ≤ 2n .
(The inequality n2 ≤ 2n is false when n = 3, so it does not hold for all n ∈ N.)

Activity 3.3 Prove that ∀n ≥ 4, n2 ≤ 2n .

In terms of the ladder intuition, this is simply saying that instead of calling the rungs
of the ladder ‘rung 1’, ‘rung 2’ and so on, you paint N on the lowest rung, N + 1 on
the next lowest, and so on. Still, if you can get on the lowest rung (prove P( N ) ) and
you can always climb from each rung to the next, then you can climb the ladder (i.e.
you can get to every rung from the lowest, labelled N, up).
Another variant of the Induction Principle is the following, known as the Strong
Induction Principle:
The Strong Induction Principle: Suppose P(n) is a statement involving natural
numbers n. Then P(n) is true for all n ∈ N if the following two statements are true:

(i) P(1) is true;

(ii) For all k ∈ N, ( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).

The name is misleading, because, in fact, the strong induction principle follows from
the standard induction principle.

59
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

Activity 3.4 Try to understand why the strong induction principle follows from
the induction principle. Hint: consider Q(n), the statement ‘∀s ≤ n, P(s) is true’.
[This is difficult, so you may want to omit this activity at first.]

Again, in terms of the ladder intuition, what the induction step is now saying is not
the “for every k, if I can climb to rung k then I can climb to rung k + 1” of normal
3 induction, but “for every k, if I can climb to rung k and I climbed on all the lower
rungs on the way, then I can climb to rung k + 1”. Phrased like that, it’s “obvious”
that it doesn’t really make a difference and still I can conclude that I can climb the
ladder. What’s not obvious is why such a thing might be useful. As we shall see,
though, it is often useful when it comes to proving results about sequences that are
defined ‘recursively’.

In general, you won’t know when you start trying to solve a problem that the
Principle of Induction is a good tool to try using. Rather, you will get stuck in some
logic and notice, ‘hey, it would really help if I could assume the previous case is true.’
Similarly, you don’t always know from the outset when the strong induction principle
is going to be handy. Rather, your thought when stuck will be ‘hey, it would be great
if I could assume some smaller case is (or a whole bunch of smaller cases are) true.’

3.5 Summation formulae

Suppose a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . is a sequence (an infinite, ordered, list) of real numbers. Then
the sum ∑rn=1 ar is the sum of the first n numbers in the sequence. It is useful to define
these sums ‘recursively’ or ‘by induction’, as follows:
!
1 n +1 n
∑ ar = a1 and for n ∈ N, ∑ ar = ∑ ar + a n +1 .
r =1 r =1 r =1

With this observation, we can use proof by induction to prove many results about the
values and properties of such sums. Here is a simple, classical, example.

Example 3.1 For all n ∈ N, ∑rn=1 r = 21 n(n + 1). This is simply the statement that
the sum of the first n natural numbers is n(n + 1)/2.
Proof. We prove the result by induction. Let P(n) be the statement that
∑rn=1 r = 21 n(n + 1). Then P(1) states that 1 = 21 × 1 × 2, which is true. So the base
case P(1) is true. Now let’s do the induction step. Suppose that k ∈ N and that

60
3.6. Recursively defined sequences

+1
(the inductive hypothesis) ∑rk=1 r = 12 k (k + 1) holds. Consider ∑rk= 1 r. We have

k +1 k
∑ r = ∑ r + ( k + 1)
r =1 r =1
1
= 2 k ( k + 1) + ( k + 1) by the induction hypothesis
= 1 2
2 ( k + k + 2k + 2) 3
1 2
= 2 ( k + 3k + 2)
1
= 2 ( k + 1)( k + 2)
1
= 2 ( k + 1)(( k + 1) + 1).

This establishes that P(k + 1) is true (for P(k + 1) is precisely the statement that
+1
∑rk= 1 r = ( k + 1)(( k + 1) + 1) /2.) Therefore, by induction, for all n ∈ N,
n
∑r=1 r = 21 n(n + 1).

Note how the the induction hypothesis was used. In the induction step, you always
prove P(k + 1) to be true assuming P(k ) is. (Unless you do so, it isn’t a proof by
induction.)

Activity 3.5 Prove by induction that the sum of the first n terms of an arithmetic
progression with first term a and common difference d is n(2a + (n − 1)d)/2.

3.6 Recursively defined sequences

Sequences of numbers are often defined ‘recursively’ or ‘by induction’.
For example, suppose that the sequence xn is given by x1 = 9, x2 = 13 and, for n ≥ 3,
xn = 3xn−1 − 2xn−2 . We can prove by induction (using the strong induction principle)
that, for all n ∈ N, xn = 5 + 2n+1 . Here’s how:
Since the inductive definition for xn only applies for n ≥ 3, the base step of our proof
is to verify the result for the cases n = 1 and n = 2. Now, when n = 1, 5 + 2n+1 = 9,
which is indeed x1 ; and when n = 2, 5 + 2n+1 = 13, which equals x2 , so these hold.
Assume inductively that k ∈ N and that, for all s ≤ k, xs = 5 + 2s+1 . (Note that, here,
we use strong induction. This is because xk+1 depends not only on xk but on xk−1
too.) In particular, therefore, we have xk = 5 + 2k+1 and xk−1 = 5 + 2k . So,
xk+1 = 3xk − 2xk−1
= 3 (5 + 2k +1 ) − 2 (5 + 2k )
= 15 − 10 + 3(2k+1 ) − 10 − 2(2k )
= 5 + 3 (2k +1 ) − 2 (2k )
= 5 + 6 (2k ) − 2 (2k )
= 5 + 4 (2k )
= 5 + 2k +2
= 5 + 2(k+1)+1 ,

61
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

which is exactly what we need. So the formula for xn holds for all n.

3.7 Using the axioms for the natural numbers

Earlier, we said that the following results follow from the axioms for N.
3
(P1) For all a, b, c ∈ N, ( a + b) × c = ( a × c) + (b × c).

(P2) If a, b ∈ N satisfy a × b = a, then b = 1.

(P3) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b and b < c, then a < c. [Transitivity]

(P4) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b then a + c < b + c and a × c < b × c.

(P5) 1 is the least element of N.

(P6) 1 is not equal to 1+1.

Let’s see why.
Proof of (P1) For all a, b, c ∈ N, ( a + b) × c = ( a × c) + (b × c).

( a + b) × c = c × ( a + b) by (N5) [Commutative]
= (c × a) + (c × b) by (N7) [Distributive]
= ( a × c) + (b × c) by (N5) [Commutative]

Proof of (P2) If a, b ∈ N satisfy a × b = a, then b = 1.

Suppose a × b = a. Then, since (by (N8)), a = a × 1, so we have a × b = a × 1.
By (N5) [Commutative], it follows that b × a = 1 × a. But now by (N10)
[Cancellation], we conclude b = 1.

Proof of (P3) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b and b < c, then a < c. [Transitivity]

If a < b and b < c then, by (N11), there are x, y ∈ N such that a + x = b and
b + y = c. Then we have

a + ( x + y) = ( a + x ) + y by (N3) [Associativity]
= b+y = c, by definition of b and c

Now by (N1) [Closure], we have x + y ∈ N, so by (N11), we have a < c.

Proof of (P4) For a, b, c ∈ N, if a < b then a + c < b + c and a × c < b × c.

If a < b then (by (N11)) this means ∃d ∈ N with a + d = b.
(i) We prove a + c < b + c. We have:

( a + c) + d = d + ( a + c) by (N2)
= (d + a) + c by (N3)
= ( a + d) + c by (N2)
= b+c.

62
3.7. Using the axioms for the natural numbers

This shows a + c < b + c by (N11).

(ii) We prove a × c < b × c. We have:
( a × c) + (d × c) = ( a + d) × c. This is (P1) from above.
So, since a + d = b, we have ( a × c) + (d × c) = b × c.
Since d × c ∈ N by (N4), we have a natural number z = d × c such that
( a × c) + z = (b × c). So, by (N11), we conclude a × c < b × c.
3
Proof of (P5) 1 is the least element of N.
By (N13) [Well-ordering], N has a least member. Call it a. Suppose a 6= 1.
Axiom (N12) says a < 1 or a = 1 or 1 < a. We are assuming a 6= 1 and can’t have
1 < a, because otherwise 1 is smaller than a, which is a contradiction to our
assumption that a is a least element of N. So a < 1. Now we have By (P4), we have
a × a < 1 × a. But by (N5) [Commutativity] and by (N8), we get 1 × a = a × 1 = a. So
we can conclude:
a × a < a.
But a × a ∈ N by (N4) [Closure], and this contradicts the assumption that a is a least
element of N.

Proof of (P6) 1 is not equal to 1 + 1.

(N11) says a < b if and only if there is some c ∈ N with a + c = b. So 1 < 1 + 1.
But (N12) says that for all a, b ∈ N, exactly one of the following is true: a = b, a < b,
b < a. So we do not have 1 = 1 + 1.

3.7.1 Why do we give proofs from the axioms?

We already explained that one reason to prove statements about the natural numbers
using only the axioms is to make sure everyone is going to agree about which
statements are provably true—everyone agrees on the axioms, and if anyone can
prove some statement true, we will all accept it. But you might well feel this is taking
it a bit far—after all, we also all agree on how arithmetic with the natural numbers
works without writing down axioms.
Another reason is that we will often find that we can prove a statement using only
some of the axioms. Go back to the proof on page 8—you’ll see that although we are
using some of the axioms of the natural numbers, we are not using all of them. The
axioms we are using define a commutative semiring. (You don’t need to remember that
name for later—it isn’t one you are likely to need to know in your degree course.)
There are many examples of commutative semirings in mathematics. Some are ones
you already have some intuition for (like the natural numbers, or the real numbers),
some you probably are less comfortable with (like the complex numbers) and most of
them you never heard of (like bounded distributive lattices). But even without
knowing what a bounded distributive lattice is, you already know some things you
can do with one.
The more mathematics you learn, the more often you will find that when a new area
is introduced to you, even though the concrete structures you have to work with are
unfamiliar, you know a lot about these structures already because they are examples

63
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

of abstract (defined by axioms) structures which you study in MA103 and its
successor courses. At least, that’s true if you are willing to put the effort in in this
course and learn how to work with axiomatic definitions and write proofs using
axioms—otherwise, you’ll need to learn everything from scratch and remember it
separately every time you come across a new concrete structure.
Finally, and most concretely, we are studying the axioms for the natural numbers so
3 that you get used to writing axiomatic proofs of facts which you already know are
true, and for which you basically understand why those facts are true. That way you
only have to learn one difficult thing now, and when you come to the abstract algebra
in Lent Term, you will only have to learn one difficult thing, namely what one can do
with the axioms of a vector space or of a group, instead of trying to learn that and
how to write an axiomatic proof at the same time.

3.8 Why the Principle of Induction works

We can now Prove the Principle of Induction from our axioms for the natural
numbers (including the least element axiom).
Theorem 3.1 (The Induction Principle) Suppose

(i) P(1) is true;

(ii) For all k ∈ N, P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).

Then P(n) is true for all n ∈ N.

Proof. Suppose it’s not the case that P(n) is true for all n ∈ N. Then the set S of
n ∈ N for which it is not true is non-empty and, by the Least Element Axiom (N13),
has a least member a. Now, a 6= 1 because P(1) is true. And we can’t have a < 1
because by (P5) 1 is the least member of N. So, by (N12) we have 1 < a. Consider
a − 1: this is a natural number less than a and is therefore not in S. So P( a − 1) is true.
But since P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1) for all k, it follows that P( a) is true, meaning a 6∈ S, a
contradiction.

You might not be entirely satisfied with that proof. It used a − 1 but we haven’t
defined subtraction! Here’s another way of explaining the last bit:
Since 1 < a, by (N11) there is some c ∈ N such that 1 + c = a. By (N2)
[Commutativity] we have c + 1 = a, which, by (N11) means c < a. So, because a is
the least element of S we have c 6∈ S and hence P(c) is true. But P(c) ⇒ P(c + 1) and
hence P( a) is true, a contradiction.

3.9 Non-examinable: There’s only one N.

Dedekind proved that there is really only one mathematical structure which satisfies
the axioms (N1)–(N13). Remember that what that means is that if you give me two
structures which satisfy the axioms, then I should be able to find a dictionary-style

64
3.9. Non-examinable: There’s only one N.

correspondence between them, such as between the natural numbers written in

English and in German.
In this section, we are going to explain how to find that correspondence and prove (or
at least, prove the interesting part of) the fact that it works.
Proof. Suppose that N and M are two different mathematical structures which both
satisfy axioms (N1)–(N13). Let’s assume that N is the natural numbers you learnt
about in school. 3
To start with, we claim that in N there is only one element 1 which satisfies (N8). To
see that this is true, suppose for a contradiction that there is another element 10 which
also satisfies (N8), i.e. for every n ∈ N we have n × 10 = n. But then we have
10 = 10 × 1 = 1 × 10 = 1
where we used (N5) [Commutativity] for the middle equality, and the other two
equalities are because both 1 and 10 are assumed to satisfy (N8). So we have 1 = 10 ,
which is a contradiction and so our claim is proved.
Let’s call the element of M which satisfies (N8) ‘one’ (just to make it visually
different from 1). There is only one such element by the proof above—that proof
applies equally well to M as to N (because it only uses the axioms, and M satisfies
the axioms). So now we have the first entry in our correspondence dictionary: 1 in N
corresponds to ‘one’ in M.
Now we can extend it: recall we defined 2 to be shorthand for 1 + 1, and by (P6) we
know 2 is not equal to 1. Similarly, we can define ‘two’ to be shorthand for ‘one plus
one’ in M, and (P6) also shows that ‘two’ is not equal to ‘one’ (because it only uses
the axioms, and M satisfies the axioms). So that’s our next entry in the dictionary: 2
corresponds to ‘two’. And we can keep going like this; we can let 3 = 2 + 1
correspond to ‘three’, defined to be shorthand for ‘two plus one’, and so on. One can
show that all these numbers are different, but we are going to skip this because it is
basically the same as proving (P6).
It is not too hard (but it is time-consuming, because there are lots of things to check)
to show that +, × and < in N do the same as ‘plus’, ‘times’ and ‘less than’ in M
using the axioms. We are going to skip this part too.
What is left is to prove that the correspondence we defined so far is really
everything—that is, there are no elements in N which don’t have a corresponding
element in M, and vice versa. Now, it might look obvious—how could it be
otherwise? To see why there is still something to do, you should check that
everything we did so far would have worked equally well if M was the set of
positive real numbers. In that case, what we would have found is a correspondence
between N and the positive integers within the positive real numbers—but there are
many positive real numbers which are not integers, like 1.5437.
So suppose that the correspondence is not everything. There are two possibilities.
First, there are some elements of N which don’t have a corresponding element of M.
Second, there are some elements of M which don’t have a corresponding member of
N.
To deal with the first case, let S be the set of elements of N which don’t have a
corresponding element in M. By assumption, S is not the empty set, so by (N13), the

65
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

set S has a least element s. Now s is not equal to 1, because 1 does have a
corresponding member ‘one’ in M. As in the proof of the Principle of Induction, that
means there is some c ∈ N such that c + 1 = s, and we have c < s. But by definition
of S that means c does have a corresponding member in M, call it ‘cee’. And by the
way we constructed the correspondence, that means c + 1 = s corresponds to ‘cee
plus one’. But this is a contradiction—we assumed s does not have a corresponding
member in M.
3
The second case is very similar. Let T be the set of elements of M which don’t have a
corresponding element in N. By assumption, T is not the empty set, so by (N13)
(which also applies to M..!) the set T has a least element, call it ‘tee’. We know ’tee’ is
not ’one’, because ’one’ corresponds to 1. So there is an element ’dee’ in M such that
’dee plus one’ equals ’tee’ (using the same axioms as in the first case). Since ’dee’ is
less than ’tee’, it has a corresponding element d in N. But then again we see ’tee’,
which is equal to ’dee plus one’, corresponds to d + 1—a contradiction.

If you want to see the parts we skipped, either work out for yourself how to prove
them, or you can look them up in books on ‘foundations of mathematics’. In the latter
case, you should be aware that the axioms we gave for the natural numbers are not
the usual ones, called the ‘Peano axioms’. There are fewer Peano axioms than we
have, and they are simpler (but a bit strange). The reason for giving you a longer and
more complicated list of axioms is that you will see very similar axioms repeatedly in
your degree course; your practice with these axioms will help you in the rest of your
degree course. That wouldn’t be the case with the Peano axioms.

3.10 Non-examinable philosophical interlude

If you are especially sceptical, you might notice we did make an assumption in this
chapter. We proved that any two structures which satisfy (N1)–(N13) are basically
the same, in that there is a dictionary correspondence between them (the usual word
for this is isomorphic). But we didn’t actually prove that there is a structure which
satisfies these axioms, so a more accurate title would be ‘There is at most one N’. You
can find ways to avoid this; for example there is a standard set of axioms for set
theory, called ZFC, which you can use to prove that there is such a thing as N. But
then you are assuming there is actually such a thing as set theory... In the end, you
will always have some assumption (most mathematicians, if we think about this at
all, assume ZFC set theory makes sense and stop there).
The problem is this: it might happen that there is some statement P about the natural
numbers which you can prove true from the axioms, and also you can prove ¬ P. This
is a contradiction, which would make the axioms inconsistent; it means they don’t
actually describe anything—then we would say the natural numbers do not exist. I’ll
give an example of what this might look like at the end of this section, by giving a set
of axioms (for something else, not the natural numbers) which does turn out to be
inconsistent.
We believe the natural numbers are consistent: the natural numbers are something
you have intuition about from the real world and we don’t expect to find a logical
contradiction in reality. But there have been axioms seriously proposed before (for

66
3.10. Non-examinable philosophical interlude

other, much more complicated structures about which we don’t really have any
intuition) which turned out to be inconsistent, and it’s hard to argue that we have any
intuition about natural numbers which are so enormous that all the particles in the
known universe are too few to write them down.
What one might hope (and logicians did hope around 1900) is that you might be able
to find some way of proving that the axioms (or at least some useful set of axioms)
are consistent: perhaps all you really need to assume to do mathematics are the rules 3
of logic. Around the same time, logicians also believed that perhaps every problem in
mathematics can be solved: for every statement, you can either find a proof or a
counterexample.
But these hopes turn out to be wrong. Gödel showed that any (finite) collection of
axioms which describe an interesting structure (interesting enough to do arithmetic)
cannot prove its own consistency. And what is more, there will be some statements
which one cannot prove to be either true or false. These theorems are central parts of
the area called ‘foundations of mathematics’. But most mathematicians do not worry
about it. We don’t believe that there will turn out to be a contradiction in the
mathematics we do, and we know that no matter how much we try we can’t hope to
improve belief to a certainty, so we don’t think too much about it.
In your degree course, we are going to stick to what most mathematicians believe and
do, meaning we will not spend time worrying about whether the natural numbers
exist (and so on). And in fact, from the end of this chapter we will also stick to
assuming that arithmetic in N works the way you know it does, rather than proving
it using the axioms.
However, we will try to avoid making more assumptions. You were probably pretty
much convinced, long before you started this course, that the natural numbers exist:
i.e. there is no contradiction in the axioms; there is no calculation which you can do
that will end up telling you 0 = 1. If I asked you why, you’d probably say something
about intuition from real world counting. Do you still have an intuition for how the
integers (positive, negative and zero) behave? Well, probably you feel you do; on the
other hand, it’s a bit more removed from the real world—you will never count −3
apples. What about the rational numbers? or the real numbers? You probably will say
you still have an intuition here from reality, but later in this course you’ll see a few
results which might convince you your intuition isn’t as good as you think now.
What about the complex numbers? Sure, they are needed to describe physical reality,
but if you think your experience of the real world tells you that the complex numbers
make sense, then you’re fooling yourself.
Let’s go into that in a little more detail. The complex numbers, if you saw them in
school, were probably introduced more or less as follows. We start with the real
numbers, which you know you can do algebra with as you’re used to (they satisfy
axioms (N1)–(N8), for example). Then we add a symbol √ i, which is defined to solve
the equation x2 + 1 = 0 (or maybe is defined to be −1). Then you write numbers
like 2 + 4.3i, and you can still do algebra as you’re used to (just remember that
whenever you see i2 you can replace it with −1). Probably the justification given is
more or less ‘we want to have solutions to all equations, and sometimes we need to
invent a new kind of number to make that true’.
This is a nice game; let’s invent a new number system E. It would be nice to be able to

67
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

divide by zero; so let’s define a new symbol E, which should solve the equation
x × 0 = 1 (or equivalently, let E = 1/0). Presumably we can write numbers like
2 + 4.3E, and do algebra as we’re used to. It looks pretty similar to the complex
numbers: what could possibly go wrong? Let’s try a calculation.

We have 0 = 0+0
so E × 0 = E × (0 + 0)
3 so E×0 = E×0+E×0
so 1 = 1+1 .

Here the first line is obviously true (it’s a statement about the integers, not our new
number system). The second line is just multiplying both sides of the first line by E;
no problem there. To get the third line we use the distributive law, which is algebra as
we’re used to. And for the final line we’re just using the definition of E. But the final
line is a false statement about the integers. So something is wrong.
What is wrong is that this new number system does not exist; we cannot have both a
symbol E satisfying E × 0 = 1 and the usual laws of arithmetic. It’s not that there is a
problem with writing down axioms: we can do that. Here is one possible set of
axioms which the new number system we wanted should satisfy:

(E1) For all a, b ∈ E we have a + b ∈ E.

(E2) For all a, b ∈ E we have a + b = b + a.
(E3) For all a, b, c ∈ E we have ( a + b) + c = a + (b + c).
(E4) For all a, b ∈ E we have a × b ∈ E.
(E5) For all a, b ∈ E we have a × b = b × a.
(E6) For all a, b, c ∈ E we have ( a × b) × c = a × (b × c).
(E7) For all a, b, c ∈ E we have a × (b + c) = ( a × b) + ( a × c).
(E8) For all a, b, c ∈ E, if a + c = b + c then a = b.
(E9) There is an element 0 of E which satisfies a + 0 = a for all a ∈ E.
(E10) There is an element 1 of E, not equal to 0, which satisfies a × 1 = a for all
a ∈ E \ {0}.
(E11) There is an element E of E, which satisfies E × 0 = 1.
Just to be clear, there is no difficulty with the first ten of these axioms. Those axioms
are satisfied by lots of structures which you’re happy with, like the integers, the
rational numbers, the real numbers and the complex numbers. But if we add (E11)
we obtain a collection of axioms which are inconsistent: there is no structure
satisfying all of them. The calculation we did above proves this, once we check that
(using these axioms) we do not have 1 = 1 + 1. Let’s check that: by (E10) we have
0 6= 1, and so by Axiom (E8) we have 0 + 1 6= 1 + 1. By (E2) we have 0 + 1 = 1 + 0,
and by Axiom (E9) we have 1 + 0 = 1. So indeed 1 6= 1 + 1.
If we replaced (E11) with

68
3.11. Learning outcomes

(E11’) There is an element i of E, which satisfies i2 + 1 = 0.

then the system of axioms would be satisfied by the complex numbers (among other
structures). What’s the difference: why is one collection of axioms inconsistent and
the other is not? Do we need to assume that, and if so why should we actually believe
it? We’ll get to that later in the course.

3
3.11 Learning outcomes
At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

understand what it means to say that a given structure satisfies some axioms,
and why the axiomatic viewpoint is useful
understand how the natural numbers can be defined by axioms and understand
that other properties of natural numbers can be proved from the axioms, and
know how to construct such proofs.
state what is meant by a greatest and least member of a set of natural numbers
and know what is meant by the well-ordering principle (or least element axiom)
state and prove the Induction Principle and its variants
use Proof by Induction to prove a range of statements, including those involving
summation and recursive sequences

3.12 Sample exercises

Exercise 3.1
Prove by induction that, for all n ∈ N, 2n ≥ n + 1.

Exercise 3.2
Prove by induction that the sum a + ar + ar2 + · · · + ar n−1 of the first n terms of a
geometric progression with first term a and common ratio r 6= 1 is a(1 − r n )/(1 − r ).

Exercise 3.3
Prove by induction that for all n ∈ N,
n
1
∑ r2 = 6 n(n + 1)(2n + 1).
r =1

Exercise 3.4 n
1 n
Prove by induction that ∑ i ( i + 1) = n + 1 .
i =1

Exercise 3.5
Suppose the sequence xn is given by x1 = 7, x2 = 23 and, for n ≥ 3, xn = 5xn−1 − 6xn−2 .
Prove by induction that, for all n ∈ N, xn = 3n+1 − 2n .

69
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

Exercise 3.6
Prove by induction that, for all n ∈ N, 2n+2 + 32n+1 is divisible by 7.

Exercise 3.7
For a sequence of numbers x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , and for n ∈ N, the number ∏rn=1 xr is the
product of the first r numbers of the sequence. It can be defined inductively as follows:
3 1 k +1
!
k
∏ xr = x1 , and for k ≥ 1, ∏ xr = ∏ xr x k +1 .
r =1 r =1 r =1

Suppose that x 6= 1. Prove that

n n
2r − 1 1 − x2
∏ (1 + x )=
1−x
.
r =1

3.13 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 3.1 As written, this activity is easy—for example, the set of all real
numbers obviously doesn’t have a least member. How can we prove this? Well, the
easy way is by contradiction. Suppose for a contradiction that there is a least real
number, call it a. But then a − 1 is a real number, and it is less than a; this is a
contradiction and we are done.
But of course I really wanted to have a set of positive real numbers which doesn’t have
a least member. Actually, this is pretty easy too—especially once we saw the proof
above. Let’s just take the set of all positive real numbers. Suppose that has a least
member b, for a contradiction. But then b/2 is a positive real number, and it’s smaller
than b, which is a contradiction and we’re done.
Learning activity 3.3 When n = 4, n2 = 16 and 2n = 24 = 16, so in this base case, the
statement is true. Suppose we make the inductive hypothesis that for some k ≥ 4,
k2 ≤ 2k . We want to show
( k + 1 )2 ≤ 2k +1 .
We have
(k + 1)2 = k2 + 2k + 1 ≤ 2k + 2k + 1
(by the inductive hypothesis). So we’ll be done if we can show that 2k + 1 ≤ 2k . This
will follow from 2k + 1 ≤ k2 and the assumed fact that k2 ≤ 2k . Now,
2k + 1 ≤ k2 ⇐⇒ k2 − 2k − 1 ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ (k − 1)2 ≥ 2,
which is true for k ≥ 4. So, finally,

(k + 1)2 ≤ 2k + 2k + 1 ≤ 2k + k2 ≤ 2k + 2k = 2k+1 .
as required. So the result is true for all n ≥ 4.
Learning activity 3.4 Let Q(n) be the statement ‘∀s ≤ n, P(s) is true’. Then Q(1) is
true if and only if P(1) is true. The statement Q(k ) ⇒ Q(k + 1) is the same as
( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k) ⇒ ( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k + 1).

70
3.14. Solutions to exercises

But if P(s) is true for all s ≤ k then its truth for all s ≤ k + 1 follows just from its truth
when s = k + 1. That is, Q(k ) ⇒ Q(k + 1) is the same as
( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k) ⇒ P(k + 1). The (standard) Induction Principle applied to the
statement Q(n) tells us that: Q(n) is true for all n ∈ N if the following two statements
are true:

(i) Q(1) is true; 3

(ii) For all k ∈ N, Q(k ) ⇒ Q(k + 1).
What we’ve established is that (i) and (ii) can be rewritten as:

(i) P(1) is true;

(ii) For all k ∈ N, ( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).

We deduce that: P(n) is true for all n ∈ N if the following two statements are true:

(i) P(1) is true;

(ii) For all k ∈ N, ( P(s) true ∀s ≤ k ) ⇒ P(k + 1).

This is exactly the Strong Induction Principle. So the Strong Induction Principle
follows from the standard one and is, therefore, not really ‘stronger’.
Learning activity 3.5 Let P(n) be the statement that the sum of the first n terms is
(n/2)(2a + (n − 1)d). The base case is straightforward. The first term is a, and the
formula (n/2)(2a + (n − 1)d) gives a when n = 1. Suppose that P(k) holds, so the
sum of the first k terms is (k/2)(2a + (k − 1)d). Now, the (k + 1)st term is a + kd, so
the sum of the first k + 1 terms is therefore
k k ( k − 1)
a + kd + (2a + (k − 1)d) = a + kd + ak + d
2 2
k ( k + 1)
= ( k + 1) a + d
2
( k + 1)
= (2a + kd)
2
( k + 1)
= (2a + ((k + 1) − 1)d),
2
so P(k + 1) is true. The result follows for all n by induction.

3.14 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 3.1
Let P(n) be the statement ‘2n ≥ n + 1’. When n = 1, 2n = 2 and n + 1 = 2, so P(1) is
true. Suppose P(k) is true for some k ∈ N. Then 2k ≥ k + 1. It follows that

2k+1 = 2.2k ≥ 2(k + 1) = 2k + 2 ≥ k + 2 = (k + 1) + 1,

so P(k + 1) is also true. Hence, by induction, for all n ∈ N, 2n ≥ n + 1.

71
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

Solution to exercise 3.2

Let P(n) be the statement that the sum of the first n terms is a(1 − r n )/(1 − r ). P(1)
states that the first term is a(1 − r1 )/(1 − r ) = a, which is true. Suppose P(k) is true.
Then the sum of the first k + 1 terms is the sum of the first k plus the (k + 1)st term,
which is ar k , so this sum is
a (1 − r k ) a(1 − r k ) + (1 − r ) ar k
+ ar k =
3 1−r 1−r
a − ar + ar k − ar k+1
k
=
1−r
k +
a (1 − r 1 )
= ,
1−r
which shows that P(k + 1) is true. Hence, for all n ∈ N, P(n) is true, by induction.
Solution to exercise 3.3
Let P(n) be the statement that
n
1
∑ r2 = 6 n(n + 1)(2n + 1).
r =1

Then P(1) states that 1 = 1(2)(3)/6, which is true. Suppose P(k) is true for k ∈ N. Then
k
1
∑ r2 = 6 k(k + 1)(2k + 1)
r =1

and P(k + 1) is the statement that

k +1
1 1
∑ r2 = 6 (k + 1)(k + 2)(2(k + 1) + 1) = 6 (k + 1)(k + 2)(2k + 3).
r =1
We have
k +1 k
∑r 2
= ( k + 1) +2
∑ r2
r =1 r =1
1
= (k + 1)2 + k(k + 1)(2k + 1) (by the induction hypothesis)
6
1
= (k + 1) [6(k + 1) + k(2k + 1)]
6
1
2

= (k + 1) 2k + 7k + 6
6
1
= (k + 1)(k + 2)(2k + 3),
6
so P(k + 1) is true. By induction, P(n) is true for all n ∈ N.
Solution to exercise 3.4 n
1 n
Let P(n) be the statement that ∑ i(i + 1) = n + 1 . Then P(1) states that
i =1
1 1
= , which is true. Suppose P(k ) is true for k ∈ N. Then
1×2 1+1
k
1 k
∑ i ( i + 1) = k + 1
i =1

72
3.14. Solutions to exercises

and P(k + 1) is the statement that

k +1
1 k+1
∑ i ( i + 1) = k + 2 .
i =1

Now,
k +1
1 1 k
1
3
∑ i ( i + 1)
= +∑
(k + 1)(k + 2) i=1 i (i + 1)
i =1
1 k
= + (by the induction hypothesis)
(k + 1)(k + 2) k + 1
1 + k ( k + 2)
=
(k + 1)(k + 2)
k2 + 2k + 1
=
(k + 1)(k + 2)
( k + 1)2
=
(k + 1)(k + 2)
k+1
= ,
k+2
so P(k + 1) is true. By induction, P(n) is true for all n ∈ N.

Solution to exercise 3.5

Let P(n) be the statement that xn = 3n+1 − 2n . We use the Strong Induction Principle to
prove P(n) is true for all n ∈ N. The base cases are n = 1 and n = 2. When n = 1,
x1 = 7 and 3n+1 − 2n = 9 − 2 = 7. When n = 2, x2 = 23 and 3n+1 − 2n = 27 − 4 = 23,
so these are true. Suppose that k ≥ 2 and that for all s ≤ k, P(s) is true. In particular, P(k)
and P(k − 1) are true and so

xk+1 = 5xk − 6xk−1

= 5 (3k +1 − 2k ) − 6 (3k − 2k −1 )
= 5 (3k +1 ) − 5 (2k ) − 6 (3k ) + 6 (2k −1 )
= 15(3k ) − 6(3k ) − 10(2k−1 ) + 6(2k−1 )
= 9 (3k ) − 4 (2k −1 )
= 3k +2 − 2k +1
= 3(k+1)+1 − 2k+1 ,

so P(k + 1) is true. Therefore, P(n) is true for all n ∈ N.

Solution to exercise 3.6

Let P(n) be the statement that 2n+2 + 32n+1 is divisible by 7. When n = 1,
2n+2 + 32n+1 = 8 + 27 = 35 and this is a multiple of 7 because 35 = 5 × 7. Suppose P(k )
is true, which means that for some m ∈ N, 2k+2 + 32k+1 = 7m. Now, when we take

73
3. Mathematical structures, natural numbers and proof by induction

n = k + 1,

2n+2 + 32n+1 = 2k+3 + 32k+3

= 2(2k+2 ) + 9(32k+1 )
= 2(2k+2 + 32k+1 ) + 7(32k+1 )
= 14m + 7(32k+1 )
3
= 7 2m + 32k+1 ,

which is a multiple of 7. So the statement is true for P(k + 1). This proves
P(k ) ⇒ P(k + 1), the induction step, and hence, by induction, for all n ∈ N.

Solution to exercise 3.7

Let P(n) be the statement
n n
2r − 1 1 − x2
∏ (1 + x )=
1−x
.
r =1
0
When n = 1, the left hand side is 1 + x2 = 1 + x and the right hand side is
(1 − x2 )/(1 − x ) = 1 + x, so P(1) is true. Suppose P(k) is true, so that
k k
2r − 1 1 − x2
∏ (1 + x )=
1−x
.
r =1

Then
k +1 k
2r − 1 r −1
∏ (1 + x ) = (1 + x 2(k+1)−1
) × ∏ (1 + x 2 )
r =1 r =1
k
2k 1 − x2
= (1 + x ) (by the induction hypothesis)
1−x
k
1 − ( x 2 )2
= (where we’ve used (1 + y)(1 − y) = 1 − y2 )
1−x
k
1 − x 2 ×2
=
1−x
k +1
1 − x2
= ,
1−x
which shows that P(k + 1) is true. So P(n) is true for all n ∈ N, by induction.

74
Chapter 4
Functions and counting

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapters 5 and 6.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapter 10, Sections 10.1
and 10.2, and Chapter 11. 4

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter we look at the theory of functions, and we see how the idea of the
‘size’ of a set can be formalised.

4.2 Functions

4.2.1 Basic definitions

You have worked extensively with functions in your previous mathematical study.
Chiefly, you will have worked with functions from the real numbers to the real
numbers, these being the primary objects of interest in calculus.
You are probably used to writing a function down by writing a formula, something
like ‘ f ( x ) = x2 + sin x’. This is not the approach we are going to take, because it’s too
restrictive. For a very simple example, take the function g( x ) which is defined as
follows: 
0
 if x ≤ 11850 ,
1
g( x ) = 5 ( x − 11850) if 11851 ≤ x ≤ 46350 and
2

5 ( x − 46350) + 6900 if x ≥ 46351 .
This is a perfectly good function, but finding a single formula for it is a bit tricky.
Furthermore, once you find it you’ll notice that the formula is much less helpful than
the definition above. This function was actually an important function (at least in the
UK): it’s the (in 2018) income tax you pay on income £x.

Activity 4.1 Find a single formula which gives the function g( x ) above.

So we do not want to think of ‘function’ as meaning ‘defined by a formula’. In fact,

we don’t want to think about how to go from the input x to the output f ( x ) at
all—we will think of a function as a ‘black box’ which takes in a number and spits out
a number; the only rule is that we insist that it always spits out the same number.

75
4. Functions and counting

Actually, even that is too restrictive; we don’t want to insist that the input or output is
a number. Maybe we would like the input or output to be ‘Yes’, or ‘No’, or a colour,
or a social network... we need a definition which allows any of these possibilities. The
only thing we want to stick to is: if we give the function the same input twice, we
should get the same output each time. Here is the definition which formalises this.
Definition 4.1 Suppose that X and Y are sets. Then a function (also known as a
mapping) from X to Y is a rule that associates a unique member of Y to each member
of X. We write f : X → Y. The set X is called the domain of f and Y is called the
codomain.

4 The element of Y that is assigned to x ∈ X is denoted by f ( x ) and is called the image

of x. We can write x 7→ f ( x ) to indicate that x maps to f ( x ).
There are lots of examples of functions you already know, such as sin x, or g( x )
defined above. Another example function is Drink, with domain {Beer, Milk} and
codomain {Yes, No, Maybe} which is defined by Drink(Milk) = Maybe and
Drink(Beer) = Yes. If you have a social network, then that social network contains a
number of friendships (i.e. pairs of people who are friends); that defines a function
from social networks to the integers, which given a social network returns the total
number of friendships. If you have a road map of some country, then there may or
there may not be a way to drive through all the villages without ever having to return
to a village you already visited. That defines a function from road maps to {Yes, No}.
You can also generate your own personal function as follows. Throw a die 1 000 000
times, and write down the numbers in order that you get—that defines you a
function from {1, . . . , 1 000 000} to {1, . . . , 6}. (It’s extremely unlikely anyone ever
wrote down your personal function before. Of course, the next time you try this you
are very likely to get a different function..!)
Some of these functions are easier to work with, or more interesting, than others. You
know sin x shows up a lot in real-world calculations (in engineering, for example),
and you know how to do algebra and calculus with it. The Drink function describes
your lecturer’s preferences—it might not be very interesting, but at least it’s easy to
describe. What about the road map function? If you’re a fraudster, you need to keep
moving on, and you probably care a lot about not going back to villages where you
already conned people—but how do you actually work out, for a given road map
with maybe 50 000 villages, whether the answer is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’? It’s an interesting
function, but it’s very hard to work with. Finally, what about one of these
generated-by-dice functions? It’s not easy to describe—you don’t want to read a list a
million characters long—and it’s not clear what it should be useful for. Often (but
certainly not all the time), we are really only interested in functions which we can
describe in some useful way.
There are various ways of describing a function. If X has only finitely many
members, we can simply list the images of the members of X. You’re used to seeing a
function defined by giving a formula for the function. For instance, f : R → R given
by f ( x ) = 2x is the function that maps each real number a to the real number 2a.
Sometimes a function can be defined recursively. For example, we might define
f : N → N by
f (1) = 1 and f (n) = 2 + 3 f (n − 1), for n ≥ 2 .

76
4.2. Functions

(You can see that the sequence of numbers f (1), f (2), f (3), . . . is therefore given by a
first order difference equation.)
What does it mean to say that two functions f and g are equal? Well, first, they must
have the same domain X and codomain Y. Then, for each x ∈ X, we must have
f ( x ) = g( x ). For example, if R+ is the set of positive real numbers, then the function
f : R+ → R given by f ( x ) = x2 and the function g : R → R given by g( x ) = x2 are
not equal because their domains are different.
You might think it is picky to say that, for example, the function f : R≥0 → R≥0
defined by f ( x ) = x2 and the function g : R≥0 → R defined by g( x ) = x2 are
different (The set R≥0 is the non-negative real numbers). After all, what you can put
into both functions is the same, and what comes out is also the same—the only 4
difference is that the codomains of f and g are different. However, it turns out often
to be important what the codomain is—for example, we’ll see later that only one of f
and g is a bijection.
Finally, we define one very basic function. For any set X, the identity function
1 : X → X is given by 1( x) = x.

4.2.2 Composition of functions

Suppose that X, Y, Z are sets and that f : X → Y and g : Y → Z. Then the composition
g ◦ f , also denoted by g f , is the function from X to Z given by

( g ◦ f )( x ) = g f ( x ) for x ∈ X .

If X and Z are distinct sets, there is only one way we can compose f and g. For
example, given the function RightTime : {Morning, Evening} → {Beer, Milk}
defined by RightTime(Morning) = Milk and RightTime(Evening) = Beer, it makes
sense to talk about Drink ◦ RightTime. I think that in the morning it’s the right time
for milk, and in the evening it’s the right time for beer. So if we put Morning into the
composition Drink ◦ RightTime, then we can see that I will Maybe have a drink in the
morning. It doesn’t make sense to consider RightTime ◦ Drink, because whatever
input from {Beer, Milk} we put into Drink the output is something not in the domain
of RightTime; that function doesn’t know what to do with an input Maybe.
If X = Z, then both f ◦ g and g ◦ f make sense—but they are generally not the same
function: the order is important. A further point to be careful about is that the
notation f g can cause confusion. For example, suppose X = Y = Z = R. Then you
might be tempted to think that g f denotes the product function x → g( x ) f ( x ). But this
would be wrong. It should always be clear from the context whether g f should be
interpreted as a composition. If I need to talk about the product of the functions f and
g I will denote this by f ( x ) g( x ). The notation g ◦ f leads to less confusion, but it is not
used in all textbooks.

Example 4.1 Suppose f : N → N and g : N → N are given by f ( x ) = x2 + 1

and g( x ) = ( x + 1)2 . Then,
2
( f ◦ g)( x ) = f g( x ) = f ( x + 1)2 = ( x + 1)2 + 1 = ( x + 1)4 + 1.

77
4. Functions and counting

And,
2
( g ◦ f )( x ) = g f ( x ) = g x2 + 1 = ( x2 + 1) + 1 = ( x2 + 2)2 .

4.3 Bijections, surjections and injections

There are three very important properties that a function might possess:
4 Definition 4.2 (Surjection) Suppose f is a function with domain X and codomain
Y. Then f is said to be a surjection (or ‘ f is surjective’) if every y ∈ Y is the image of
some x ∈ X; that is, f is a surjection if and only if ∀y ∈ Y, ∃ x ∈ X, s.t. f ( x ) = y.

Definition 4.3 (Injection) Suppose f is a function with domain X and codomain Y.

Then f is said to be an injection (or ‘ f is injective’) if every y ∈ Y is the image of at most
one x ∈ X. In other words, the function is an injection if different elements of X have
different images under f . Thus, f is an injection if and only if

∀ x, x 0 ∈ X, x 6= x 0 ⇒ f ( x ) 6= f ( x 0 )

or (equivalently, taking the contrapositive), if and only if

∀ x, x 0 ∈ X, f ( x ) = f ( x 0 ) ⇒ x = x 0 .

This latter characterisation often provides the easiest way to verify that a function is
an injection.

Definition 4.4 (Bijection) Suppose f is a function with domain X and codomain Y.

Then f is said to be a bijection (or ‘ f is bijective) if it is both an injection and a surjection.
So this means two things: each y ∈ Y is the image of some x ∈ X, and each y ∈ Y is
the image of no more than one x ∈ X. Well, of course, this is equivalent to: each y ∈ Y
is the image of precisely one x ∈ X.

Example 4.2 f : N → N given by f ( x ) = 2x is not a surjection, because there is

no n ∈ N such that f (n) = 1. (For, 2n = 1 has no solution where n ∈ N.)
However, it is an injection. To prove this, suppose that m, n ∈ N and f (m) = f (n).
Then 2m = 2n, which implies m = n.

Activity 4.2 Prove that f : R → R given by f ( x ) = 2x is a bijection.

4.3.1 An example
Let X = R, the set of real numbers, and let Y be the interval (−1, 1), the set of real
numbers x such that −1 < x < 1. Then the function f : X → Y given by
x
f (x) =
1 + |x|

78
4.4. Inverse functions

is a bijection from X to Y.
First, we prove f is injective. To do this, we prove that f ( x ) = f (y) implies x = y. So,
suppose f ( x ) = f (y). Then
x y
= .
1 + |x| 1 + |y|
So
x + x | y | = y + y | x |.
Because x/(1 + | x |) = y/(1 + |y|), x and y are both non-negative or both negative. For,
otherwise, one of x/(1 + | x |) and y/(1 + |y|) will be negative and the other one will
be non-negative, which cannot be the case since they are equal. So, x |y| = y| x |, both 4
being xy if x, y ≥ 0 and − xy if x, y < 0. So, we have x = y.
Next, we show f is surjective. We need to prove that, for each y ∈ (−1, 1), there’s
x ∈ R such that x/(1 + | x |) = y. Consider separately the case in which y ≥ 0 and the
case in which y < 0.
Suppose y ≥ 0. Then, to have x/(1 + | x |) = y, we need x ≥ 0. So | x | = x and we need
to solve x/(1 + x ) = y. This has solution x = y/(1 − y), which is well-defined
because we know y < 1.
Suppose y < 0. Then we’ll need to have x < 0 and the equation to solve is
x/(1 − x ) = y, for a solution x = y/(1 + y); this is also well-defined, since y > −1.

4.4 Inverse functions

4.4.1 Definition, and existence

Suppose we are given a function f : X → Y. Then g : Y → X is an inverse function of f
if ( g ◦ f )( x ) = x for all x ∈ X and ( f ◦ g)(y) = y for all y ∈ Y. An equivalent
characterisation is that y = f ( x ) ⇐⇒ x = g(y).
The following theorem tells us precisely when a function has an inverse. It also tells
us that if an inverse exists, then there is only one inverse. For this reason we can
speak of the inverse function, and give it a specific notation, namely f −1 .
Theorem 4.1 f : X → Y has an inverse function if and only if f is a bijection. When
f is bijective, there is a unique inverse function.

First, we prove:
f : X → Y has an inverse ⇐⇒ f is bijective.
Proof. This is an ⇐⇒ theorem, so there are two things to prove: the ⇐ and the ⇒.
First, we show: f : X → Y has an inverse ⇐ f is bijective.
Suppose f is a bijection. For each y ∈ Y there is exactly one x ∈ X with f ( x ) = y.
Define g : Y → X by g(y) = x. Then this is an inverse of f . Check this!
Next, we show: f : X → Y has an inverse ⇒ f is bijective.
Suppose f has an inverse function g. We know that for any y ∈ Y,

79
4. Functions and counting

f ( g(y)) = ( f ◦ g)(y) = y, so there is some x ∈ X (namely x = g(y)) such that

f ( x ) = y. So f is surjective.
Now suppose f ( x ) = f ( x 0 ). Then g( f ( x )) = g( f ( x 0 )). But g( f ( x )) = ( g ◦ f )( x ) = x
and, similarly, g( f ( x 0 )) = x 0 . So: x = x 0 and f is injective.
Now we prove that when f is bijective, the inverse is unique.
Suppose that g and h are inverses of f . Then both have domain Y and codomain X,
and we just need to check that g(y) = h(y) for every y ∈ Y. Well, h ◦ f is the identity
function on X and f ◦ g is the identity function on Y. So, for any y ∈ Y we have

g(y) = (h ◦ f ) g(y) = (h ◦ f ) ◦ g (y) = h ◦ ( f ◦ g) (y) = h ( f ◦ g)(y) = h(y) ,
4
so g = h.

Note that if f : X → Y is a bijection, then its inverse function (which exists, by

Theorem 4.1) is also a bijection.
Again, you need to be a bit careful with the notation if your function is (for example)
from R to R. Do not confuse f −1 , the inverse function, with the function
−1
x → f (x) = 1/ f ( x ).

4.4.2 Examples

Example 4.3 The function f : R → R is given by f ( x ) = 3x + 1. Find the inverse

function.
To find a formula for f −1 , we use: y = f ( x ) ⇐⇒ x = f −1 (y). Now,

y = f ( x ) ⇐⇒ y = 3x + 1 ⇐⇒ x = (y − 1)/3,

so
1
f −1 ( y ) = ( y − 1).
3

Let Z denote the set of all integers (positive, zero, and negative).

Example 4.4 The function f : Z → N ∪ {0} is defined as follows:

2n if n ≥ 0
f (n) =
−2n − 1 if n < 0.

Prove that f is a bijection and determine a formula for the inverse function f −1 .
First, we prove that f is injective: Suppose f (n) = f (m). Since 2n is even and
−2n − 1 is odd, either (i) n, m ≥ 0 or (ii) n, m < 0. (For otherwise, one of f (n), f (m)
is odd and the other even, and so they cannot be equal.)
In case (i), f (n) = f (m) means 2n = 2m, so n = m.
In case (ii), f (n) = f (m) means −2n − 1 = −2m − 1, so n = m. Therefore f is
injective.

80
4.5. Functions on sets

Next, we prove that f is surjective: We show that ∀m ∈ N ∪ {0}, ∃n ∈ Z such that

f (n) = m. Consider separately the case m even and the case m odd.
Suppose m is even. Then n = m/2 is a non-negative integer and f (n) is
2(m/2) = m).
If m odd, then n = −(m + 1)/2 is a negative integer and

( m + 1)
f (n) = f (−(m + 1)/2) = −2 − − 1 = m.
2

The proof that f is surjective reveals to us what the inverse function is. We have
4

−1 m/2 if m even
f (m) =
−(m + 1)/2 if m odd.

Finally, let’s give an important non-example.

Example 4.5 Let √ f : R → R≥0 be defined by f ( x ) = x2 , and let g : R≥0 → R be

defined by g( x ) = x.
It’s tempting to think that g is the inverse function of √f , and indeed ( f ◦ g)( x ) = x
for all x ∈ R≥0 . But ( g ◦ f )(−1) = g(1) = 1, because x means the non-negative
square root of x. If you check Theorem 4.1 you’ll see that in fact f doesn’t have an
inverse function: it is not a bijection. For example f (1) = √ 1 = f (−1). It’s a
somewhat common mistake in basic algebra to assume x2 = x; as we just saw it’s
not true when x < 0. We saw essentially this error as mistake (3) in Section 2.10.

4.5 Functions on sets

Suppose we have a function f : X → Y. It is very common that, given some S ⊂ X,
we want to talk about the set { f ( x ) : x ∈ S}. To make this easier, we define

f (S) = { f ( x ) : x ∈ S} .

Note that f (∅) = ∅, and for any single x ∈ X we have f { x } = f ( x ) . It’s

important to remember that f ( x ) is not the same as f ( x ) (in the same way that an
apple in a box is not the same as an apple).
We also define, for any function f : X → Y and any T ⊂ Y, the set

f −1 ( T ) = x ∈ X : f ( x ) ∈ T .

Again, it’s important to remember that for y ∈ Y, the set f −1 {y} is a set of elements

in X, and it always exists, in contrast to f −1 (y) which is a member of X and is only

defined if f is an invertible function.
If f is invertible, then for every y ∈ Y the set f −1 {y} contains exactly one element,

namely f −1 (y). However if f is not invertible, then by Theorem 4.1 either there will

81
4. Functions and counting

be some y ∈ Y such that f −1 {y} = ∅ (i.e. f is not surjective) or there will be some

y ∈ Y such that f −1 {y} has two or more elements (i.e. f is not injective), or both.

Given a function f : X → Y, the set f ( X ) is sometimes called the image of f . The

image f ( X ) of f is always a subset of the codomain Y (by definition!). It might be that
f ( X ) = Y, or it might not be—by definition, f ( X ) = Y if and only if f is surjective.

4.6 Counting as a bijection

What does it mean to say that a set has three objects? Well, it means that I can take an
4 object from the set, and call that ‘Object 1’, then I can take a different object from the
set and call that ‘Object 2’, and then I can take a different object from the set and call
that ‘Object 3’, and then I have named all the objects in the set. Obvious, I know, but
this is the fundamental way in which we can abstractly define what we mean by
saying that a set has m members.
For m ∈ N, let Nm be the set {1, 2, . . . , m} consisting of the first m natural numbers.
Then we can make the following formal definition:
Definition 4.5 A set S has m members if there is a bijection from Nm to S.

So, the set has m members if to each number from 1 to m, we can assign a
corresponding member of the set S, and all members of S are accounted for in this
process. This is like the attachment of labels ‘Object 1’, etc, described above.
Note that an entirely equivalent definition is to say that S has m members if there is a
bijection from S to Nm . This is because if f : Nm → S is a bijection, then the inverse
function f −1 : S → Nm is a bijection also. In fact, because of this, we can simply say
that S has m members if there is a bijection ‘between’ Nm and S. (Eccles uses the
definition that involves a bijection from Nm to S and Biggs uses the definition that
involves a bijection from S to Nm .)
For m ∈ N, if S has m members, we say that S has cardinality m (or size m). The
cardinality of S is denoted by |S|, so we would usually simply write |S| = m for ‘S
has cardinality m’.

4.7 The pigeonhole principle

4.7.1 The principle

The ‘pigeonhole principle’ is something that you might find obvious, but it is very
useful.
Informally, what it says is that says is that if you have n letters and you place them
into m pigeonholes in such a way that no pigeonhole contains more than one letter,
then n ≤ m. Equivalently, if n > m (so that you have more letters than pigeonholes),
then some pigeonhole will end up containing more than one letter. This is very
intuitive. Obvious as it may be, however, can you think about how you would

82
4.7. The pigeonhole principle

actually prove it? We shall prove it below. But let’s state the principle more formally,
first. Recall that, for r ∈ N we have Nr = {1, 2, . . . , r }.
Theorem 4.2 (Pigeonhole Principle (PP)) The following statement is true for all
n ∈ N: For all natural numbers m, if there is an injection from Nn to Nm , then n ≤ m.

Proof. We prove this by induction. The statement we want to prove is the statement
P(n): ‘if there is an injection from Nn to Nm , then n ≤ m.’ The base case, n = 1, is true
because (since m ∈ N), 1 ≤ m. Suppose P(k ) is true. We now want to show that
P(k + 1) is also true. So suppose there is an injection f : Nk+1 → Nm . (What we want
to show is that k + 1 ≤ m.) Since k ≥ 1, we have k + 1 ≥ 2. Now we do not have
m = 1, because if m = 1 then Nm = {1} and so the only possibility is 4
f (1) = f (2) = 1, contradicting the assumption that f is an injection. Because m is a
natural number, it follows that m ≥ 2.
Since m ≥ 2 we can write m as m = s + 1 where s ∈ N. Now, either there is some
x ∈ Nk = {1, 2, . . . , k } with f ( x ) = s + 1, or there is not. Let’s examine each case
separately.

Suppose, then, first, that for no x ∈ Nk do we have f ( x ) = s + 1. Then define

f ∗ : Nk → Ns by f ∗ ( x ) = f ( x ) for x ∈ Nk . Then, because f is an injection, so too
is f ∗ . So there is an injection (namely, f ∗ ) from Nk to Ns . By the induction
hypothesis (applied to s instead of m), k ≤ s and hence k + 1 ≤ s + 1 = m, as
required.
Now suppose that there is some j ∈ Nk such that f ( j) = s + 1. Then the value
y = f (k + 1) must be different from s + 1 and therefore y ∈ Ns . Define
f ∗∗ : Nk → Ns by f ∗∗ ( j) = y and f ∗∗ ( x ) = f ( x ) if x ∈ Nk \ { j}. Then f ∗∗ maps
from Nk to Nm and, furthermore, it is an injection. So, by the induction
hypothesis, k ≤ s and hence k + 1 ≤ s + 1 = m.

A consequence of this is:

Theorem 4.3 Suppose n, m are two natural numbers. If there is a bijection from Nn
to Nm , then n = m.

Proof. Suppose f : Nn → Nm is a bijection. Then f is an injection. So from Theorem

PP, n ≤ m.
But there is an inverse function f −1 : Nm → Nn and this is also a bijection. In
particular, f −1 is an injection from Nm to Nn , and hence m ≤ n.
Now we have both n ≤ m and m ≤ n, hence n = m.

A slightly more general form of the pigeonhole principle, easy to prove from that
above is:
Theorem 4.4 Suppose that A and B are sets with | A| = n and | B| = m, where
m, n ∈ N. If there is an injection from A to B, then n ≤ m.

Proof. From the definition of counting, there are bijections g : Nn → A and

h : Nm → B. We also have an inverse bijection h−1 : B → Nm .

83
4. Functions and counting

Suppose there is an injection f : A → B. Consider the composite function

h−1 f g : Nn → Nm . If we can prove that this is an injection, then from Theorem 4.2 it
follows that n ≤ m.
So, let us prove injectivity. Suppose a, b ∈ Nn with a 6= b. Since g is a bijection
g( a), g(b) ∈ A with g( a) 6= g(b). Since f is an injection, there are f ( g( a)), f ( g(b)) ∈ B
with f ( g( a)) 6= f ( g(b)). Since h−1 is a bijection, h−1 ( f ( g( a))) and h−1 ( f ( g(b)))
belong to Nm , and h−1 ( f ( g( a))) 6= h−1 ( f ( g(b))). This last inequality is what we
need.

The pigeonhole principle is remarkably useful (even in some very advanced areas of
4 mathematics). It has many applications. For most applications, it is the contrapositive
form of the principle that is used. This states:
If m < n and f : Nn → Nm is any function, then f is not an injection..
So, if m < n, and f is any function f : Nn → Nm , then there are x, y ∈ Nn with x 6= y
such that f ( x ) = f (y).
The name ‘pigeonhole principle’ comes from this last formulation. If you have m
pigeonholes (named slots into which post is placed in a university) and n letters to
put in them, where n > m, then there must be at least one pigeonhole into which two
or more letters are placed.

4.7.2 What will be on the exam?

We’ve just seen our first ‘long’ proof which is examinable, the proof of the Pigeonhole
Principle. You might be tempted to make a tactical guess that I will not ask you to
reproduce this proof in the exam (which is correct, I won’t ask it) and hence skip it.
And you might think that it is too obvious to be interesting.
This would be an error. The proof is in the course for a reason: it’s the first proof you
have seen which uses ‘abstract information’ in a serious way, and I can and quite
possibly will ask questions on the exam which test your ability to do something
similar, maybe in a simpler scenario (the proof of PP is a bit too long for an exam
question, and would be too hard if you hadn’t seen it before).
You can break down the proof of the Pigeonhole Principle into several steps. The first
is to try doing a proof by induction at all, and that the induction is on n (rather than
m or some other parameter). It’s not obvious why one should do that — but it works.
Once you think of induction on n, then it’s obvious that the base case is true — we
don’t need to think at all about the condition ‘if there is an injection from N1 to Nm ’
at all, because 1 ≤ m is true for all natural numbers m.
So the difficulty is to prove the induction step. Now, it is not obvious how to do this
— it is certainly not the case that a Real Mathematician instantly sees how to do it.
What we do is look for something more we can say, ideally something that will let us
use our induction hypothesis. There is one more thing we can easily say. We are given
that there is an injection from Nk+1 to Nm ; in particular k + 1 is at least 2, and we can
immediately rule out the possibility m = 1. Note we do not use the induction
hypothesis to do this (even though we are in the middle of the induction step). That
lets us write m = s + 1 for some natural number s, and the reason this is helpful is we

84
4.7. The pigeonhole principle

can now prove k + 1 ≤ m by proving k ≤ s.

Why is this helpful? Because the conclusion k ≤ s is what we would get from our
induction hypothesis, if we could find an injection from Nk to Ns . Now, in fact, most
of what we just discussed is not really obvious; it’s something you get to by trial and
error (and experience, i.e. trying to solve problems, helps). But now we are at a point
where there is really only one way to proceed.
We have an injection from Nk+1 to Ns+1 , and we need to get from it an injection from
Nk to Ns . To start with, we give a name to the injection we are given, so we don’t have
to keep saying ‘the injection from Nk+1 to Ns+1 ’ but can just say f . (Note: It doesn’t
really matter what letter we use!)
4
Now, somehow f has to tell us how to write down an injection from Nk to Ns . This f
is abstract information: you don’t know any function values of f , any concrete
information, but you know it has this property ‘injective’. You have to get used to the
idea that you can still work with such a thing even without knowing anything about
it. And often the way to do this is to learn more about f .
In this example, you learn more about f by asking yourself whether f in fact
immediately gives you an injection from Nk to Ns — that happens if f (1), . . . , f (k )
are all in Ns . Well, if that would happen then you know how to write down the
injection you wanted. But if it does not happen, there is a reason: the reason has to be
that f ( j) = s + 1 for some 1 ≤ j ≤ k. And now you learned a piece of (more) concrete
information about f ; you can try to use the extra information you learned to come up
with the injection you want.
Putting this last paragraph into one sentence, the idea is: Maybe I have what I want
— and if not, I learn something more about the abstract function that can help me
complete the proof.

This kind of understanding is what I want you to get from the proof of PP. For all the
longer proofs in these notes, I would like you to get an idea of why the proof works
and what ideas you are being shown that you can use elsewhere in your own proofs;
this is why these proofs are there.

4.7.3 Some applications of the Pigeonhole Principle

We now prove some theorems using the pigeonhole principle.
We start with an easy example.
Theorem 4.5 In any group of 13 or more people, there are two persons whose
birthday is in the same month.

Proof. Consider the function that maps the people to their months of birth. Since
13 > 12, this cannot be a bijection, so two people are born in the same month.

This next one is not hard, but perhaps not immediately obvious.
Theorem 4.6 In a room full of people, there will always be at least two people who
have the same number of friends in the room.

85
4. Functions and counting

Proof. Let X be the set of people in the room and suppose | X | = n ≥ 2. Consider the
function f : X → N ∪ {0} where f ( x ) is the number of friends x has in the room.
Let’s assume that a person can’t be a friend of themselves. (We could instead assume
that a person is always friendly with themselves: we simply need a convention one
way or the other.)
Then f ( X ) = { f ( x ) : x ∈ X } ⊆ {0, 1, . . . , n − 1}. But there can’t be x, y with
f ( x ) = n − 1 and f (y) = 0. Why? Well, such an x would be a friend of all the others,
including y, which isn’t possible since y has no friends in the room.
So either f ( X ) ⊆ {0, 1, . . . , n − 2} or f ( X ) ⊆ {1, . . . , n − 1}. In each case, since f ( x )
4 can take at most n − 1 values, there must, by PP, be at least two x, y ∈ X with
f ( x ) = f (y). And that’s what we needed to prove.

Here’s an interesting geometrical example. For two points ( x1 , y1 ), ( x2 , y2 ) in the

plane, the midpoint of ( x1 , y1 ) and ( x2 , y2 ) is the point
1 1

2 ( x1 + x2 ), 2 ( y1 + y2 )

(the point on the middle of the line connecting ( x1 , y1 ) to ( x2 , y2 ) ).

Theorem 4.7 If we have a set A of five or more points in the plane with integer
coordinates, then there are two points in A whose midpoint has integer coordinates.

Proof. For two integers a, b, 21 ( a + b) is an integer if and only if a + b is even, so if

and only if a, b are both even or are both odd.
So the midpoint of ( x1 , y1 ), ( x2 , y2 ) has both coordinates integer if and only if x1 , x2
are both even or both odd, and also y1 , y2 are both even or both odd.
Let’s label each of the points ( a, b) of A with one of “(even,even)”, “(even,odd)”,
“(odd,even)” or “(odd,odd)”.
Since | A| ≥ 5, there will be at least two points which receive the same label. Hence
these two points have the same parity (odd or even) for the first coordinate, and the
same parity for the second coordinate. This means the midpoint of these two points
must be integer as well.

By the way, this result would not necessarily hold if we only had four points in the
set. Consider (0, 0), (1, 0), (1, 0) and (1, 1).
Here’s a very interesting number theory application (with a very sneaky proof). It
uses the notion of remainders on division by n, which we’ll cover properly soon: for
now, all we need is that, for every natural number m, the “remainder, r, upon division
by n” is one of the numbers 0, 1, . . . , n − 1, and that m − r is divisible by n.
Theorem 4.8 Let a1 , a2 , . . . , an be n integers (where n ≥ 2). Then there exists a
non-empty collection of these integers whose sum is divisible by n.

Proof. Consider the numbers s0 , s1 , . . . , sn given by

s0 = 0,

s1 = a1 ,

86
4.8. A generalised form of PP

s2 = a1 + a2 ,
s3 = a1 + a2 + a3 ,
etc., until
s n = a1 + a2 + · · · + a n .
(It is not obvious, at all, why we should do this, but it will work!)
For each of these si , consider the remainder upon division by n. Since there are n + 1
numbers si , but only n possible remainders (0, 1, . . . , n − 1), two of the si will have the
same remainder upon division by n.
So suppose sk and s` have the same remainder, where k < `. Then s` − sk is divisible
by n. But since s` − sk = ak+1 + ak+2 + · · · + a` , this means that the sum
4
ak+1 + ak+2 + · · · + a` is divisible by n. Se we have proved the result.

In fact we proved something even stronger than what we set out to prove :
Let a1 , a2 , . . . , an be a list of n integers ( where n ≥ 2 ). Then there exists a non-empty
collection of consecutive numbers from this list ak+1 , ak+2 , . . . , a` whose sum is
divisible by n.
The theorem isn’t true if we have fewer than n integers. For instance, if for any n ≥ 2
we take the numbers a1 , . . . , an−1 all equal to 1, then it’s impossible to find a sum that
adds up to something divisible by n.

4.8 A generalised form of PP

We state without proof the following more general version of the PP. Again, it’s
rather obvious. Isn’t it?
Theorem 4.9 Suppose f : A → B and that | A| > k | B| where k ∈ N. Then there is
some element of B that is the image of at least k + 1 elements of A.

I should maybe point out why the proof of this is not in the course. First, it is
something you can find or generate for yourself fairly easily if you want. More
importantly, it won’t show you any new ideas; you wouldn’t learn anything you
didn’t already see earlier.
Last year, 241 students were registered for this course. I knew, before marking the
exams, that at least three of them would get the same exam mark.
Why? Well, apply the theorem, with A being the students, B being the set
{0, 1, . . . , 100} of all possible marks (which is of size 101) and f ( x ) the mark of
student x. Since 232 > 2(101), there’s some mark y such that at least 2 + 1 = 3
students will have y = f ( x ), which means they get the same mark.

4.9 Infinite sets

We say that a set A is finite when there is some n ∈ N such that | A| = n. Otherwise, A
is said to be infinite.

87
4. Functions and counting

For example, the set of natural numbers is infinite. You might think that’s obvious,
but how would you prove it? (Remember that the formal definition that a set A has
cardinality n is that there is a bijection between Nn and A.)
One way to show this is to use a proof by contradiction. Suppose (for a contradiction)
that N is finite, of cardinality n ∈ N, and that f : Nn → N is a bijection. Consider the
number N = f (1) + f (2) + · · · + f (n). Since each f (i ) is a natural number, for all
i ∈ Nn , N is also a natural number. But N > f (i ) for all i ∈ Nn . So here is a natural
number, N, that is not equal to f (i ) for any i ∈ Nn . But that contradicts the fact that f
is a bijection, because if it’s a bijection then it’s certainly a surjection and there should
be some i ∈ Nn with f (i ) = N.
4
4.10 Learning outcomes
At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

describe precisely what is meant by a function

describe precisely what it means to say a function is a surjection, an injection and

a bijection, and be able to determine whether a given function has these
properties

state the definition of the composite function g ◦ f

establish whether a function has an inverse or not

demonstrate that you understand the formal definition of the cardinality of a

finite set

state and use the pigeonhole principle

state what it means to say that a set is infinite; and be able to prove that a set is
infinite.

4.11 Sample exercises

Exercise 4.1
Suppose that X, Y, Z are sets and that f : X → Y and g : Y → Z. Prove that if f and g
are injections, so is the composition g ◦ f . Prove also that if f and g are surjections, then so
is the composition g ◦ f .

Exercise 4.2
Let Z be the set of all integers and suppose that f : Z → Z is given, for x ∈ Z, by

x+1 if x is even
f (x) =
− x + 3 if x is odd.

Determine whether f is injective. Determine also whether f is surjective.

88
4.12. Comments on selected activities

Exercise 4.3
Suppose that X, Y, Z are sets, and we have functions f : X → Y, g : Y → Z, and
h : Y → Z. Suppose that the compositions h ◦ f and g ◦ f are equal, and also that f is
surjective. Prove that g = h.

Exercise 4.4
Suppose that X, Y, Z are sets and that f : X → Y and g : Y → Z. Prove that if the
composition g ◦ f is injective, then f is injective. Prove that if g ◦ f is surjective, then g is
surjective.

Exercise 4.5
Suppose that A and B are non-empty finite sets and that they are disjoint (i.e. A ∩ B = ∅). 4
Prove, using the formal definition of cardinality, that | A ∪ B| = | A| + | B|.

Exercise 4.6
Suppose that X, Y are any two finite sets. By using the fact that

X ∪ Y = ( X \ Y ) ∪ (Y \ X ) ∪ ( X ∩ Y ) ,

together with the result of Exercise 4.5, prove that

| X ∪ Y | = | X | + |Y | − | X ∩ Y | .

Exercise 4.7
Suppose n ∈ N and that f : N2n+1 → N2n+1 is a bijection. Prove that there is some odd
integer k ∈ N2n+1 such that f (k) is also odd. (State clearly any results you use.)

4.12 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 4.1 To get started, observe that we can describe the function h( x )
defined by h( x ) = 0 for x < 0 and h( x ) = 2x for x ≥ 0 using the formula
h( x ) = x + | x |, where | x | is (as is usual) the absolute value of
√x, i.e. the function | x | = x
if x ≥ 0 and | x | = − x if x < 0. (We could also write | x | = x2 ). It follows that
1 1

g( x ) = 10 ( x − 11850) + | x − 11850| + 10 ( x − 46350) + | x − 46350| .

Would that formula be more or less useful to you than the description we gave to
define it?
Learning activity 4.2 Given any y ∈ R, let x = y/2. Then f ( x ) = 2(y/2) = y. This
shows that f is surjective. Also, for x, y ∈ R,

f ( x ) = f (y) ⇒ 2x = 2y ⇒ x = y,

which shows that f is injective. Hence f is a bijection.

89
4. Functions and counting

4.13 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 4.1
Suppose f and g are injective. Then, for x, y ∈ X,

( g ◦ f )( x ) = ( g ◦ f )(y) ⇒ g( f ( x )) = g( f (y))
⇒ f ( x ) = f (y) (because g is injective)
⇒ x = y (because f is injective).

This shows that g ◦ f is injective.

4 Suppose that f and g are surjective. Let z ∈ Z. Then, because g is surjective, there is some
y ∈ Y with g(y) = z. Because f is surjective, there is some x ∈ X with f ( x ) = y. Then

( g ◦ f )( x ) = g( f ( x )) = g(y) = z,

so z is the image of some x ∈ X under the mapping g f . Since z was any element of Z, this
shows that g ◦ f is surjective.

Solution to exercise 4.2

Suppose one of x, y is even and the other odd. Without any loss of generality, we may
suppose x is even and y odd. (‘Without loss of generality’ signifies that there is no need to
consider also the case in which x is odd and y is even, because the argument we’d use there
would just be the same as the one we’re about to give, but with x and y interchanged.) So
f ( x ) = x + 1 and f (y) = −y + 3. But we cannot then have f ( x ) = f (y) because x + 1
must be an odd number and −y + 3 an even number. So if f ( x ) = f (y), then x, y are both
odd or both even. If x, y are both even, this means x + 1 = y + 1 and hence x = y. If they
are both odd, this means − x + 3 = −y + 3, which means x = y. So we see that f is
injective.
Is f surjective? Let z ∈ Z. If z is odd, then z − 1 is even and so
f (z − 1) = (z − 1) + 1 = z. If z is even, then 3 − z is odd and so
f (3 − z) = −(3 − z) + 3 = z. So for z ∈ Z there is x ∈ Z with f ( x ) = z and hence f is
surjective.

Solution to exercise 4.3

Suppose f is surjective and that h ◦ f = g ◦ f . Let y ∈ Y. We show g(y) = h(y). Since y is
any element of Y in this argument, this will establish that g = h. Because f is surjective,
there is some x ∈ X with f ( x ) = y. Then, because h ◦ f = g ◦ f , we have
h( f ( x )) = g( f ( x )), which means that h(y) = g(y). So we’ve achieved what we needed.

Solution to exercise 4.4

Suppose g ◦ f is injective. To show that f is injective we need to show that
f ( x ) = f (y) ⇒ x = y. Well,

f ( x ) = f (y) ⇒ g( f ( x )) = g( f (y))

by definition of a function. Now g( f ( x )) = ( g ◦ f )( x ), and similarly for y; this is what ◦

means. And
( g ◦ f )( x ) = ( g ◦ f )(y) ⇒ x = y ,

90
4.13. Solutions to exercises

because g ◦ f is injective. So we proved

f ( x ) = f (y) ⇒ x = y ,

i.e. f is injective.
Now suppose g ◦ f is surjective. So for all z ∈ Z there is some x ∈ X with ( g ◦ f )( x ) = z.
So g( f ( x )) = z. Denoting f ( x ) by y, we therefore see that there is y ∈ Y with g(y) = z.
Since z was any element of Z, this shows that g is surjective.

Solution to exercise 4.5

Suppose | A| = m and | B| = n. We need to show that | A ∪ B| = m + n which means,
according to the definition of cardinality, that we need to show there is a bijection from 4
Nm+n to A ∪ B. Because | A| = m, there is a bijection f : Nm → A and because | B| = n,
there is a bijection g : Nn → B. Let us define h : Nm+n → A ∪ B as follows:

for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, h(i ) = f (i ) and for m + 1 ≤ i ≤ m + n, h(i ) = g(i − m).

Then h is injective. We can argue this as follows: if 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m then

h(i ) = h( j) ⇒ f (i ) = f ( j) ⇒ i = j,

because f is injective. If m + 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m + n then

h(i ) = h( j) ⇒ g(i − m) = g( j − m) ⇒ i − m = j − m ⇒ i = j,

because g is injective. The only other possibility is that one of i, j is between 1 and m and
the other between m + 1 and m + n. In this case, the image under h of one of i, j belongs
to A and the image of the other to B and these cannot be equal because A ∩ B = ∅. So h
is indeed an injection. It is also a surjection. For, given a ∈ A, because f is a surjection,
there is 1 ≤ i ≤ m with f (i ) = a. Then h(i ) = a also. If b ∈ B then there is some
1 ≤ j ≤ n such that g( j) = b. But then, this means that h(m + j) = g((m + j) − m) = b,
so b is the image under h of some element of Nm+n . So h is a bijection from Nm+n to
A ∪ B and hence | A ∪ B| = m + n.

Solution to exercise 4.6

Note first that the two sets ( X \ Y ) ∪ (Y \ X ) and X ∩ Y are disjoint. Therefore,

| X ∪ Y | = |( X \ Y ) ∪ (Y \ X )| + | X ∩ Y |.

Now, ( X \ Y ) and (Y \ X ) are disjoint, so

|( X \ Y ) ∪ (Y \ X )| = |( X \ Y )| + |(Y \ X )|

and therefore
| X ∪ Y | = |( X \ Y )| + |(Y \ X )| + | X ∩ Y |.
Now, the sets X \ Y and X ∩ Y are disjoint and their union is X, so

| X | = |( X \ Y ) ∪ ( X ∩ Y )| = | X \ Y | + | X ∩ Y |.

A similar argument shows that

|Y | = |(Y \ X ) ∪ ( X ∩ Y )| = |Y \ X | + | X ∩ Y |.

91
4. Functions and counting

These mean that

| X \ Y | = | X | − | X ∩ Y | and |Y \ X | = |Y | − | X ∩ Y |.

So we have

| X ∪ Y | = |( X \ Y )| + |(Y \ X )| + | X ∩ Y |
= (| X | − | X ∩ Y |) + (|Y | − | X ∩ Y |) + | X ∩ Y |
= | X | + |Y | − | X ∩ Y | .

4 Solution to exercise 4.7

Let E be the set of even integers, and O the set of odd integers, in the range
{1, 2, . . . , 2n + 1}. Then | E| = n and |O| = n + 1. If f was such that f (k) was even for all
k ∈ O, then f ∗ : O → E given by f ∗ ( x ) = f ( x ) would be an injection. But, by the
pigeonhole principle, since |O| > | E|, such an injection cannot exist. Hence there is some
odd k such that f (k) is odd.

92
Chapter 5
Equivalence relations and the integers

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 7.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapter 22.

5.1 Introduction
5
In this chapter of the notes we study the important idea of an equivalence relation, a
concept that is central in abstract mathematics. As an important example, we look at
how the integers can be defined from the natural numbers through the use of an
equivalence relation. We also study some of the important properties of the integers.

5.2 Equivalence relations

5.2.1 Relations in general

The idea of a relation is quite a general one. For example, consider the set of natural
numbers N and let us say that two natural numbers m, n are related, denoted by
m R n, if m + n is even. So we have, for instance, 6 R 2 and 7 R 5, but that 6 and 3 are
not related. This relation has some special properties. For one thing, since 2n is even
for all n ∈ N, n R n for all n ∈ N. (We say such a relation is reflexive.) Also, if m R n,
then m + n is even. But m + n = n + m and hence, also, n R m. (We say such a relation
is symmetric.) It is because m R n ⇐⇒ n R m that we can simply say that ‘m and n are
related’ rather than ‘m is related to n’ or ‘n is related to m’. The relation R has other
important properties that we will come back to later.
Formally, a relation R on a set X is a subset of the Cartesian product X × X (which,
recall, is the set of all ordered pairs of the form ( x, y) where x, y ∈ X). You should just
keep in mind that x R y is a true-or-false statement; if you’re not told any more about
the relation, there’s not much more you can say—maybe for some x and y you are
told x R y is true, but it doesn’t tell you whether or not y R x is true, for example.

Example 5.1 Suppose R is the relation on R given by x R y ⇐⇒ x > y. Regarded

as a subset of R × R, this is the set {( x, y) | x > y}. This relation does not possess
the reflexive and symmetric properties we met in the example above. For no x ∈ R
do we have x R x because x is not greater than x. Furthermore, if x R y then x > y,
and we cannot therefore also have y R x, for that would imply the contradictory
statement that y > x.

93
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

In many cases, we use special symbols for relations. For instance ‘=’ is a relation, as is
>. It is often convenient to use a symbol other than R: for instance, many textbooks
use x ∼ y rather than x R y as a symbol for ‘some relation’.

5.2.2 The special properties of equivalence relations

There are three special properties that a relation might have (two of which we saw in
one of the earlier examples):
Definition 5.1 Suppose that R is relation on a set X. Then

[The reflexive property] R is said to be reflexive if, for all x ∈ X, x R x.

[The symmetric property] R is said to be symmetric if, for all x, y ∈ X, x R y

implies y R x (equivalently, for all x, y ∈ X, x R y ⇐⇒ y R x).
5
[The transitive property] R is said to be transitive if, for all x, y, z ∈ X, whenever
x R y and y R z, we also have x R z; that is, ( x R y) ∧ (y R z) ⇒ xRz.

A relation that has all three of these properties is called an equivalence relation.
Definition 5.2 A relation is an equivalence relation if is reflexive, symmetric and
transitive.

Example 5.2 We saw earlier that the relation on N given by

m R n ⇐⇒ m + n is even

is reflexive and symmetric. It is also transitive. To prove that, suppose x, y, z are

three natural numbers and that x R y and y R z. Then x + y is even and y + z is
even. To show that x R z we need to establish that x + z is even. Well,

x + z = ( x + y) + (y + z) − 2y,

and all three terms on the right (x + y, y + z, and 2y) are even. Therefore, x + z is
even and so x R z.

Example 5.3 Let X be the set of n × n real matrices. Define a relation ∼ on X by:

M ∼ N ⇐⇒ ∃r, s ∈ N s.t. Mr = N s .

Then ∼ is an equivalence relation.

Reflexivity and symmetry are easy to see: M1 = M1 and, if Mr = N s , then
N s = Mr . Proving transitivity requires more work. Suppose M ∼ N and N ∼ R.
Then there are r, s, t, u ∈ N with Mr = N s and N t = Ru . Then

Mrt = ( Mr )t = ( N s )t = ( N t )s = ( Ru )s = Rus ,

so there are integers w = rt and x = us such that Mw = R x and hence M ∼ R.

94
5.3. Equivalence classes

Example 5.4 Let S be a set of people in a given social network, and let F be the
relation ‘friendship’, i.e. aFb if a and b are people in S who are friends in the social
network. This relation is symmetric (in real life, it might be that a says they are
friends with b but b disagrees. Social networks such as Facebook don’t allow this
one-sided ‘friendship’). Let’s say that you are automatically a friend of yourself, so
the relation is reflexive.
Is the relation transitive? Well, that depends on the social network. You probably
want to say ‘No’, because (if you’re on Facebook) you surely have some friend not
all of whose friends you know. So for the example of S and F coming from
Facebook, you know the relation F is not transitive; you have a
counterexample—and hence it’s also not an equivalence relation. But it doesn’t
have to be that way. If S is all the people in this lecture hall—well, we’re all friends
(I hope!) and so from the lecture example we do get a transitive relation, and
hence (because we checked all three properties) an equivalence relation. 5

5.3 Equivalence classes

Given an equivalence relation, it is natural to group together objects that are related
to each other. The resulting groupings are known as equivalence classes. In this section,
we formally define equivalence classes and discuss some of their properties.
Definition 5.3 Suppose R is an equivalence relation on a set X and, for x ∈ X, let
[ x ] R be the set of all y ∈ X such that y R x. So,

[ x ] R = { y ∈ X | y R x }.

Often, we will want to talk about the set of all equivalence classes of R. This set is
written X/R, and referred to as the quotient set of X by R. So we have

X/R = [ x ] R : x ∈ X } .

Notice that each [ x ] R is a subset of X. If R is clear from the context—which it usually

will be; in general we will only be talking about one equivalence relation at any given
time—we may just write [ x ] for [ x ] R .

Example 5.5 Consider again R on N given by m R n ⇐⇒ m + n is even. Any

even number is related to any other even number; and any odd number to any
odd number. So there are two equivalence classes:

[1] = [3] = [5] = · · · = set of odd positive integers,

[2] = [4] = [6] = · · · = set of even positive integers,

and we have N/R = [1], [2] .

95
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

Example 5.6 Given a function f : X → Y, define a relation R on X by

x R z ⇐⇒ f ( x ) = f (z). Then R is an equivalence relation. If f is a surjection, the
equivalence classes are the sets

{ x ∈ X : f ( x ) = y } = f −1 { y } ,

for y ∈ Y. Note that the place where we use that f is a surjection is that it implies
each f − 1 {y} is non-empty. If f is not a surjection, then the equivalence classes
are the sets f −1 {y} for all y ∈ Y such that there is an x ∈ X with y = f ( x ), in

other words for each y ∈ f ( X ).

Activity 5.1 Check this!

5 The equivalence classes have a number of important properties. These are given in
the following result.
Theorem 5.1 Suppose R is an equivalence relation on a set X. Then

(i) For x, y ∈ X, [ x ] = [y] ⇐⇒ x R y

(ii) For x, y ∈ X, if x and y are not related by R, then [ x ] ∩ [y] = ∅.

Proof. (i) This is an if and only if statement, so we have two things to prove: namely
that [ x ] = [y] ⇒ x R y and that x R y ⇒ [ x ] = [y].
Suppose, then, that [ x ] = [y]. The relation R is reflexive, so we have x R x. This means
that x ∈ [ x ]. But if [ x ] = [y], then we must have x ∈ [y]. But that means (by definition
of [y]) that x R y.
Conversely, suppose that x R y. We now want to show that [ x ] = [y]. So let z ∈ [ x ].
(We will show that z ∈ [y].) Then z R x. But, because x R y and R is transitive, it
follows that z R y and hence z ∈ [y]. This shows [ x ] ⊆ [y]. We now need to show that
[y] ⊆ [ x ]. Suppose w ∈ [y]. Then w R y and, since x R y, we also have, since R is
symmetric, y R x. So w R y and y R x. By transitivity of R, w R x and hence w ∈ [ x ].
This shows that [y] ⊆ [ x ]. Because [ x ] ⊆ [y] and [y] ⊆ [ x ], [ x ] = [y], as required.
(ii) Suppose x and y are not related. We prove by contradiction that [ x ] ∩ [y] = ∅. So
suppose [ x ] ∩ [y] 6= ∅. Let z be any member of the intersection [ x ] ∩ [y]. (The fact that
we’re assuming the intersection is non-empty means there is such a z.) Then z ∈ [ x ],
so z R x and z ∈ [y], so z R y. Because R is symmetric, x R z. So: x R z and z R y and,
therefore, by transitivity, x R y. But this contradicts the fact that x, y are not related by
R. So [ x ] ∩ [y] = ∅.

Theorem 5.1 shows that either two equivalence classes are equal, or they are disjoint.
Furthermore, because an equivalence relation is reflexive, any x ∈ X is in some
equivalence class (since it certainly belongs to [ x ] because x R x). So what we see is
that the equivalence classes form a partition of X: their union is the whole of X, and
no two equivalence classes overlap.

96
5.4. Construction of the integers from the natural numbers

Example 5.7 Consider again the equivalence relation R on N given by

m R n ⇐⇒ m + n is even.

We have seen that there are precisely two equivalence classes: the set of odd
positive integers and the set of even positive integers. Note that, as the theory
predicted, these form a partition of all of N (since every natural number is even or
odd, but not both).

5.4 Construction of the integers from the natural

numbers
This section might seem at first a little tricky. We know what the integers are, so why 5
do we have to define or construct them, you might well ask. Why not just say that 0 is
the solution to the equation x + 1 = 1, and then say that for each n ∈ N the number
−n is the solution to the equation x + n = 0? We can just define some new symbols
and then do algebra as we’re used to, can’t we?
There are three ways to answer this question about constructing the integers. One is
to point at the same reason why we gave an axiomatic definition of the natural
numbers: we want to be clear that everyone is working with the same structure,
otherwise we might start disagreeing about what statements are true.
The second, more important, reason is that very often in mathematics we construct a
new structure from existing structures, and most of the time the new structure will be
one which you did not study in school and you do not know how it behaves: you
really need to know how to prove properties of your new structure from the
construction. This is your first chance to see how to do that; we will meet it again
when we study rational numbers and modular arithmetic, and this idea will show up
again and again in your degree programme.
And finally, the third reason is that you are probably fairly convinced that the natural
numbers exist, that the axioms we gave won’t lead to a contradiction. Is that so
obvious for the integers? If you skipped it earlier, now would be a good time to look
back at Section 3.10. Someone told you before that the complex numbers C exist: you
can do algebra as you’re used to without running into contradictions, but the number
system E we described in Section 3.10 doesn’t exist: if you believe it exists then (as we
calculated) you also believe 1 = 1 + 1. Why is there a difference? If you can’t answer
that, then how do you know that you won’t run into a similar contradiction if you try
to do algebra as you’re used to with the integers Z?

We are going to give a construction which looks complicated at first, but which we
can easily prove works. Again, the main motivation for this is that we will give an
idea which we can re-use later in your degree course to construct structures which
are more complicated and which you don’t have intuition for.
The idea behind what follows is this: imagine you have deposits of a and debts of b
(which are natural numbers). Denote this by ( a, b). Then (informally—we didn’t

97
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

define ‘subtraction’ yet!) you have a total of a − b, which might be negative.

We can describe, or construct, the integers from the natural numbers, using an
equivalence relation. In fact, we consider an equivalence relation on the set N × N of
all ordered pairs of natural numbers. Given ( a, b) and (c, d) in X = N × N, let us say
that
( a, b) R (c, d) ⇐⇒ a + d = b + c.

(Informal motivation: we’re thinking of [( a, b)] as the (familiar) integer a − b. That’s

why we defined
( a, b) R (c, d) ⇐⇒ a + d = b + c.
This is the ‘same’ as a − b = c − d. But we want to make this work, in the set of
natural numbers and using addition, not subtraction, which we haven’t defined.)
I’ve said this is an equivalence relation, but let’s check this.
5 First, R is reflexive because ( a, b) R ( a, b) if and only if a + b = b + a, which is clearly
true (It’s (N2)).
Next, R is symmetric, for

( a, b) R (c, d) ⇐⇒ a + d = b + c ⇐⇒ c + b = d + a ⇐⇒ (c, d) R( a, b).

Finally, R is transitive. For suppose that ( a, b) R (c, d) and (c, d) R (e, f ). Then
a + d = b + c and c + f = d + e. Therefore,

( a + d ) + ( c + f ) = ( b + c ) + ( d + e ).
That is (after cancelling c and d from each side),

a + f = b + e,

which means ( a, b) R (e, f ).

OK, so we know R is an equivalence relation on N × N. What are the equivalence
classes of R? The typical equivalence class [( a, b)] contains all (c, d) for which
a + d = b + c. For example, [(2, 1)] will be

[(2, 1)] = {(3, 2), (4, 3), (5, 4), . . . }.

Now, for n ∈ N, let us denote the equivalence class [(n + 1, 1)] by n and let us denote
the equivalence class [(1, n + 1)] by −n. Also, we denote by 0 the class [(1, 1)].

Activity 5.2 Check that all these equivalence classes are distinct. In other words,
show that [(n + 1, 1)] is not the same as [(m + 1, 1)] if m, n ∈ N are distinct, and
also [(1, n + 1)] is not the same as [(1, m + 1)] if m 6= n, and [(n + 1, 1)] is not the
same as [(1, 1)], and [(1, n + 1)] is not [(1, 1)], and [(1, n + 1)] is not [(m + 1, 1)] for
any m, n ∈ N. (Did I cover all the cases? Check that too!) And finally, check that
there is no other equivalence class.

We define the integers to be the set (N × N)/R, in other words (by Activity 5.2) the set

{. . . , −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . }.

98
5.4. Construction of the integers from the natural numbers

Let’s stop for a moment and (again) try to explain what the point of all this abstract
nonsense is. First off, you might be a bit confused: after all, 1 is 1 is a member of N,
and now for some reason we are also writing 1 for the equivalence class [(2, 1)] R of
this equivalence relation on N × N, which we are (by definition) saying is a member
of Z. This is naughty—the two things are not the same, and we should not use the
same symbol for both. What we are doing is called an abuse of notation, which means
we are doing something naughty but we will avoid getting into trouble. How can we
do that? Well, (as you will see, once we define addition and so on), the equivalence
classes [(2, 1)], [(3, 1)] and so on (which we are calling 1, 2 and so on) satisfy the
axioms for the natural numbers. That means we know there is a dictionary
correspondence between N and these equivalence classes (as we proved); they really
behave in exactly the same way.
Second, you might ask: why on earth are we giving this funny and complicated
construction for Z? I want to get on with my calculations without worrying about it.
This is the right question to ask, and the answer is: give me a moment to prove that 5
all your calculations will work, and then you can forget the construction (or at least
not keep thinking about it) and get on with your calculations. That’s why we
(naughtily) use the same symbol 1 for the element of N and for the equivalence class
[(2, 1)] R in Z: because once we check that this construction does what we want, we
are going to forget it and just work with Z as you’re used to—in particular, we want
to think of 1 in N and [2, 1] R in Z as being basically the same thing. We do not want to
keep thinking about equivalence classes any more, once we convince ourselves that
Z makes sense.

Let’s get back to the construction, and check we can do arithmetic with it. First, let’s
define an addition operation (between equivalence classes) by
[( a, b)] + [(c, d)] = [( a + c, b + d)].
So, for example, what does this say about the sum of integers +3 and −1. Well,
+3 = [(4, 1)] and −1 = [(1, 2)] and therefore
+3 + −1 = [(4, 1)] + [(1, 2)] = [(5, 3)].
Now, (5, 3) R (3, 1), so [(5, 3)] = [(3, 1)], which is what we called +2. No surprise
there, then: 3 + (−1) = 2 in the usual notation for integer arithmetic. Henceforth, we
can simply write m + (−n) as the subtraction m − n. In other words, we now defined
subtraction. We waited this long because subtraction always makes sense in Z; in N
it doesn’t: for example 3 − 5 is not in N.
There is quite a subtle point about this definition of addition of equivalence classes.
We know that there are many (infinitely many) pairs ( a0 , b0 ) such that
[( a, b)] = [( a0 , b0 )]. Such an ( a0 , b0 ) is called a representative of the equivalence class. (It
is always the case, for any equivalence relation, as Theorem 5.1 shows, that [ x ] and
[ x 0 ] are the same whenever x 0 R x. So any equivalence class can be represented by
potentially many different representatives: any member of the class will do.) So we
need to be sure that the definition of addition will give us the same answer if we use
different representatives. In other words, suppose that [( a0 , b0 )] = [( a, b)] and
[(c0 , d0 )] = [(c, d)]. The definition of addition,
[( a, b)] + [(c, d)] = [( a + c, b + d)],

99
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

will only make sense (or, it will only be ‘well-defined’) if

[( a0 , b0 )] + [(c0 , d0 )] = [( a, b)] + [(c, d)].

Thus, we need to prove that if [( a0 , b0 )] = [( a, b)] and [(c0 , d0 )] = [(c, d)], then

[( a + c, b + d)] = [( a0 + c0 , b0 + d0 )].

We can see this easily enough in specific cases. For instance, [(4, 1)] = [(6, 3)] and
[(1, 2)] = [(2, 3)]. We have

[(4, 1)] + [(1, 2)] = [(5, 3)] and [(6, 3)] + [(2, 3)] = [(8, 6)].

Well, (5, 3) R (8, 6), because 5 + 6 = 3 + 8, so [(5, 3)] = [(8, 6)]. So, in this case, and
with these choices of representatives for each equivalence class, we end up with the
same class when we apply the addition operation.
5
We can prove, more generally, that the definition works, that it does not depend on
the choice of representatives of the classes. Remember, what we need to prove is that
if [( a0 , b0 )] = [( a, b)] and [(c0 , d0 )] = [(c, d)], then

[( a + c, b + d)] = [( a0 + c0 , b0 + d0 )].

Well, [( a0 , b0 )] = [( a, b)] and [(c0 , d0 )] = [(c, d)] mean that ( a0 , b0 ) R ( a, b) and

(c0 , d0 ) R (c, d), so that a0 + b = b0 + a and c0 + d = d0 + c. We need to show that
[( a + c, b + d)] = [( a0 + c0 , b0 + d0 )]. This means we need to show that
( a + c, b + d) R ( a0 + c0 , b0 + d0 ). But

( a + c, b + d) R ( a0 + c0 , b0 + d0 ) ⇐⇒ ( a + c) + (b0 + d0 ) = (b + d) + ( a0 + c0 )
⇐⇒ ( a + b0 ) + (d0 + c) = ( a0 + b) + (c0 + d),

which is true, because a0 + b = b0 + a and c0 + d = d0 + c.

Multiplication, ×, is defined on these equivalence classes by

[( a, b)] × [(c, d)] = [( ac + bd, ad + bc)].

Again, we should check that this definition ‘makes sense’, in that whatever
representative of the equivalence classes you take, you get the same answer.

Activity 5.3 Check that multiplication as defined above makes sense.

Finally, you should check that this construction ‘makes sense’ in general, i.e. that
addition and multiplication in (N × N)/R as we defined them really correspond to
what you think addition and multiplication of integers should do. Let’s be a little
more concrete: we want to check that the following hold.

(Z1) Closure under addition and multiplication: for each a, b ∈ Z both a + b and ab
are in Z.

(Z2) Commutative addition and multiplication: for each a, b ∈ Z we have

a + b = b + a and ab = ba.

100
5.4. Construction of the integers from the natural numbers

(Z3) Associative addition and multiplication: for each a, b, c ∈ Z we have

( a + b) + c = a + (b + c) and ( ab)c = a(bc).
(Z4) The distributive law: for each a, b, c ∈ Z we have ( a + b)c = ac + bc.

(Z5) Additive and multiplicative identity: there are two different elements 0 and 1,
such that for each a ∈ Z we have a + 0 = a and a × 1 = a.

(Z6) Additive inverses: for each a ∈ Z there is an element − a such that a + (− a) = 0.

(Z7) Multiplicative cancellation: for each a, b, c ∈ Z, if c 6= 0 and ac = bc then a = b.

You should not try to memorise these properties (I will not ask them in the exam),
you should simply check that you agree with the following two statements. First, Z
as we just defined it satisfies all these properties. Second, these are the properties you
would normally use to do arithmetic in Z. Unlike the axioms for the natural
numbers, these properties do not uniquely define the integers—there are other 5
structures which also satisfy them. We could add some more axioms in order to find
something which does uniquely define the integers—if you’re interested, try to do so.
But there isn’t really a need—Z is what you get from N by adding 0 and, for each
n ∈ N, the number −n. That already defines it uniquely (and the funny construction
proves that this definition, unlike the number system E, makes sense).
We’ll show one of these properties hold, as an example.

Example 5.8 We show that for any integer z we have z + 0 = z. Recall that, for
some ( a, b), we will have z = [( a, b)] and that 0 is [(1, 1)]. Now, the definition of
addition of integers (that is, of the equivalence classes) means that

z + 0 = [( a, b)] + [(1, 1)] = [( a + 1, b + 1)].

But ( a + 1, b + 1) R ( a, b) because ( a + 1) + b = (b + 1) + a, and hence

[( a + 1, b + 1)] = [( a, b)] = z. So z + 0 = z.

Activity 5.4 With integers defined in the formal way as these equivalence
classes, prove that for any integer z we have z × 0 = 0.

You probably realise at this point that it is easy to check these properties; writing out
all of them would take a lot of space, but it would not be hard. In principle you
should check them though! And at this point we are done. These properties we gave
are all you will ever need to do arithmetic with Z, and that arithmetic works the way
you think it should. At this point, you can stop thinking about the funny
construction, and simply work with the integers Z as you’re used to doing.
(Actually, that’s not quite true—we’ll use the funny construction in the next section to
define an order < on Z.)
What did we gain from doing all this? Well, suppose you do some arithmetic with
Z—could it happen that you run into a contradiction, that for example you prove
0 = 1? Well, maybe—but if you do, then you can rewrite your proof, using this funny
construction (meaning you write [(1, 1)] instead of 0, and so on). In that case you end
up with a proof that [(1, 1)] = [(2, 1)] (which we saw in Activity 5.2 is a false

101
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

statement). What’s the difference? Well, the difference is that the second proof doesn’t
make any use of properties of Z, it only uses the axioms for the natural numbers. To
put it another way: let’s assume you are happy that N exists. Then you should now
be happy that Z exists, even if you were a bit unhappy about negative numbers
before.
That might seem like a lot of effort to prove something obvious. Again, the point is
that we will do this kind of thing over and over again, in order to prove that
structures exist where you probably do not think it is obvious. We can begin to
answer the question about what the difference between C and E from Section 3.10 is
now. We saw E doesn’t exist. It isn’t obvious that C exists; if you think it is, you’re
fooling yourself (so you should not have a simple answer to the question of what the
difference is).
But we can prove the complex numbers exist, by constructing them from the real
numbers in a similar way to the construction we just gave of Z from N. We’ll do this
5 in Section 8.5. Again, the point is not to make you think of a complicated construction
whenever you want to work with the complex numbers. The point is to convince you
that the complex numbers really work—if you could find a problem with the
complex numbers, say if you could prove 0 = 1 by doing some arithmetic with
complex numbers, then you can also prove the same thing without using the complex
numbers, just working with the real numbers.

5.5 Ordering the integers

For integers x = [( a, b)] and y = [(c, d)], we say x < y if and only if a + d < b + c.
We noted in an earlier chapter that any non-empty subset of N has a least member.
But this is not true for subsets of integers.
For a subset S of Z, m is a lower bound for S if for all s ∈ S, m ≤ s; and M is an upper
bound for S if for all s ∈ S, s ≤ M. We say that S is bounded below if it has a lower
bound; and that it is bounded above if it has an upper bound. The natural number l is a
least member of S if l ∈ S and, for all s ∈ S, l ≤ s. So a least member will be a lower
bound that belongs to S. The natural number g is a greatest member of S if g ∈ S and,
for all s ∈ S, g ≥ s. So a greatest member will be an upper bound that belongs to S.
The following fact is a fundamental property of the integers, known as the
well-ordering principle. (The well-ordering principle was discussed earlier, when it was
presented as an axiom for the natural numbers. This is a generalisation of that
principle.)
The Well-ordering Principle: If S is a non-empty set of integers that has a lower
bound, then S has a least member.
(The same statement is true with ‘lower’ replaced by ‘upper’ and ‘least’ replaces by
‘greatest’.)
Furthermore, if S is bounded below, then there is precisely one least member. For, if l, l 0
are least members then l, l 0 ∈ S and so (since for all s ∈ S, l ≤ s and l 0 ≤ s) we have
both l ≤ l 0 and l 0 ≤ l, so that l = l 0 .

102
5.6. Learning outcomes

5.6 Learning outcomes

At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

demonstrate that you know what is meant by a relation

demonstrate that you know what it means to say a relation is reflexive,

symmetric or transitive, or that it is an equivalence relation

verify whether given relations are reflexive, symmetric or transitive

demonstrate that you know the definition of equivalence classes and that you
know some of their basic properties, in particular that they form a partition of
the set on which the relation is defined

determine the equivalence classes that correspond to an equivalence relation 5

demonstrate knowledge of the way in which the integers can be formally
constructed from the natural numbers through the use of an equivalence relation

state the Well-Ordering Principle

5.7 Sample exercises

Exercise 5.1
Define a relation R on Z by: for x, y ∈ Z, x R y ⇐⇒ x2 = y2 . Prove that R is an
equivalence relation, and describe the corresponding equivalence classes.

Exercise 5.2
Define the relation R on the set N by x R y if and only if there is some n ∈ Z such that
x = 2n y. Prove that R is an equivalence relation.

Exercise 5.3
Let X be the set of n × n real matrices. Define a relation ∼ on X by:

M ∼ N ⇐⇒ ∃ an invertible P ∈ X s.t. N = P−1 MP.

Prove that ∼ is an equivalence relation.

Exercise 5.4
Suppose that f : X → Y is a surjection. Define the relation R on X by
x R y ⇐⇒ f ( x ) = f (y). Prove that R is an equivalence relation. What are the equivalence
classes? Let C denote the set of equivalence classes [ x ] for x ∈ X. Prove that if [ x ] = [y]
then f ( x ) = f (y). This means that we can define a function g : C → Y by: g([ x ]) = f ( x ).
Prove that g is a bijection.

Exercise 5.5
Prove that the set { x ∈ Z | x is a multiple of 4} has no lower bound.

103
5. Equivalence relations and the integers

5.8 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 5.4 Suppose z = [( a, b)]. By definition, we have 0 = [(1, 1)]. The
definition of multiplication is that

[( a, b)] × [(c, d)] = [( ac + bd, ad + bc)].

So,
z × 0 = [( a, b)] × [(1, 1)] = [( a + b, a + b)].
Now, ( a + b, a + b) R (1, 1) because a + b + 1 = 1 + a + b and therefore
[( a + b, a + b)] = [(1, 1)] = 0. So we see that z × 0 = 0.

5.9 Solutions to exercises

5
Solution to exercise 5.1
R is reflexive because for any x, x2 = x2 . R is symmetric because x2 = y2 ⇐⇒ y2 = x2 .
To show R is transitive, suppose x, y, z ∈ Z and x R y and y R z. Then x2 = y2 and
y2 = z2 , so x2 = z2 , which means x R z. Thus R is an equivalence relation. Given any
x ∈ Z, the equivalence class [ x ] consists precisely of those integers y such that y2 = x2 . So
[ x ] = { x, − x }.

Solution to exercise 5.2

R is reflexive because for any x, x = 20 x. R is symmetric because if x R y then ∃n ∈ Z
with x = 2n y. This means that y = 2−n x and hence, taking m = −n, ∃m ∈ Z such that
y = 2m x. So y R x. To show R is transitive, suppose x, y, z ∈ Z and x R y and y R z. Then
there are m, n ∈ Z such that x = 2n y and y = 2m z, so x = 2n y = 2n (2m z) = 2m+n z
which, since m + n ∈ Z, shows that x R z. Thus R is an equivalence relation.

Solution to exercise 5.3

For any M, M = I −1 MI where I is the identity matrix, so M ∼ M. For matrices
M, N ∈ X, if M ∼ N then there’s an invertible P with N = P−1 MP and so M = PNP−1 ,
which can be written as M = ( P−1 )−1 MP−1 . So there is an invertible matrix Q (equal to
P−1 ) such that M = Q−1 NQ and hence M ∼ N. This shows the relation is symmetric.
Suppose M ∼ N and N ∼ R. Then there are invertible matrices P and Q such that
N = P−1 MP and R = Q−1 NQ. We therefore have

R = Q−1 ( P−1 MP) Q = ( Q−1 P−1 ) M( PQ) = ( PQ)−1 M( PQ),

so there is an invertible matrix T = PQ so that R = T −1 MT and hence M ∼ R,

establishing that ∼ is transitive. It follows that ∼ is an equivalence relation. (We used here
the fact that ( PQ)−1 = Q−1 P−1 . This follows from the fact that
( Q−1 P−1 )( PQ) = Q−1 ( P−1 P) Q = Q−1 IQ = Q−1 Q = I.)

Solution to exercise 5.4

x R x because f ( x ) = f ( x ). If x R y then f ( x ) = f (y) so f (y) = f ( x ) and hence y R x. If
x R y and y R z then f ( x ) = f (y) and f (y) = f (z), so f ( x ) = f (z) and x R z. Hence R is
an equivalence relation.

104
5.9. Solutions to exercises

For x ∈ X, [ x ] is the set of all y ∈ X with f (y) = f ( x ), so, since f is a surjection, the
equivalence classes are exactly the sets Cz for each z ∈ Y, where Cz = { x ∈ X | f ( x ) = z}
is the set of elements of X mapped onto z by f .
The fact that [ x ] = [y] implies f ( x ) = f (y) follows directly either from this description of
equivalence classes, or from the fact that [ x ] = [y] implies x R y, which implies
f ( y ) = f ( x ).
Let g be as defined. It is surjective because for each z ∈ Y, there is some x ∈ X such that
f ( x ) = z (since f is surjective) and hence g([ x ]) = f ( x ) = z. Also, g is bijective because
g([ x ]) = g([y]) implies f ( x ) = f (y), which means x R y and hence that [ x ] = [y].

Solution to exercise 5.5

We can prove this by contradiction. Suppose that the set S = { x ∈ Z | x is a multiple of 4}
has a lower bound, l. Then, for all x ∈ S, x ≥ l. Now, one of l − 1, l − 2, l − 3, l − 4 must
be a multiple of 4. So one of these numbers is in S. However, each is less than l,
contradicting the fact that l is a lower bound on S. 5

105
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

Chapter 6
Divisibility and prime numbers

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 8.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapters 15–17 and
Chapter 23 (except section 23.5)

6.1 Introduction
In this chapter we begin to study elements of number theory. We start with a
discussion of divisibility and this leads us to discuss common divisors. Prime
6 numbers are the basic building blocks in the theory of numbers: in particular, each
number can be written in essentially only one way as a product of primes.

6.2 Divisibility
For integers x, y we say that x is a multiple of y or that y divides x, or that x is divisible
by y if, for some q ∈ Z, x = yq. We use the notation y | x to signify that y divides x.
If you’re being careful, you might remember we defined ‘divisible’ earlier for natural
numbers. This definition extends the definition we gave earlier: that is, if x and y
happen to be natural numbers, then ‘x is divisible by y’ is a true statement (by this
definition) if and only if it is true by the earlier definition (in Section 2.2.2). So we did
not change any definition, we are simply explaining what it means for integers which
are not in N.
Note that, for every x ∈ Z, x | 0. But 0 | x only if x = 0.
When y does not divide x, we write y 6 | x. In this case, as you will know from
elementary arithmetic, dividing x by y will leave a remainder.

6.3 Quotients and remainders

The following theorem is very useful. It formalises the fact that one integer may be
divided by another, leaving a remainder.
Theorem 6.1 For any positive integers a and b, there are unique non-negative
integers q and r such that

a = bq + r and 0 ≤ r < b.

106
6.4. Representation of integers with respect to a base

This can be proved using some standard properties of integers. Let N0 = N ∪ {0}
and let
Q = {m ∈ N0 | bm ≤ a}.
Then Q is non-empty because 0 ∈ Q (since 0b = 0 ≤ a). Also, Q is finite, because if
qb ≤ a, then, given that b ∈ N, we have q ≤ a. So Q must have a maximum member.
Let’s call this q. Let r = a − bq. Because q ∈ Q, bq ≤ a and hence r ≥ 0. Now, q is the
maximum member of A, so q + 1 6∈ A, which means that (q + 1)b > a, so qb + b > a
and hence r = a − bq < b. So we have established that a = bq + r, and that 0 ≤ r < b.
To show that q and r are unique, suppose we have a = bq + r = bq0 + r 0 where
0 ≤ r, r 0 < b. We want to show q = q0 and r = r 0 .
Either q ≤ q0 or q ≥ q0 . Let’s suppose that q ≥ q0 (the argument is similar if q ≤ q0 ).
Then
0 ≤ r = a − bq ≤ a − bq0 = r 0 < b.
So
0 ≤ ( a − bq0 ) − ( a − bq) < b,
which simplifies to 0 ≤ b(q − q0 ) < b. This implies 0 ≤ q − q0 < 1. But q − q0 is an
integer, and so we must have q − q0 = 0. So q = q0 . Then, r = a − bq = a − bq0 = r 0 .
The same result holds more generally, without the restriction that a > 0, but the proof
6
is simplest when we restrict to the positive case. The general Division Theorem is:
Theorem 6.2 (Division Theorem) For any integers a and b with b > 0, there are
unique integers q and r such that

a = bq + r and 0 ≤ r < b.

6.4 Representation of integers with respect to a base

Let t be a positive integer. Then any positive integer x can represented uniquely in
the form
x = x n t n + x n −1 t n −1 + · · · + x 1 t + x 0
for some integer n. The numbers xi are integers between 0 and t − 1 and can be found
by repeated division by t: see Biggs, Section 8.3. We write

x = ( x n x n −1 . . . x 1 x 0 ) t .

To justify the ‘repeated division by t’ procedure, observe that

x n x n −1 . . . x 1 x 0 t = x n t n + x n −1 t n −1 + · · · + x 1 t + x 0

is equal to a multiple of t plus x0 , where 0 ≤ x0 ≤ r − 1. By the Division Theorem,

since the quotient and remainder are unique, when we divide x by twe necessarily
get quotient xn tn−1 + xn−1 tn−2 + · · · + + x2 t + x1 = xn xn−1 . . . x2 x1 t and remainder

x0 . By the same logic, dividing xn xn−1 . . . x2 x1 t by t we obtain quotient

xn xn−1 ṡx3 x2 t and remainder x1 , and so on.
In practice, actually doing this calculation is painful by hand. It is generally best to
use a calculator or computer algebra system such as Maple or MATLAB. The latter

107
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

implements a modular division function which will directly return a quotient and
remainder. Calculators generally do not have this function, however performing a
normal division, subtracting the integer part, and multiplying will return the correct
remainder.
Note that (due to imprecision in the calculator) what is returned might be a decimal
number which is very close to an integer rather than an actual integer. Thus to divide
2342 by 37, we perform the (usual) division: 2342/37 = 63.297297.... Subtracting the
integer part (which is the quotient, 63) we get 0.297297... and multiplying by 37 we
get 10.9999998 from which we can guess the correct remainder is 11. Checking,
63 × 37 + 11 = 2342, as we expected.

Example 6.1 The number 60 (written in base 10) can be written in base 3 as
(2020)3 because:
60 = 2(33 ) + 0(32 ) + 2(3) + 0(1).

The representation can be found by repeated division.

60 = 3 × 20 + 0
6 20 = 3×6+2
6 = 3×2+0
2 = 3 × 0 + 2.

Example 6.2 What’s the representation in base 4 of the number (201)10 ?

201 = 4 × 50 + 1
50 = 4 × 12 + 2
12 = 4×3+0
3 = 4 × 0 + 3.

So the answer is (3021)4 .

Check: 3(43 ) + 2(4) + 1 = 201.

Finally, if you are converting a number xn xn−1 . . . x1 x0 t from base t to base 10,
generally the easiest method is simply to type in to a calculator the formula

x n x n −1 . . . x 1 x 0 t = x n t n + x n −1 t n −1 + · · · + x 1 t + x 0 .

This of course works because the calculator will evaluate the number in base 10.

6.5 Greatest common divisor

The greatest common divisor of two integers is defined as follows.

108
6.6. The Euclidean algorithm

Definition 6.1 (Greatest common divisor) Suppose a, b are two integers, at least
one of which is not 0. Then the greatest common divisor (gcd) of a and b, denoted by
gcd( a, b), is the unique positive integer d with the following properties:

(i) d divides both a and b (that is, it is a common divisor of a and b)

(ii) d is greater than every other common divisor of a and b: that is, if c | a and c | b
then c ≤ d.

Implicit here is the fact that the gcd is unique. This easily follows from properties (i)
and (ii). For, suppose that d and d0 are two positive integers satisfying (i) and (ii).
Because d0 divides a and b and because d satisfies (ii), we have d0 ≤ d. But also,
because d divides a and b and because d0 satisfies (ii), we have d ≤ d0 . So we must
have d = d0 .
It’s not too hard to see that the gcd exists. For any n ∈ Z, let D (n) = {m ∈ Z : m | n}.
This is the set of positive divisors of n. Since 1 | n, for every n ∈ Z we have D (n) 6= ∅.
Consider now the set D ( a, b) = D ( a) ∩ D (b), which is the set of positive common
divisors of a and b. Now, D ( a, b) 6= ∅ since 1 ∈ D ( a, b). Suppose a 6= 0. (We know
that at least one of a, b is nonzero. If a 6= 0, a very similar argument will work using b
in place of a.)
6
Take any m ∈ D ( a, b). By definition, we have a = qm for some q ∈ Z, and it follows
that | a| = |q| · |m|. Now q cannot be equal to zero, because a 6= 0, so because q is a
non-negative integer we have |q| ≥ 1. Since |m| is also a non-negative integer, it
follows that |q| · |m| ≥ |m|, and thus in particular | a| ≥ |m|. What we just proved is
the statement m ∈ D ( a, b) ⇒ m ≤ | a|.
So D ( a, b) is bounded above and hence has a (unique) maximal element d. That’s the
gcd.
Note that some textbooks use ( a, b) to denote the gcd, rather than gcd( a, b). Apart
from the fact that this makes for confusion with elements of N2 , these textbooks
usually also write [ a, b] for the least common multiple of a and b (you can guess the
definition), and I usually forget quickly which is which—the only advantage of the
( a, b) notation is that it saves ink.

Example 6.3 gcd(12, 20) = 4 because 4 | 12 and 4 | 20, but there is no common
divisor of 12 and 20 that is greater than 4.

Activity 6.1 Convince yourself that gcd(35, −77) = 7.

If two numbers a, b have gcd( a, b) = 1, then we say that a and b are coprime. In this
case, a and b have no common factors other than 1 and −1. For example, 72 and 77
are coprime.

6.6 The Euclidean algorithm

There is a standard method for computing greatest common divisors, known as the
Euclidean algorithm. The word ‘algorithm’ simply means a clearly defined method for

109
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

solving a certain problem (in this case, for finding the gcd of two integers).
Before presenting this, we state two important properties of greatest common
divisors.

If a, b ∈ N and b | a, then gcd( a, b) = b.

For non-zero integers a and b, if a = bq + r where q, r are integers, then

gcd( a, b) = gcd(b, r ).
The first fact is clear: for a is, in this case, a common divisor of a and b. And there’s no
greater positive divisor of a than a itself.

Activity 6.2 Prove this second fact by proving that the set of common divisors of
a and b is the same as the set of common divisors of b and r (and hence both sets
have the same greatest member.)

These observations provide a way to determine gcds. Let’s think about a simple
example. Suppose we want gcd(100, 15). (You can see immediately that the answer is
6 5, but let’s try to explain a method that will be useful in rather less easy examples.)
We have 100 = 15 × 6 + 10 so, by the second fact above, gcd(100, 15) = gcd(15, 10).
Next, 15 = 10 × 1 + 5, so gcd(15, 10) = gcd(10, 5). But 10 = 2 × 5, so 5 divides 10 and
so, by the first of the two facts above, gcd(10, 5) = 5. It follows, then, that
gcd(100, 15) = 5.
The method is known as the Euclidean Algorithm. Here’s another, more substantial,
example.

Example 6.4 Let us calculate gcd(2247, 581). We have

2247 = 581 × 3 + 504

581 = 504 × 1 + 77
504 = 77 × 6 + 42
77 = 42 × 1 + 35
42 = 35 × 1 + 7
35 = 7 × 5.

It follows that gcd(2247, 581) = 7. The reason is that these divisions establish the
following equalities:

gcd(2247, 581) = gcd(581, 504)

= gcd(504, 77)
= gcd(77, 42)
= gcd(42, 35)
= gcd(35, 7) = 7,

this last equality because 7 | 35.

110
6.6. The Euclidean algorithm

And finally let’s give the algorithm in general. It makes life easier if we assume a and
b are positive integers, and that a > b. This is OK, because the cases we are ignoring
are ‘easy’. First, gcd( a, b) = gcd(| a|, |b|), so provided we know how to work out gcd
for non-negative integers we automatically can deal with any integers. Second, for all
natural numbers n we have gcd(0, n) = gcd(n, 0) = gcd(n, n) = n by definition, so if
one of a and b is zero, or if they’re equal, we know what to do. Finally, if a < b then
we can observe that gcd( a, b) = gcd(b, a); in other words, if we don’t have a > b then
we can swap them over and then compute the gcd.
In order to write a nice algorithm, let’s write a1 and a2 rather than a and b. So we will
write an algorithm which takes as input two positive integers a1 and a2 , which satisfy
a1 > a2 , and ‘returns’ the gcd of a1 and a2 .

1. Given positive integers a1 > a2 , set i = 1 (we’ll use i to count loops; this is the
first loop).

2. If ai+1 | ai then return gcd( a1 , a2 ) = ai+1 and halt.

3. Find integers qi and ai+2 such that ai = ai+1 qi + ai+2 with 1 ≤ ai+2 < ai+1 .

4. Increase i by one and return to step 2. 6

Let’s first explain these steps, then prove the algorithm works. Step 1 is just setting
things up.
Step 2 is where the algorithm should end—in the examples you did, the last line was
always that the larger number (ai ) is divisible by the smaller (ai+1 ), and we saw that
in the examples the gcd is the smaller number. Certainly what is true is that if
ai > ai+1 ≥ 1 and ai+1 | ai then gcd( ai , ai+1 ) = ai+1 , as we observed above. We claim
the algorithm, at every loop, preserves two properties. First, we have ai > ai+1 ≥ 1.
Second, we have gcd( a1 , a2 ) = gcd( ai , ai+1 ). If you believe these two properties, then
it follows that step 2 is doing the right thing.
Step 3 is where all the work happens. We only get here in a given loop if we don’t halt
at step 1, i.e. if ai+1 does not divide ai . By the division theorem, there are integers qi
and ai+2 such that ai = ai+1 qi + ai+2 with 0 ≤ ai+2 < ai+1 . (If you wanted to find
them in practice, you’d check if ai − ai+1 is smaller than ai+1 , if not try ai − 2ai+1 , then
ai − 3ai+1 , and so on) Now, if ai+2 = 0 then we would have ai = ai+1 qi , i.e.
ai+1 | ai —but then we would have halted (stopped) at step 2; we would not have
reached step 3. So we can’t have ai+2 = 0. That means we have ai+1 > ai+2 ≥ 1, which
is one of the properties we want the algorithm to have for loop i + 1. Finally, as we
saw above, we have gcd( ai , ai+1 ) = gcd( ai+1 , ai+2 ). Since gcd( ai , ai+1 ) = gcd( a1 , a2 ),
that means we have the other property we want for loop i + 1.
Finally, step 4 just loops back to step 2 with i increased by one.
At this point, you might ask: what’s still to prove? You’ve shown me this algorithm
always does the right thing, so of course it will give me the right answer. What is still
to prove is that the algorithm doesn’t loop forever without ever halting in step 2. But
this is now obvious: if it looped forever, we would have an infinite sequence of
decreasing positive integers
a1 > a2 > a3 > . . .

111
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

which is impossible—after at most a1 loops we have to stop, and the only way to stop
is to give the right answer.
If you feel this proof is a bit too informal, try writing it a bit more carefully. The right
way to do this is to use induction: prove that for each i ≥ 1, either we have the
properties ai > ai+1 ≥ 1 and gcd( a1 , a2 ) = gcd( ai , ai+1 ), or the algorithm halted
before reaching loop i. The base case i = 1 is obvious, and what we explained above
is the induction step.

6.7 Some consequences of the Euclidean algorithm

A useful consequence of the Euclidean algorithm is that we can use it to express d,
the gcd of a and b, as an integer linear combination of a and b, by which we mean the
following.
Theorem 6.3 (Bézout’s identity) Suppose a and b are integers (at least one of
which is not 0) and let d = gcd( a, b). Then there are m, n ∈ Z such that d = am + bn.

6 Before we prove this, I want to explain how we can actually find these m and n (the
theorem just promises they exist; it doesn’t tell you how to find them). The short
version is: we use the Euclidean algorithm to find d = gcd( a, b). And then we work
backwards through the calculation. Let’s give an example: a = 2247 and b = 581 (we
just calculated the gcd of these two numbers in the last section). Now we want to find
integers m and n such that
2247m + 581n = 7.
We can use the calculation we had above, by ‘working backwards’ through the
sequence of equations, as follows:

7 = 42 − 35
= 42 − (77 − 42) = 42 × 2 − 77
= (504 − 77 × 6) × 2 − 77 = 504 × 2 − 77 × 13
= 504 × 2 − (581 − 504) × 13 = 504 × 15 − 581 × 13
= (2247 − 581 × 3) × 15 − 581 × 13 = 2247 × 15 − 581 × 58
= 2247 × 15 + 581 × (−58).

So we see that m = 15 and n = −58 will work. Not an answer you could easily have
guessed! Notice how, in each line of this calculation, we use one of the lines from the
calculation that arises from the Euclidean algorithm (and we also simplify as we go
along). You will get used to this with practice. There are many examples you could
make up for yourself in order to help you practice.

Activity 6.3 In the above procedure to find m and n, figure out exactly which
part of the Euclidean algorithm calculation is being used at each stage.

Activity 6.4 Choose two particular positive integers a and b. Use the Euclidean
algorithm to find gcd( a, b) and then use your calculation to find integers m and n

112
6.7. Some consequences of the Euclidean algorithm

such that d = ma + nb. Do this several times with different choices of numbers
until you have mastered it.

By this point, you should have some idea why Bézout’s identity is true: you have a
procedure for finding the numbers m, n such that gcd( a, b) = am + bn. Let’s try to
formalise this procedure—that means giving an algorithm that finds the numbers. As
before, the interesting case is when a > b ≥ 1; if we can deal with this case, we can
deal with any other case. (Check you see why this is true!)
As with the Euclidean algorithm, to write a nice algorithm, which we’ll call the
Bézout algorithm, let’s write a1 and a2 rather than a and b. So we want to find
integers m, n such that
gcd( a1 , a2 ) = a1 n + a2 m .
We do this as follows.
Run the Euclidean algorithm to find gcd( a1 , a2 ). It generates numbers
a1 > a2 > a3 > · · · > as (so it stops in the loop number s − 1 when we find as | as−1 , i.e.
as−1 = qs−1 as ) and in addition numbers q1 , q2 , . . . , qs−2 . By definition of the
Euclidean algorithm, we have a1 = a2 q1 + a3 , or equivalently a3 = a1 − q1 a2 . Let’s
write n3 = 1 and m3 = −q1 . Then we have a3 = a1 n3 + a2 m3 . We just wrote a3 as an 6
integer linear combination of a1 and a2 .
Again by definition of the Euclidean algorithm, we have a2 = a3 q2 + a4 . We can
rearrange and substitute in our expression for a3 to get
a4 = a2 − ( a1 n3 + a2 m3 ) q2 = a1 n4 + a2 m4 where n4 = −n3 q2 and m4 = 1 − m3 q2 .
and now we have a4 as a linear combination of a1 and a2 . Why is it an integer linear
combination? Well, we get n4 and m4 by adding, subtracting and multiplying integers
(not dividing) and so we know that the results must be integers.
We can keep repeating this until we get to as−1 = a1 ns−1 + a2 ms−1 is an integer linear
combination, and then finally
gcd( a1 , a2 ) = as = a1 ns−1 qs−1 + a2 ms−1 qs−1
where the last part is by definition a linear combination of a1 and a2 , and it is an
integer linear combination because ns−1 , ms−1 and qs−1 are integers. This time we
don’t have to check anything about infinite loops—we know the Euclidean algorithm
doesn’t enter an infinite loop, and the Bézout algorithm runs the same number of
steps.

This looks rather like hard work and painful algebra—but bear in mind that in real
life, you wouldn’t actually do these calculations yourself on paper. You’d program a
computer to do them, and the point of an algorithm is that it’s easy to make a
computer run an algorithm: the method is already precisely specified, just as
computers like it.
So now how do we prove Theorem 6.3? Well, like this:
Proof. (of Bézout’s identity) We already proved the Euclidean algorithm works
correctly. We also explained why the Bézout algorithm works correctly—we proved
it. But if we have an algorithm which for input a, b provably finds integers n, m such
that gcd( a, b) = an + bm, then in particular those integers have to exist.

113
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

This is a proof by algorithm: in order to show that something exists, write down an
algorithm to find that thing, and prove it works. Some people may say they don’t like
algorithms and hence they would rather write this proof as an induction proof
(which you can also do). I think it’s clearer to write it this way.

The fact that there are m, n ∈ Z such that gcd( a, b) = am + bn (that is, that the gcd of
two integers is an integer linear combination of them) is very useful. Here’s one nice
consequence.
We know that, by definition, if c | a and c | b, then c ≤ d = gcd( a, b). But we can say
something stronger, namely that c | d.
Theorem 6.4 Suppose that a, b ∈ Z so that a and b are not both zero, and let
d = gcd( a, b). If c | a and c | b, then c | d.

Proof. There are integers m, n such that d = ma + nb. Suppose that c | a and c | b. Then
c | ma and c | nb, so c | (ma + nb). But this says c | d, as required.

Here’s another consequence:

6 Theorem 6.5 For a, b ∈ Z, with a, b not both zero, let d = gcd( a, b). Then, for c ∈ N,
there are integers m and n such that c = am + bn if and only if d | c.

Proof. Suppose c = am + bn. Now, d = gcd( a, b) satisfies d | a and d | b, so, also,

d | (ma + nb) and hence d | c.
Conversely, suppose d | c, so that for some integer k, c = kd. Now, there are m, n ∈ Z
with d = ma + nb. Then,

c = kd = k (ma + nb) = (km) a + (kn)b = Ma + Nb,

where M, N ∈ Z. This shows that c can be written as an integer linear combination of

a and b, as required.

We also have:
Theorem 6.6 Suppose that a, b ∈ N are coprime (meaning gcd( a, b) = 1). If a | r and
b | r, then ab | r.

This is not generally true if the numbers a, b are not coprime. Think of a
counterexample!
Proof. Because gcd( a, b) = 1, there are integers m, n such that 1 = ma + nb. So

r = r × 1 = r (ma + nb) = mra + nrb.

Because a | r and b | r, there are integers k1 , k2 such that r = k1 a and r = k2 b. So

r = mra + nrb = m(k2 b) a + n(k1 a)b = (mk2 + nk1 ) ab,

which shows that ab | r.

114
6.8. Prime numbers

6.8 Prime numbers

A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number p ≥ 2 with the property that the only
divisors of p are 1 and p. In a precise sense, which we’ll see shortly, primes are the
building blocks of the natural numbers.
One important property of primes is that if a prime divides a product of numbers,
then it must divide at least one of the numbers in the product. This isn’t true for
non-primes: for example, 4 | 12 = 2 × 6, but 4 does not divide either 2 or 6.
Theorem 6.7 Suppose that p is a prime number and that a, b ∈ N. If p | ab, then p | a
or p | b.

Proof. The proof makes use of the useful fact (seen above) that the gcd of any two
numbers can be written as an integer linear combination of the numbers
(Theorem 6.3). Suppose, then, that p is prime and that p | ab. If p | a, then the
conclusion of the theorem holds, so suppose p 6 | a (and we will try to prove p | b) Then
p and a have no common positive divisor other than 1. (The only positive divisors of
p are 1 and p because it is prime, and p does not divide a, by assumption.) So
gcd( p, a) = 1 and therefore there exist integers m and n with 1 = mp + na. 6
Remember that we want to write b as an integer multiple of p (because that’s what it
means to say p divides b). So let’s multiply both sides of this equation by b, in order
that we write b equal to something—and then try to see why the something is a
multiple of p.
We get b = b(mp + na) = (bm) p + n( ab). So again, our job is to find out why
(bm) p + n( ab) is a multiple of p. Well, obviously (bm) p is a multiple of p. What about
n( ab)? We assumed above that p | ab, which (by definition) means there is some
integer s such that ab = sp. Substituting this in, we get

b = (bm) p + n( ab) = (bm) p + n(sp) = (bm + ns) p ,

and bm + ns is an integer because each of b, m, n, s is integer. So we wrote b as an

integer multiple of p. It follows that p | b, as required.

This result can easily be extended: if a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ N and p | a1 a2 . . . an , then, for

some i between 1 and n, p | ai .

Activity 6.5 Prove this generalisation of Theorem 6.7.

6.9 Prime factorization: the Fundamental Theorem of

Arithmetic

6.9.1 The Fundamental Theorem

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is the name given to the following Theorem.
(As its name suggests, this is an important theorem!)

115
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

Theorem 6.8 (Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) Every integer n ≥ 1 can be

expressed as a product of one or more prime numbers. Furthermore, there is
essentially only one such way of expressing n: the only way in which two such
expressions for n can differ is in the ordering of the prime factors.

You might ask what is going on with n = 1: how do I write 1 as a product of primes?
Simple: it’s a product of no primes at all: 1 = 20 × 30 × 50 × . . . . And we generally
don’t write all the primes raised to the power zero, because p0 = 1 for each prime p;
they don’t change the product. This might look like a funny piece of formalism (or
like nonsense), but the reason for writing it this way is (a) that it is true, and (b) it will
make life easier later not to make an exception for 1.
The expression of an integer as a product of primes is known as its prime
decomposition. For example, the prime decomposition of 504 is

504 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 × 7 = 23 · 32 · 7 .

Note that, in this last expression, the dot, ‘·’ denotes multiplication. It’s generally
easier to read and write mathematics when we use · rather than × (× and + can
6 easily get confused when written hurriedly) so this is common practice. The
exception is if we are discussing decimals when · can be confused with the decimal
point.
The proof of the Fundamental Theorem is not very difficult, given the results we
already have about prime numbers. Establishing that each positive integer can be
written as a product of primes is easy. Showing that such a decomposition is
essentially unique (that is, unique up to the ordering of the factors) is a little trickier,
but can be established using Theorem 6.7.

6.9.2 Proof of the Fundamental Theorem

There are two things to prove:

Any n ≥ 1 can be written as a product of primes: n = p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr , where

p1 < p2 < · · · < pr are primes and k1 , k2 , . . . , kr ∈ N. (‘Existence’)

This is essentially unique: if p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr = q1`1 q2`2 . . . q`s s , are two equal such
expressions, then r = s, pi = qi and k i = `i for all i. (‘Uniqueness’).
Fundamental Theorem: ‘Existence’
Proof. We use (strong) induction. For n ≥ 1, let P(n) be the statement:
n can be written as a product of primes
Base case: n = 1 is a product of no primes, so P(1) is true.
Assume, inductively, that k ∈ N and that P(s) is true for all s ≤ k. (We’re using strong
induction.) Consider k + 1. This could be a prime number, in which case we’re done
and P(k + 1) is true. Otherwise k + 1 = ab where 1 < a, b < k + 1. But then P( a) and
P(b) are true (by assumption) so each of a, b is a product of primes. So, therefore, is
k + 1.

116
6.9. Prime factorization: the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic

Fundamental Theorem: ‘Uniqueness’

The basic idea here is simple, but the notation makes it a bit obscure, so let’s explain it
before giving the proof. Suppose we have:

p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr = q1`1 q2`2 . . . q`s s (6.1)

where p1 < p2 < · · · < pr and q1 < q2 < · · · < qs are prime numbers, and k1 , . . . , kr
and `1 , . . . , `s are natural numbers. By insisting on the order of the primes in each
product, we’ve fixed the orders of the prime factors, so we would like to show that
these two factorisations are the same, i.e. we have r = s, and for each 1 ≤ i ≤ r we
have pi = qi and k i = `i .
Suppose for a counterexample that this isn’t true. Now, obviously the LHS of (6.1) is
divisible by p1 , so the RHS is also divisble by p1 . By applying Theorem 6.7, it follows
that p1 has to divide some qi , and since qi is prime it follows p1 = qi . But now
dividing both sides by p1 we get a smaller counterexample. This tells us we should
again use strong induction to prove ‘Uniqueness’; then we can simply say that by
induction no such counterexample exists, and we’re done. Let’s write this a little
more formally now.
Proof. Base case: Suppose we have 6
p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr = 1
and r ≥ 1. Since 1 is not a prime number, we have p1 > 1 and so
p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr ≥ p1 > 1, which is a contradiction.
Assume, inductively, that n ∈ N and that P(s) is true for all s ≤ n. (We’re using
strong induction.) Consider n + 1. Suppose we have a counterexample:

n + 1 = p1k1 p2k2 . . . prkr = q1`1 q2`2 . . . q`s s (6.2)

where p1 < p2 < · · · < pr and q1 < q2 < · · · < qs are prime numbers, and k1 , . . . , kr
and `1 , . . . , `s are natural numbers.
Now, we have n + 1 = p1 · p1k1 −1 p2k2 . . . prkr , so n + 1 is divisible by p1 . This means

that p1 divides
q1 · q1 · · · · · q1 · q2 · q2 · · · · · q2 · · · · · q s · q s · · · · · q s .
| {z } | {z } | {z }
`1 `2 `s

By Activity 6.5, it follows that for some i we have p1 |qi . Now p1 is a prime, so it is not
1; and qi is a prime, so by definition p1 = qi . So we can write
n +1
p1 = p1k1 −1 p2k2 . . . prkr = q1`1 q2`2 . . . qi`i −1 . . . q`s s .

Now these two factorisations of np+11 are different, because the two factorisations of
n + 1 we started with are different. Because p1 > 1 we have (n + 1)/p1 ≤ n, so this is
a contradiction to the strong induction hypothesis.

We can use the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to prove that there are infinitely
many primes. You can find an outline of this proof in Chapter 2.

117
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

Activity 6.6 Look again at the proof, in Chapter 2, that there are infinitely many
primes, and understand where the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is used in
the proof.

You should also note that we rather often used ‘because 1 is not a prime’ in this
proof—and indeed, if we considered 1 to be a prime then the theorem would be false:
2 = 1 × 2 = 12 × 2 = 13 × 2 would be different factorisations of 2.

6.9.3 Non-examinable: why the Fundamental Theorem of

Arithmetic isn’t obvious
You quite possibly feel we did something over-complicated to prove the
Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. The Existence part is clear enough—what we
did is the same as the following routine: to factorise n, try dividing by 2, if you can
then try dividing n/2 by 2, and so on until you can’t, then move on to 3, then 5, and
so on until you find all the factors (you don’t have to keep going forever; at worst n is
prime and you will try dividing by all the primes up to n). And surely this is the only
6 way to do it—isn’t it obvious? So ‘Uniqueness’ should be easy, really.
Well, ‘Uniqueness’ depends on Theorem 6.7 (which is actually not so easy to
prove—look back at the proof and the theorems it depends on!); the rest of the proof
is really just handling notation. And Theorem 6.7 really looks obvious! But it’s not
quite as obvious as it looks. Suppose we look at numbers of the form
√
a + b −5
√
where a and b are integers. These numbers, written Z[ −5], behave in many ways √
like the usual integers; if you add or multiply them you still get a number in Z[ −5],
and √so on. You can write sensible definitions of ‘divisible’, ‘prime’ and so on for
Z[ −5] easily enough, more or less by copying the definitions for Z. But we have
√ √
6 = 2 × 3 = (1 + −5)(1 − −5) .
√ √ √
Now 1 + −5 is not divisible by 2, because 1+ 2 −5 is not in Z[ −5]. And similarly
√ √
1 − −5 is not divisible by 2. So Theorem 6.7 isn’t true in Z[ −5]; and nor is it true
that we have unique factorisation (we just gave a counterexample).
What that means is that to prove√Theorem 6.7 you certainly need to use some property
which is true in Z and not in Z[ −5]. We can do algebra as you’re used to in either
structure, so it can’t be that—what is it?

√
Activity 6.7 What’s the difference between Z and Z[ −5] that makes
Theorem 6.7 work?

This actually connects to a rather well-known part of mathematics. You maybe know
that Pierre de Fermat claimed in 1637 to have a proof that if n ≥ 3 is an integer, then
x n + yn = zn does not have any solutions where x, y, z ∈ N. But the proof, if he had
one, was lost.

118
6.10. Learning outcomes

Now, Fermat wasn’t just bluffing: he did have a proof for the case n = 4 (it was
discovered in his papers after his death). It seems unlikely that he really had a proof
in general—he certainly did not have the proof which Wiles famously announced in
1994. Perhaps he believed that he had a proof, but there was a mistake?
There was a proof announced (by Lamé) which Fermat might have also found
(perhaps!)—but that proof is wrong. The way it is wrong is that it assumes√that some
numbers which look like the integers (in more or less the same way as Z[ −5]) have
unique factorisation. This is an obvious mistake for you now after seeing a
counterexample—but it wasn’t so obvious when Lamé was working in the 1800s, let
alone to Fermat.

6.10 Learning outcomes

At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

state clearly what it means to say that one number divides another

state the Division Theorem and, given two numbers, find the remainder and
6
quotient when one is divided by the other

understand what is meant by the representation of an integer with respect to a

particular basis and be able to work with this definition

state the definition of the greatest common divisor of two numbers

use the Euclidean algorithm to find the gcd of two numbers

demonstrate that you know that the gcd of two numbers can always be
expressed as an integer linear combination of the two numbers; and be able to
express the gcd in this way for any two numbers.

use the Euclidean algorithm to express the gcd of two numbers as an integer
linear combination of them

state what is meant by a prime number

state the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.

6.11 Sample exercises

Exercise 6.1
Find d = gcd(2406, 654). Express d in the form d = 2406m + 654n for integers m, n.

Exercise 6.2
Suppose that a, b ∈ N, both non-zero, and let d = gcd( a, b). We know that, by definition,
if c | a and c | b, then c ≤ d. Prove, in fact, that c | d.

119
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

Exercise 6.3
Suppose a, b ∈ N and that d = gcd( a, b). Prove that, for c ∈ N, there are integers m and
n such that c = am + bn if and only if d | c.

Exercise 6.4
Suppose a, b ∈ N. Prove that if there are integers m and n such that am + bn = 1 then a
and b are coprime.
Exercise 6.5
Prove that for all n ∈ N, the numbers 9n + 8 and 6n + 5 are coprime.

Exercise 6.6
Suppose that a, b ∈ N and that gcd( a, b) = 1. Suppose that a | r and b | r. Prove that ab | r.

Exercise 6.7
The Fibonacci numbers f 1 , f 2 , f 3 , . . . are defined as follows: f 1 = f 2 = 1 and, for n ≥ 3,
f n = f n−1 + f n−2 . Prove that for all n ∈ N, gcd( f n , f n+1 ) = 1.

Exercise 6.8
6 Suppose that p1 , p2 , . . . , pk are primes and that a, b ∈ N are given by
l m
a = p1l1 p2l2 . . . pkk , b = p1m1 p2m2 . . . pk k .

Prove that
r
gcd( a, b) = p1r1 p2r2 . . . pkk ,
where, for i = 1 to k, ri is the smaller of the two numbers li and mi .
Exercise 6.9
Suppose a, b ∈ N satisfy gcd( a, b) = 1 and, for some k ∈ N, ab = k2 . Prove that for some
integers m, n, a = m2 and b = n2 .

6.12 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 6.1 Certainly, 7 divides both 35 and −77, but there is no larger
common divisor. (For, the only larger divisor of 35 is 35 itself, and this does not
divide −77.)
Learning activity 6.2 We prove that D ( a, b) = D (b, r ). The result on gcds will follow
since gcd( x, y) is the maximal element of D ( x, y).
Suppose m ∈ D ( a, b). Then m | a and m | b. It follows that m | ( a − bq); that is, m | r. So
m | b and m | r and hence m ∈ D (b, r ). Therefore D ( a, b) ⊆ D (b, r ).
Suppose m ∈ D (b, r ). Then m | b and m | r. It follows that m | (bq + r ); that is, m | a. So
m | b and m | a and hence m ∈ D ( a, b). Therefore D (b, r ) ⊆ D ( a, b).
Learning activity 6.5 To prove this, we can (unsurprisingly) use induction on n. Let
P(n) be the statement:
If a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ N and p | a1 a2 . . . an , then, for some i between 1 and n, p | ai .

120
6.13. Solutions to exercises

Then P(1) is clearly true (and P(2) is the theorem just proved). Suppose P(n) is true
and let’s show P(n + 1) follows. So, suppose a1 , a2 , . . . , an+1 ∈ N and
p | a1 a2 . . . an an+1 . Well, since p | Aan+1 , where A = a1 a2 . . . an , we can apply the n = 2
case to see that p | A or p | an+1 . But, by P(n), if p | A = a1 a2 . . . an then p | ai for some i
between 1 and n. So we’re done: p divides at least one of the ai for i between 1 and
n + 1.
Learning activity 6.6 Here’s the proof, with explicit reference to the Fundamental
Theorem.
Suppose there were not infinitely many primes, so there’s a largest prime, M, say. Let

X = (2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × · · · × M ) + 1.

Since X > M, X is not a prime. By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, X has a

prime divisor p which satisfies 1 < p < X. This p must be one of the numbers
2, 3, 5, . . . , M (since these are the only primes). However, X is not divisible by any of
these numbers. So we have a contradiction. We conclude there are infinitely many
primes.
Learning activity 6.7 The answer is that in Z there is an order < such that any two
elements are either the same, or one is bigger than the other, and this √
order ‘plays 6
nicely’ with addition and multiplication. There is no such order in Z[ −5]. This
means that we can define gcd for two numbers √ in Z; we can’t do so (or at least we
don’t get a nice result) for two numbers in Z[ −5]. It’s a bit more subtle than it looks!

6.13 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 6.1
See Biggs, Section 8.4. The gcd is 6 and we have 6 = 28 × 2406 + (−103) × 654.

Solution to exercise 6.2

We know that there are integers m, n such that d = ma + nb. Suppose that c | a and c | b.
Then c | ma and c | nb, so c | (ma + nb). But this says c | d, as required.

Solution to exercise 6.3

Suppose first that c = am + bn for some some integers m and n. Now, d = gcd( a, b)
satisfies d | a and d | b, so we also have d | (ma + nb) and hence d | c. Conversely, suppose
d | c, so that for some integer k, c = kd. Now, the gcd d = gcd( a, b) can be written as an
integer linear combination of a and b, so there are m, n ∈ Z with d = ma + nb. Then,

c = kd = k (ma + nb) = (km) a + (kn)b = Ma + Nb,

where M, N ∈ Z. This shows that c can be written as an integer linear combination of a

and b, as required.
Solution to exercise 6.4
This follows from the previous exercise, but we can prove it directly. Suppose that d ∈ N,
that d | a and d | b. Then d | ( am + bn), which means d | 1. Therefore, we must have d = 1.
That is, the only positive common divisor of a and b is 1 and hence gcd( a, b) = 1 and the
numbers are coprime.

121
6. Divisibility and prime numbers

Solution to exercise 6.5

We have 2(9n + 8) − 3(6n + 5) = 1. So, if d = gcd(9n + 8, 6n + 5), then d | (9n + 8)
and d | (6n + 5), so d | 2(9n + 8) − 3(6n + 5). But this says d | 1 and hence d = 1.

Solution to exercise 6.6

Before we begin, let’s just note that this property does not hold if a and b are not coprime.
For example, 6 | 12 and 4 | 12 but 24 6 | 12. Suppose then that a | r and b | r. The fact that
gcd( a, b) = 1 means that there are integers m, n such that 1 = ma + nb. So

r = r × 1 = r (ma + nb) = mra + nrb.

Now, because a | r and b | r there are integers k1 , k2 such that r = k1 a and r = k2 b. So

r = mra + nrb = m(k2 b) a + n(k1 a)b = (mk2 + nk1 ) ab,

which shows that r is an integer multiple of ab and hence ab | r.

Solution to exercise 6.7

We prove this by induction on n. Let P(n) be the statement that gcd( f n , f n+1 ) = 1. When
n = 1, this is true, because gcd( f 1 , f 2 ) = gcd(1, 1) = 1. It is true also when n = 2 because
6 f 3 = 2 and hence gcd( f 2 , f 3 ) = gcd(1, 2) = 1. Suppose, inductively, that k ≥ 2 and
gcd( f k , f k+1 ) = 1. We want to show that gcd( f k+1 , f k+2 ) = 1. Now, f k+2 = f k+1 + f k .
Therefore, if d | f k+1 and d | f k+2 then d | f k+1 and d | ( f k+2 − f k+1 ) = f k . So any common
divisor of f k+1 and f k+2 is also a common divisor or f k and f k+1 . Also, if d | f k and d | f k+1
then we also have d | f k+1 and d | ( f k + f k+1 ) = f k+2 , so any common divisor of f k and f k+1
is also a common divisor or f k+1 and f k+2 . This all shows that the common divisors of the
pair { f k+1 , f k+2 } are precisely the same as the common divisors of the pair { f k+1 , f k }.
Therefore, the greatest common divisors of each pair are equal. That is,

gcd( f k+1 , f k+2 ) = gcd( f k+1 , f k ) = gcd( f k , f k+1 ) = 1,

where we have used the inductive hypothesis for the last equality.
You can also establish this result by thinking about the way in which the Euclidean
algorithm would work in finding the gcd of f k and f k+1 .

Solution to exercise 6.8

r
Let d = p1r1 p2r2 . . . pkk . Then because ri is the smaller of li and mi , we have ri ≤ li and
ri ≤ mi . So pri | pli and pri | pmi , for each i. Therefore d | a and d | b. Explicitly, for example,
l
a = p1l1 p2l2 . . . pkk
= p1r1 p2r2 . . . prkk × p1l1 −r1 p2l2 −r2 . . . plkk −rk
= d( p1l1 −r1 p2l2 −r2 . . . pklk −rk ),

and because lk − rk is a non-negative integer for each i, the number in parentheses is an

integer. This shows d | a. The fact that d | b can be similarly shown. So d is a common
divisor of a and b.
Suppose D is any common divisor of a and b. Then, by the Fundamental Theorem of
Arithmetic, D can be written as a product of primes. Let p be any one of these. Then p | a
and p | b. Now, we know that if p | a1 a2 . . . an then p | ai for some i. (This follows from the

122
6.13. Solutions to exercises

results of Section 6.8.) The only primes appearing in the decomposition of a and b are
p1 , p2 , . . . , pk , so we can deduce that for some i, p | pi which means p = pi (given that p
and pi are primes). So the prime decomposition of D is of the form
s
D = p1s1 p2s2 . . . pkk

for some non-negative integers si . Now, suppose that, for some i, si > li . Then, for some
integers M and N,
s l
D = pi i M, a = pii N,
where, because they involve only products of the other primes, neither N or M is divisible by
pi . Now, the fact that D | a means that there’s an integer L with a = LD, so
l s
pii N = Lpi i M

and hence
s − li
N = Lpi i M.
But this shows, since si − li ≥ 1 (because si , li ∈ Z and s I > li ), that pi | N, contradicting
the observation that pi 6 | N. So we must have si ≤ li for all i. A similar argument shows that
si ≤ mi for all i. So si ≤ ri = min(li , mi ) and hence D ≤ d. The result follows. 6
Solution to exercise 6.9
We use the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Let k have prime decomposition
k = p1α1 p2α2 . . . prαr . Then
ab = k2 = p2α 1 2α2 2αr
1 p2 . . . pr .
It follows that a and b must have prime decompositions involving only the primes
p1 , p2 , . . . , pr , and that each of a, b takes the form p1s1 p2s2 . . . prsr where si is a non-negative
integer. But we cannot have, for any i, pi | a and also pi | b, for this would mean that pi > 1
2α
is a common divisor of a, b, contradicting gcd( a, b) = 1. So, for each i, pi i divides precisely
one of a and b and pi does not divide the other of the two numbers. In other words, each of
2β 2β 2β
a, b takes the form p1 1 p2 2 . . . pr r where β i = 0 or β i = αi . This can be written as
β β β
( p1 1 p2 2 . . . pr r )2 , and hence there are integers m, n such that a = m2 and b = n2 .

123
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

Chapter 7
Congruence and modular arithmetic

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 13, Sections 13.1–13.3.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapters 19–21.

7.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we study congruence and we describe modular arithmetic. This builds
on the ideas and results on divisibility and equivalence relations that we met in
earlier chapters.
You go to sleep at 10 o’clock and you sleep for 8 hours. At what time do you wake.
Well, this is simple: you wake at 6 o’clock. What you’re doing in this calculation is
you’re doing what’s called arithmetic modulo 12. The answer is not 10 + 8 = 18,
because the clock re-starts once the hour of 12 is reached. This is a fairly simple idea,
7 when expressed in these terms, and it’s the key concept behind modular arithmetic, a
topic later in this chapter. We are going to take a more abstract approach.

7.2 Congruence modulo m

7.2.1 The congruence relation

Suppose that m is a fixed natural number, and let’s define a relation R on the integers
by a R b if and only if b − a is a multiple of m. That is, a R b ⇐⇒ m | (b − a). Then R is
an equivalence relation.

Activity 7.1 Prove that R is an equivalence relation on Z.

This relation is so important that it has a special notation. If a R b, we say that a and b
are congruent modulo m and we write a ≡ b (mod m).
If a and b are not congruent modulo m, then we write a 6≡ b (mod m).
The division theorem tells us that for any integers a and for any m ∈ N, there are
unique integers q and r such that

a = qm + r and 0 ≤ r < m.

What this implies for congruence is that, for any a, there is precisely one integer r in
the range 0, 1, . . . , m − 1 such that a ≡ r(mod m).

124
7.2. Congruence modulo m

Congruence relations can be manipulated in many ways like equations, as the

following Theorem shows.
Theorem 7.1 Suppose that m ∈ N and that a, b, c, d ∈ Z with a ≡ b (mod m) and
c ≡ d (mod m). Then

(i) a + c ≡ b + d (mod m)
(ii) a − c ≡ b − d (mod m)
(iii) ac ≡ bd (mod m)
(iv) ∀k ∈ Z, ka ≡ kb (mod m)
(v) ∀n ∈ N, an ≡ bn (mod m)

Proof. I leave (i) and (ii) for you to prove. Here’s how to prove (iii): because
a ≡ b (mod m) and c ≡ d (mod m), we have m | (b − a) and m | (d − c). So, for some
integers k, l, b − a = km and d − c = lm. That is, b = a + km and d = c + lm. So
bd = ( a + km)(c + lm) = ac + (kmc + alm + klm2 ) = ac + m(kc + al + klm).
Now, kc + al + klm ∈ Z, so bd − ac = (kc + al + klm)m is a multiple of m; that is,
m | (bd − ac) and ac ≡ bd (mod m). Part (iv) follows from (iii) by noting that
k ≡ k (mod m), and part (v) follows by repeated application of (iii) (or, by (iii) and
induction.).
7
Activity 7.2 Prove parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem 7.1.

Theorem 7.1 is useful, and it enables us to solve a number of problems. Here are two
examples.

Example 7.1 Suppose that the natural number x has digits xn xn−1 . . . x0 (when
written, normally, in ‘base 10’). So, for example, if x = 1246 then
x0 = 6, x1 = 4, x2 = 2, x3 = 1. Then 9 divides x if and only if x0 + x1 + · · · + xn is a
multiple of 9. (So this provides a quick and easy way to check divisibility by 9. For
example, 127224 is divisible by 9 because 1 + 2 + 7 + 2 + 2 + 4 = 18 is.)
How do we prove that this test works? We can use congruence modulo 9. Note
that
x = x0 + (10) x1 + (10)2 x2 + · · · + (10)n xn .
Now, 10 ≡ 1 (mod 9), so, for each k ∈ N, 10n ≡ 1 (mod 9). Hence

x = x0 + (10) x1 + (10)2 x2 + · · · + (10)n xn ≡ x0 + x1 + · · · + xn (mod 9).

A number is divisible by 9 if and only if it is congruent to 0 modulo 9, so

9 | x ⇐⇒ x ≡ 0 (mod 9)
⇐⇒ x0 + x1 + · · · + xn ≡ 0 (mod 9)
⇐⇒ 9 | ( x0 + x1 + · · · + xn ).

This is precisely what the test says.

125
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

Example 7.2 We can use congruence to show that there are no integers x and y
satisfying the equation 7x2 − 15y2 = 1.
We prove this by contradiction. So suppose such x and y did exist. Then, because
15y2 is a multiple of 5, we’d have 7x2 ≡ 1 (mod 5). Now, x is congruent to one of
the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 modulo 5. That is, we have:

x ≡ 0 or x ≡ 1 or x ≡ 2 or x ≡ 3 or x ≡ 4 (mod 5).

So,
x2 ≡ 0 or x2 ≡ 1 or x2 ≡ 4 or x2 ≡ 9 or x2 ≡ 16 (mod 5).
But 9 ≡ 4 (mod 5) and 16 ≡ 1 (mod 5), so, in every case, either x2 ≡ 0 or x2 ≡ 1 or
x2 ≡ 4 (mod 5). It follows, then, that in all cases, we have

7x2 ≡ 0 or 7x2 ≡ 7 ≡ 2 or 7x2 ≡ 28 ≡ 3 (mod 5).

So there does not exist an integer x with 7x2 ≡ 1 (mod 5), and hence there are no
integer solutions to the original equation.

7.2.2 Congruence classes

What are the equivalence classes of the congruence relation, modulo a particular
7 positive integer m? These are often called the congruence classes modulo m. Let’s denote
these by [ x ]m . For a particular x ∈ Z, [ x ]m will be all the integers y such that
y ≡ x (mod m). We know that each x is congruent to precisely one of the integers in
the range 0, 1, 2, . . . , m − 1, and we know (from the general theory of equivalence
relations) that if x ≡ y (mod m) then [ x ]m = [y]m . So it follows that for each x ∈ Z,
we’ll have
[ x ]m = [0]m , or [ x ]m = [1]m , . . . or [ x ]m = [m − 1]m .
So there are precisely m equivalence classes,
[0] m , [1] m , . . . , [ m − 1] m .
The theory of equivalence relations tells us that these form a partition of Z: they are
disjoint and every integer belongs to one of them. But what are they? Well, [0]m is the
set of all x such that x ≡ 0 (mod m), which means m | x. So [0]m is the set of all
integers divisible by m. Generally, for 0 ≤ r ≤ m − 1, [r ]m will be the set of x such that
x ≡ r (mod m). It follows that [r ]m is the set of all integers x which have remainder r
on division by m.

Example 7.3 Suppose m = 4. Then the congruence classes are:

[0]4 = {. . . , −8, −4, 0, 4, 8, . . . },

[1]4 = {. . . , −7, −3, 1, 5, 9, . . . },

[2]4 = {. . . , −6, −2, 2, 6, 10, . . . },
[3]4 = {. . . , −5, −1, 3, 7, 11, . . . }.

126
7.2. Congruence modulo m

7.2.3 What did we just learn?

What we’ve just done is present modular arithmetic in a familiar way: you can do
addition, subtraction and multiplication (but not division!) modulo m as you would
do then in the integers. The only change is that you’re allowed to add or subtract
multiples of m from the answer any time you like and say this doesn’t change
anything (you still have the same answer modulo m).
This is useful if for some reason you think adding or subtracting a multiple of m is
not important. For example if you are calculating angles, 360◦ is the same thing as 0◦ ,
so you can do calculations modulo 360, which means you don’t have to work with
large numbers. Another, maybe better, example: is it obvious whether 7100 − 1 is
divisible by 8? Well, of course you can plug this into a calculator — which will refuse
to answer because 7100 doesn’t fit on the display. Or you can calculate modulo 8:
‘7100 − 1 is divisible by 8’ is by definition the same as ‘7100 − 1 is congruent to 0
modulo 8’. We have

7100 − 1 ≡ (−1)100 − 1 ≡ 1 − 1 ≡ 0(mod 8) ,

so indeed 7100 − 1 is divisible by 8 — that really simplified the calculation!

What I want to stress is that you do know how to do calculations modulo m — if you
want, you can simply do the calculations in the integers, then at the end add or
subtract multiples of m, but you can also do this at any step along the way and doing
so may well make your life easier. 7
What we are now going to do is go through this in a more abstract way. We are going
to define some new ‘algebraic structures’, which you never saw before and do not
have much intuition for. You most likely will feel uncomfortable working with them.
But bear in mind that all we are doing is modular arithmetic, written a bit differently
— if you’re not sure whether you got the abstract approach right, try writing it all out
in the way we did modular arithmetic above and check it works.
There are two reasons we do this. First, once you do get used to the abstract approach
below, it’s quicker to write and maybe a bit easier to avoid mistakes — and as we’ll
see in the examples sessions, modular arithmetic is actually hugely important in
modern society!
Second, you will encounter a whole lot more algebraic structures next term and in
later courses which you never saw at school. A large part of modern mathematics
consists of working with algebraic structures which are not the ones you know and
love from school, and it’s very important that you get used to the idea that you can
work with them and you can become comfortable and confident with doing so, rather
than trying to avoid it.
What actually is an algebraic structure? It’s not really a formally defined thing; it just
means a structure where you can do something that looks like algebra (maybe all the
BIDMAS stuff from school, maybe you only know how to add, maybe somewhere in
the middle). The natural numbers and the integers are algebraic structures. Later
we’ll meet the rational numbers, the real numbers and the complex numbers (which
you may well already have seen; if not it doesn’t matter). These are what you know
from school, and you know they are contained one inside another; if you know how
algebra in the complex numbers work, well, they contain all the rest and you maybe

127
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

feel that this is all there is to algebra.

But that’s not true — in fact, you already know that, even if you didn’t think of it that
way. You know how to add and multiply 2 × 2 matrices too. So you can think of the
set of 2 × 2 matrices, with addition and multiplication, as an algebraic structure. The
rules that addition follows are just like the rules for addition in Z; and the
distributive law is also true. But multiplication is not commutative! This algebraic
structure really behaves differently to the real or the complex numbers. But as you
know from MA100, it’s also very important. There are lots more examples; we’re just
about to show you another.

7.3 Zm and its arithmetic

When, in an earlier chapter, we looked at how the integers may be constructed from
the natural numbers through using an equivalence relation, we also saw that we
could ‘do arithmetic’ with the equivalence classes. We can also do this here, and the
resulting addition and multiplication operations are known as modular arithmetic.
First, let’s introduce a new piece of notation. For m ∈ N, Zm is called the set of
integers modulo m, and is the set of equivalence classes

[0] m , [1] m , . . . , [ m − 1] m .
7
So Zm has m members (We saw Z24 before as the ‘clock numbers’ in Section 3.2). We
can define operations ⊕ and ⊗ on Zm as follows:

[ x ]m ⊕ [y]m = [ x + y]m , [ x ]m ⊗ [y]m = [ xy]m .

For example, when m = 4, [2]4 ⊕ [3]4 = [5]4 = [1]4 and [2]4 ⊗ [3]4 = [6]4 = [2]4 .
In practice, we do not use the ⊕ and ⊗ symbols and we simply write x instead of
[ x ]m . It’s nice, when possible, to use values of x between 0 and m − 1, so in our
calculations if numbers get out of this range we will often add or subtract multiples
of m to return; we say ‘reduced modulo m’. This makes sense because
[ x ]m = [ x + sm]m for each integer s. We would say that we are ‘in Zm ’ if that’s not
clear from the context. So the above two calculations may be written:

in Z4 , 2 + 3 = 1, and 2 × 3 = 2.

Note that we try to use only the symbols 0, 1, . . . , m − 1, so we do not write 2 + 3 = 5.

Instead we reduce it modulo 4, i.e. replace 5 by the number that it is congruent to
modulo 4 and which lies between 0 and 3.
The equations we’ve just written are entirely equivalent to the statements

2 + 3 ≡ 1 (mod 4), 2 × 3 ≡ 2 (mod 4).

Let me again stress that we usually try to use only the symbols 0, 1, . . . , m − 1, and
generally we will want to write our final answer using those symbols. But it might
well be useful along the way to use other symbols! In Z8 we have 7 = −1, so we can

128
7.3. Zm and its arithmetic

perfectly well write −1 in a calculation rather than 7 if we want. In fact, we did

exactly that earlier. In Z8 we have

7100 − 1 = (−1)100 − 1 = 1 − 1 = 0

and that tells us that the integer 7100 − 1 is divisible by 8.

The addition and multiplication operations we’ve defined on Zm obey a number of
rules that are familiar from normal addition and multiplication of integers. In fact,
Zm satisfies the properties (Z1)–(Z6) we listed when we constructed the integers. But
(as we saw before) the property (Z7) doesn’t necessarily hold: in Z24 , for example,
we have 5 × 4 = 20 = 11 × 4, but 5 and 11 are not equal in Z24 . Let’s restate those
properties for convenience.
Theorem 7.2 Let m ∈ N. In Zm , for all a, b, c,

(i) a + b and a × b are in Zm .

(ii) a+b = b+a

(iii) a×b = b×a

(iv) ( a + b) + c = a + (b + c)

(v) ( a × b) × c = a × (b × c)
7
(vi) a+0 = a

(vii) a × 1 = a if a 6= 0

(viii) a × (b + c) = ( a × b) + ( a × c)

(ix) for each a ∈ Zm there is a unique element − a ∈ Zm such that a + (− a) = 0.

Let’s think a little about rule (ix) in this Theorem. Suppose we’re in Z4 and that a = 3.
What is − a? Well, what we want is an element of Zm which when added to 3 gives 0
when we are doing arithmetic in Z4 . Now, 3 + 1 = 0 in Z4 because 3 + 1 is congruent
to 0 modulo 4, so −3 = 1. (Alternatively, we can note that −3 = −1(4) + 1, so −3 has
remainder 1 on division by 4, so −3 ≡ 1 (mod 4).)

Activity 7.3 In Z9 , what is −4?

It is important to realise that arithmetic in Zm does not obey all the nice properties
that normal arithmetic of integers obeys. In particular, we cannot generally cancel
multiplication. For example, in Z4 ,

2 × 3 = 2 = 2 × 1,

but we cannot ‘cancel the 2’ (that is, divide both sides by 2) to deduce that 3 = 1,
because 3 6= 1 in Z4 . (The reason we cannot ‘cancel’ the 2 is that 2 has no inverse in
Z4 . Existence of inverses is the topic of the next section.)

129
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

7.4 Invertible elements in Zm

A member x of Zm is invertible if there is some y ∈ Zm such that (in Zm ) xy = yx = 1.
If such a y exists, it is called the inverse of x and is denoted by x −1 .

Example 7.4 In Z10 , 3 has inverse 7 because, in Z10 , 3 × 7 = 1 (because

3 × 7 = 21 ≡ 1 (mod 10)).

Example 7.5 In Z10 , 5 has no inverse. There is no x such that 5x = 1. For,

modulo 10, for any x ∈ Z, 5x ≡ 0 or 5. (This is just the familiar fact that any
multiple of 5 has last digit 0 or 5.)

If x ∈ Zm is invertible, then it is possible to cancel x from both sides of an equation in

Zm . That is, we have
xa = xb ⇒ a = b (in Zm ).
This is not, as we have seen, generally true, but it works when x has an inverse
because in this case

xa = xb ⇒ x −1 ( xa) = x −1 ( xb) ⇒ ( x −1 x ) a = ( x −1 x )b ⇒ 1a = 1b ⇒ a = b.

7 Which x ∈ Zm are invertible? The answer is given by the following theorem.

Theorem 7.3 Suppose m ∈ N. Then an element x of Zm is invertible if and only if x
and m are coprime (that is, gcd( x, m) = 1).

Proof. Suppose x is invertible, so that there is y with xy = 1 in Zm . This means that

xy ≡ 1 (mod m), so, for some k ∈ Z, xy = 1 + km. Let d = gcd( x, m). Then d | x and
d | m, so d | ( xy − km). That is, d | 1, from which it follows that d = 1 and x and m are
coprime.
Conversely, suppose gcd( x, m) = 1. Then (by the fact that the gcd can be written as
an integer linear combination), there are integers y, z such that 1 = yx + zm. But this
means yx ≡ 1 (mod m), so, in Zm , yx = 1 and x has inverse y.

As a result of this theorem, we see that if p is a prime, then every non-zero element x
of Z p is invertible. This is because gcd( x, p) = 1.

7.5 Solving equations in Zm

7.5.1 Single linear equations

Suppose we want to solve, in Zm , the equation ax = b. That is, we want to find x
between 0 and m − 1 such that ax ≡ b (mod m). This may have no solutions. Indeed,
suppose we take b = 1. Then the equation we’re confronted with is ax = 1, which has
a solution if and only if a is invertible (by definition of inverse). So if a has no inverse
in Zm , then such a linear equation will not always have a solution. If, however, a is

130
7.5. Solving equations in Zm

invertible, then we can see that the equation ax = b in Zm has solution x = a−1 b,
because a( a−1 b) = ( aa−1 )b = 1b = b.
How do you find a solution? Trial and error is not efficient if the numbers involved
are large. But we can use the Euclidean algorithm. For suppose we want to solve
ax = b in Zm , where gcd( a, m) = 1. Then, by using the Euclidean algorithm, we have
seen how we can find integers k, l such that 1 = ak + ml. So, b = abk + mlb. Since mlb
is a multiple of m, by definition abk ≡ b (mod m). So bk is a solution, and so bk + sm
will also be a solution for any integer s, because bk ≡ bk + sm (mod m) by definition.
It’s usually nicest to find a solution between 0 and m − 1 inclusive, so we choose s to
obtain this. It’s easy to do this for explicit numbers.

Example 7.6 Suppose we want to solve the equation 83x = 2 in Z321 . We can
check that 83 and 321 are coprime by the Euclidean algorithm (working in Z), as
follows: We have

321 = 83 × 3 + 72
83 = 72 × 1 + 11
72 = 11 × 6 + 6
11 = 6×1+5
6 = 5×1+1
5 = 1 × 5.
7
It follows that gcd(321, 83) = 1. Now, working backwards, we can express 1 as an
integer linear combination of 83 and 321:

1 = 6−5
= 6 − (11 − 6) = 6 × 2 − 11
= (72 − 11 × 6) × 2 − 11 = 72 × 2 − 11 × 13
= 72 × 2 − (83 − 72) × 13 = 72 × 15 − 83 × 13
= (321 − 83) × 3) × 15 − 83 × 13 = 321 × 15 − 83 × 58.

This tells us that

83 × (−58) ≡ 1 (mod 321).
So,
83 × (−116) ≡ 2 (mod 321).
Now, we want to find x in the range 0 to 321 such that −116 ≡ x (mod 321 ). The
answer is x = 205. So, finally, then, we see that, in Z321 , the equation 83x = 2 has
solution x = 205.

Activity 7.4 This calculation also reveals that 83 is invertible in Z321 . Why? And
what is the inverse of 83 in Z321 ?

More generally, we can ask: when does ax = b have a solution in Zm ?

The answer is: when d = gcd( a, m) divides b.
So a special case is when d = 1.

131
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

That is, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 7.4 In Zm , ax = b has a solution if and only if d | b, where d = gcd( a, m).

Proof. First part, =⇒: Suppose ax0 = b in Zm . Then ax0 − b = km for some k ∈ Z. So,
b = ax0 − km. Since d = gcd( a, m), d | a and d | m, so d | ( ax0 − km). That is, d | b.
Second part, ⇐=: Suppose d | b, so b = db1 for some b1 ∈ Z. There are x1 , y1 such that
d = x1 a + y1 m. Then, b = db1 = ( x1 b1 ) a + (y1 b1 )m.
So, in Zm , a( x1 b1 ) = b. That is, x1 b1 (reduced modulo m) is a solution.

This theorem suggests a general method for solving ax = b in Zm :

Find d = gcd( a, m).

If d 6 | b, there’s no solution.

If d | b, write b = db1 . Use Euclidean algorithm to find x, y ∈ Z such that

d = xa + ym. Then a solution is xb1 , reduced modulo m.

7.5.2 Systems of linear equations

We can also consider simultaneous linear equations in Zm . It should be realised that
there might be no solutions, or more than one solution.
7
Example 7.7 Let’s solve the following two equations simultaneously in Z6 :

2x + 3y = 1, 4x + 3y = 5.

Subtracting the first equation from the second gives 2x = 4. You might be tempted
to cancel the 2 and deduce that x must be 2. But wait! You can’t cancel unless 2 and
6 are coprime, and they are not (since their gcd is 2). Instead, you can check for
each of the elements of Z6 whether 2x = 4. Of course, x = 2 is a solution, but so
also is x = 5 because, in Z6 , 2(5) = 10 = 4. You can also check by calculating the
other values of 2x that x = 2, 5 are the only solutions. Now, from the first equation,
3y = 1 − 2x. When x = 2 or 5, 2x = 4, so this is 3y = 1 − 4 = −3 = 3. So we now
have 3y = 3. Again, we cannot cancel the 3. Instead we check, for each y ∈ Z6 ,
whether it is a solution, and we find that 1, 3 and 5 are all solutions. What this
argument shows is that the possible solutions are

( x, y) = (2, 1), (2, 3), (2, 5), (5, 1), (5, 3), (5, 5).

In fact, it can easily be checked (by substituting these pairs of values into the
original equations) that these are indeed solutions. So this system has 6 different
solutions.

Activity 7.5 Check, by substituting into the original equations, that each of these
six possible solution pairs ( x, y) is indeed a solution.

132
7.6. Learning outcomes

Example 7.8 Consider the following system of simultaneous equations in Z7 :

3x + y = 1, 5x + 4y = 1.

If we multiply the first equation by 4, we obtain 12x + 4y = 4, which is the same

(in Z7 ) as 5x + 4y = 4. But the second equation says 5x + 4y = 1. Since 1 and 2 are
not equal in Z7 , these equations are inconsistent, so there are no solutions to this
system.

There is a general theory of how to solve systems of linear equations in modular

arithmetic, using something called the Chinese remainder theorem. However, for this
course we will not need it. If you are asked to solve a system of linear equations
modulo m in this course, there are two possibilities.
First, m is some small number. In this case you can do something like the procedure
in Example 7.7: do a bit of algebra to rule out some possibilities, and then just check
all the possibilities left over to see which ones work.
Second, m is a prime number. In this case, just use the theory you learned in MA100.

You are quite possibly very unhappy about the last sentence — I’ll explain it in the
next chapter!

7
7.6 Learning outcomes
At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

state the definition of the equivalence relation congruence modulo m

prove that congruence modulo m is an equivalence relation
demonstrate an understanding of the links between congruence modulo m and
remainder on division by m
state and prove standard properties of congruence
apply congruence to show, for example, that equations have no solutions
demonstrate an understanding of what the congruence classes are
demonstrate an understanding of what Zm means and how its addition and
multiplication are defined
find the negatives of elements of Zm
state the definition of an invertible element of Zm
demonstrate that you know an element x in Zm is invertible if and only if x and
m are coprime
find the inverse of an invertible element
solve linear equations and simple systems of linear equations in Zm

133
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

7.7 Sample exercises

Exercise 7.1
Show that n ≡ 7 (mod 12) ⇒ n ≡ 3 (mod 4). Is the converse true?

Exercise 7.2
Show that for all n ∈ Z, n2 ≡ 0 or 1 (mod 3). Hence show that if 3 divides x2 + y2 then
3 | x and 3 | y. Use this to prove that there are no integers x, y, z such that x2 + y2 = 3z2 ,
other than x = y = z = 0.

Exercise 7.3
Show that, for all n ∈ N, 33n+1 ≡ 3 × 5n (mod 11) and that 24n+3 ≡ 8 × 5n (mod 11).
Hence show that for all n ∈ N, 11 | (33n+1 + 24n+3 ).

Exercise 7.4
By working modulo 7, prove that 2n+2 + 32n+1 is divisible by 7. (This result was proved in a
different way, using induction, in the exercises at the end of Chapter 3)

Exercise 7.5
Prove that 290 is an invertible element of Z357 and find its inverse.

Exercise 7.6
7 Solve the equation 10x = 3 in Z37 .

7.8 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 7.1 We have m | 0 = a − a, so the relation is reflexive. Symmetry
follows from m | (b − a) ⇐⇒ m | ( a − b). Suppose that a R b and b R c. Then m | (b − a)
and m | (c − b), so m | ((b − a) + (c − b)) = (c − a) and hence a R c. Thus, R is
transitive.
Learning activity 7.2 We have m | (b − a) and m | (d − c). So m | ((b − a) + (d − c)),
which is the same as m | ((b + d) − ( a + c)), so a + c ≡ b + d (mod m). We also have
m | ((b − a) − (d − c)), which is the same as m | ((b − d) − ( a − c)) so
a − c ≡ b − d (mod m).
Learning activity 7.3 Because 4 + 5 = 9 ≡ 0 (mod 9), we have −4 = 5 in Z9 .
Learning activity 7.4 The calculation shows that 83 × (−58) ≡ 1 (mod 321). We also
know that −58 ≡ 263 (mod 321) because 58 + 263 = 312 ≡ 0 (mod 321). So we’ll
have 83 × 263 ≡ 1 (mod 321). This shows that 83 is invertible in Z321 and that its
inverse is 263.

7.9 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise 7.1
If n ≡ 7 (mod 12) then, for some integer k, m = 7 + 12k and so
m = 3 + 4 + 12k = 3 + 4(1 + 3k ). This means that n ≡ 3 (mod 4), because 1 + 3k is an

134
7.9. Solutions to exercises

integer. The converse is false, because, for example, 3 ≡ 3 (mod 4), but 3 6≡ 7 (mod 12)

Solution to exercise 7.2

We have, modulo 3, n ≡ 0 or n ≡ 1 or n ≡ 2. So, respectively, n2 ≡ 02 = 0 or n2 ≡ 12 = 1
or n2 ≡ 22 = 4 ≡ 1. So in all cases n2 is congruent to 0 or 1. Suppose 3 | ( x2 + y2 ). Then,
modulo 3, x2 + y2 ≡ 0. But each of x2 and y2 is congruent to 0 or 1. If either or both are
congruent to 1, then we’d have x2 + y2 ≡ 1 or x2 + y2 ≡ 2. So we can see that we must
have x2 ≡ 0 and y2 ≡ 0. This means x ≡ 0 and y ≡ 0, which is the same as 3 | x and 3 | y.
Now suppose that, for integers x, y, z, x2 + y2 = 3z2 , where not all of x, y, z are zero. If d is
a common factor of x, y and z, then we can write x = dx1 , y = dy1 and z = dz1 , where
x1 , y1 , z1 ∈ Z. We can then see that d2 x12 + d2 y21 = 3d2 z21 , so that x12 + y21 = 3z21 . What
this shows is that if there are any integer solutions, then there is one in which x, y, z have no
common divisors (for any common divisors can be cancelled). So assume we’re dealing with
such a solution. Now, x2 + y2 = 3z2 implies 3 | ( x2 + y2 ) (noting that neither side of the
equation is 0 because not all of x, y, z are). What we’ve shown earlier in this exercise
establishes that 3 | x and 3 | y. So x = 3x1 and y = 3y1 for some x1 , y1 ∈ Z. Then the
equation x2 + y2 = 3z2 becomes 9x12 + 9y21 = 3z2 and so z2 = 3x12 + 3y21 . This implies
3 | z2 . But this means 3 | z. (You can see this either by the Fundamental Theorem of
Arithmetic, or by the fact that if z 6≡ 0 modulo 3 then z2 6≡ 0, as we see from the
calculations at the start of this solution.) So what we see, then, is that x, y, z are all divisible
by 3. But we assumed that they constituted a solution with no common factor and we’ve
reached a contradiction. So there are no solutions other than x = y = z = 0.
7
Solution to exercise 7.3
Modulo 11, we have 33 = 27 ≡ 5 and so 33n ≡ (33 )n ≡ 5n and hence
33n+1 = 3(3n ) ≡ 3 × 5n . Also, 24 = 16 ≡ 5 and so 24n+3 = 8 × (24 )n ≡ 8 × 5n . It follows
that
33n+1 + 24n+3 ≡ 3 × 5n + 8 × 5n = 11(5n ) ≡ 0 (mod 11),
which means that 11 | (33n+1 + 24n+3 ).
Solution to exercise 7.4
Modulo 7, 32 = 9 ≡ 2, so 32n+1 = 3(32n ) ≡ 3(2n ) and 2n+2 = 4(2n ), so
2n+2 + 32n+1 ≡ 4(2n ) + 3(2n ) = 7(2n ) ≡ 0,
and hence 7 | (2n+2 + 32n+1 ).
Solution to exercise 7.5
By the Euclidean algorithm, we have
357 = 290 + 67
290 = 4 × 67 + 22
67 = 3 × 22 + 1,
so 290 and 357 are coprime, from which it follows that 290 is invertible. Now, from the
calculations just given,
1 = 67 − 3 × 22
= 67 − 3(290 − 4 × 67) = 13 × 67 − 3 × 290
= 13(357 − 290) − 3 × 290 = 13 × 357 − 16 × 290.

135
7. Congruence and modular arithmetic

The fact that 13 × 357 − 16 × 290 = 1 means that, modulo 357, −16 × 290 ≡ 1. So, in
Z357 , (290)−1 = −16 = 341.

Solution to exercise 7.6

Because 37 is prime, we certainly know that 10 and 37 are coprime, so the equation has a
solution. The quickest way to find it is simply to note that the equation is equivalent to the
congruence, modulo 37, that 10x ≡ 40, and the 10 can then be cancelled because 10 and
37 are coprime. But suppose we didn’t spot that. The Euclidean algorithm tells us that:

37 = 3 × 10 + 7
10 = 1×7+3
7 = 2×3+1
3 = 3 × 1,

and so

1 = 7−2×3
= 7 − 2(10 − 7) = 3 × 7 − 2 × 10
= 3(37 − 3 × 10) − 2 × 10
= 3 × 37 − 11 × 10.

So we see that −11 × 10 ≡ 1 (mod 37) and hence −33 × 10 ≡ 3 (mod 37). Now,
7 −33 ≡ 4 (mod 37), so the solution is x = 4. This is easily checked: 10(4) = 40 = 3 in
Z37 .

136
Chapter 8
Rational, real and complex numbers

R
R Biggs, N. L. Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 9.
Eccles, P.J. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. Chapters 13 and 14.
The treatment in Biggs is probably better for the purposes of this course.
Neither of these books covers complex numbers. You do not have to know very much
about complex numbers for this course, but because this topic is not in these books, I
have included quite a bit of material on complex numbers in this chapter.
You can find useful reading on complex numbers in a number of books, including the

R
following (which you might already have, given that it is the MA100 text).
Anthony, M. and M. Harvey. Linear Algebra: Concepts and Methods. Cambridge
University Press 2012. Chapter 13.

8.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we explore rational numbers, real numbers and complex numbers. In
this course, we started with natural numbers and then we showed how to construct
the set of all integers from these. This construction used an equivalence relation,
8
together with a suitable way of adding and multiplying the equivalence classes. In a
similar way, the rational numbers can be constructed from the integers by means of
an equivalence relation. In this course, we do not take a very formal approach to the
definition or construction of the real numbers (which can, in fact, be quite
complicated). But we study properties of real numbers, and in particular we shall be
interested in whether real numbers are rational or not. We also consider the
‘cardinality’ of infinite sets.
As we stressed before, the point of these formal constructions is not to make you
think about a complicated construction which gets in the way of ‘calculation as
usual’. Once you proved that a construction does what it’s supposed to do, you don’t
have to think any more; you can calculate as usual. But by now we are getting to
mathematical structures which don’t obviously make sense—look back to
Section 3.10, and again: why does C exist but E doesn’t? You don’t have—yet—any
very good reason to believe that calculations using C make any more sense than
using E; maybe all this complex number stuff is nonsense, simply the calculations
which show it doesn’t work are a bit harder to find than the one which shows E is
nonsense? By the end of this chapter, you should be convinced that it is not nonsense.

137
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

8.2 Rational numbers

As when we constructed Z from N, we are now going to construct the rational
numbers Q from Z. As before, the reason we want to do this—rather than just
assume Q exists and calculations with it make sense—is that, as we saw in
Section 3.10, we might be assuming something which is nonsense; it might be that if
we try to do algebra with fractions as we’re used to, we end up doing a calculation
which shows 1 = 1 + 1 (as with E).
Think about this for a moment—you might say you can make sense of −51 in terms of
reality: it means I owe you a fifth of an apple; if there are five people who each owe
you a fifth of an apple, then you are owed one apple, and this all sounds good. But
what does it mean to multiply by −51 ? Why is −51 · −51 equal to 25 1
? You can probably
come up with some sentence involving apples, but I’m not sure it will be very
convincing—try it!
When we constructed Z from N, we wrote down a rather funny equivalence relation,
and used that to prove that if Z is in some way nonsense, then so is N—to put it
another way, if you’re convinced calculations with N work, then you are also
convinced that calculations with Z work. We’re going to do the same thing again, but
this time the equivalence relation is one you saw long ago in primary school.

8.2.1 An important equivalence relation

Rational numbers are simply the fractions you already studied in primary school.
You’ll certainly be aware that there are many ways of representing a given rational
number. For instance, 25 represents the same number as 10 4
. We can capture these sorts
8 of equivalences more formally by using an equivalence relation on pairs of integers
(m, n), where n 6= 0. So let X = Z × (Z \ {0}) be the set of all pairs (m, n) where
m, n ∈ Z and n 6= 0, and define a relation R on X by:

(m, n) R (m0 , n0 ) ⇐⇒ mn0 = m0 n.

You should quickly check that this relation R does what you think it should do: if (by
m0
your school-style calculation) the fractions m n and n0 are the same, then indeed we
have (m, n) R(m0 , n0 ). However so far in this course we did not define ‘division’ nor
‘fraction’—that’s exactly what we want to do now. The relation R only uses the
properties of Z which we are already happy with.
Let’s pause for a moment to prove that R is indeed an equivalence relation.
R is Reflexive: (m, n) R(m, n) because mn = nm.
R is Symmetric: (m, n) R( p, q) ⇒ mq = np ⇒ pn = qm ⇒ ( p, q) R(m, n).
R is Transitive: Suppose (m, n) R( p, q) and ( p, q) R(s, t). Then mq = np and pt = qs.
So, (mq)( pt) = (np)(qs) and, after cancelling qp, this gives mt = ns, so (m, n) R(s, t).
But, wait a minute: can we cancel pq? Sure, if it’s nonzero. If it is zero then that means
p = 0 (since we know that q 6= 0). But then mq = 0, so m = 0; and qs = 0, so s = 0. So,
in this case also we get mt = ns (both sides are zero) and so (m, n) R(s, t).

138
8.2. Rational numbers

8.2.2 Rational numbers as equivalence classes

m
We represent the equivalence class [(m, n)] by . For example, we then have the
n
4
(familiar) fact that 25 = 10 which follows from the fact that [(2, 5)] = [(4, 10)],
something that is true because (2, 5) R (4, 10) (2 × 10 = 4 × 5). What we’ve done here
is construct the set of rational numbers without reference to division. In an abstract
approach, this is the logically sound thing to do. Once we have constructed the
rational numbers, we can then make sense of the division of integers: the division of
m by n is the rational number m/n.
What, for instance, is the equivalence class [(1, 2)]? Well, (m, n) R(1, 2) means
m × 2 = n × 1, or n = 2m. So it consists of

(1, 2), (−1, −2), (2, 4), (−2, −4), (3, 6), (−3, −6) . . . .

m
Denoting the equivalence class [(m, n)] by , we therefore have
n
1
= {(1, 2), (−1, −2), (2, 4), (−2, −4), (3, 6), (−3, −6), . . . }.
2
Recall that if x 0 ∈ [ x ] then [ x 0 ] = [ x ]. So we can say
1 −1 2 −2 3 −3
= = = = = = ··· .
2 −2 4 −4 6 −6

We can think of the integers as particular rational numbers by identifying the integer
n
n with the rational number (that is, with the equivalence class [(n, 1)]). So Z ⊆ Q.
1 8
8.2.3 Doing arithmetic
How do we ‘do arithmetic’ with rational numbers. Well, you’ve been doing this for
years, but how would we define addition and multiplication of rational numbers in
an abstract setting? Just as we defined operations on equivalence classes in earlier
chapters (in the construction of Z from N and in the construction of Zm ), we can
define addition and multiplication as an operation on the equivalence classes of R.
Here’s how: let ⊕ and ⊗ be defined on the set of rational numbers as follows:
a c ad + bc a c ac
⊕ = , ⊗ = .
b d bd b d bd
In practice, we just use normal addition and multiplication symbols (and we often
omit the multiplication symbol), so we have

a c ad + bc a c ac
+ = , × = .
b d bd b d bd
Well, no surprises there, but remember that what we are doing here is defining
additional and multiplication of rational numbers (and remember also that these
rational numbers are, formally, equivalence classes). Now, if you think hard about it,
one issue that is raised is whether these definitions depend on the choice of

139
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

representatives from each equivalence class (just as when we constructed Z from N,

we had to check this). They should not, but we ought to check that. What I mean is
that we really should have
2 2 4 1
+ = + ,
5 6 10 3
for example, because
2 4 2 1
= and = .
5 10 6 3
Well, let’s see. Consider the addition definition. Suppose that
a a0 c c0
= 0 and = 0 .
b b d d
What we need to check is that
a c a0 c0
+ = 0 + 0.
b d b d
a a0
Now, the fact that = 0 means precisely that [( a, b)] = [( a0 , b0 )], which means that
b b
ab0 = a0 b. Similarly, we have cd0 = c0 d. Now,
a c ad + bc a0 c0 a0 d0 + b0 c0
+ = , and 0 + 0 =
b d bd b d b0 d0
and we need to prove that
ad + bc a0 d0 + b0 c0
= .
bd b0 d0
This means we need to prove that
8 ( ad + bc, bd) R ( a0 d0 + b0 c0 , b0 d0 ).
Now,
( ad + bc, bd) R ( a0 d0 + b0 c0 , b0 d0 ) ⇐⇒ ( ad + bc)b0 d0 = ( a0 d0 + b0 c0 )bd
⇐⇒ adb0 d0 + bcb0 d0 = a0 d0 bd + b0 c0 bd
⇐⇒ ( ab0 )dd0 + (cd0 )bb0 = ( a0 b)dd0 + (c0 d)bb0 .
Now, the first terms on each side are equal to each other because ab0 = a0 b and the
second terms are equal to each other because cd0 = c0 d, so we do indeed have
‘consistency’ (that is, the definition of addition is independent of the choice of
representatives chosen for the equivalence classes).

Activity 8.1 Show that the definition of multiplication of rational numbers is

‘consistent’: that is, that it does not depend on the choice of representatives chosen
for the equivalence classes. Explicitly, show that if

a a0 c c0
= 0 and = 0 ,
b b d d
then
a c a0 c0
× = 0 × 0.
b d b d

140
8.2. Rational numbers

By the way, the rational numbers are described as such because they are (or, more
formally, can be represented by) ratios of integers.
The rational numbers (as you can easily check, and as you already knew long ago)
satisfy the following axioms:

(F1) Closure under addition and multiplication: for each a, b ∈ F both a + b and ab are
in F.
(F2) Commutative addition and multiplication: for each a, b ∈ F we have
a + b = b + a and ab = ba.
(F3) Associative addition and multiplication: for each a, b, c ∈ F we have
( a + b) + c = a + (b + c) and ( ab)c = a(bc).
(F4) The distributive law: for each a, b, c ∈ F we have ( a + b)c = ac + bc.
(F5) Additive and multiplicative identity: there are two different elements 0 and 1,
such that for each a ∈ F we have a + 0 = a and a × 1 = a.
(F6) Additive and multiplicative inverses: for each a ∈ F there is an element − a such
that a + (− a) = 0, and if a 6= 0 there is an element a−1 such that a( a−1 ) = 1.
There is a name for structures F which satisfy all of these axioms: they form a field. So
the rational numbers are a field. You don’t need to memorise the list (and it won’t be
on the exam), because what it says is simply that in any field you can do algebra as
you are used to, with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and nothing
will ‘go wrong’; you will never somehow get an answer which isn’t in the field (as
you would if you tried to work out 3 − 5 in N, or 3/5 in Z), nor will the answer do
something unexpected (like depending on the order you do things, as would be the 8
case with multiplying 2 × 2 matrices: there multiplication isn’t commutative).
You probably feel intuitively that a field should be something like the rational
numbers (or the real or complex numbers, which we’ll formally meet shortly).
Another, rather different, example of a field is Z p for any prime number p. We saw in
the last chapter that all the axioms of a field, except (F6), holds for Zm whatever m is;
and we saw that the additive inverses part of (F6) holds whatever m is. And we saw
that if m is prime, then so does the multiplicative inverses part of (F6) — that’s all we
need to check. So Z2 3 is a field—but 1 + 1 + · · · + 1 could be equal to 0 in Z23 (it is, if
there are 23 ‘1’s, for example) whereas this never occurs in Q.
Why should you care about fields? Well, think about solving systems of linear
equations in R using Gaussian elimination (or, as you learned to do in MA100, by
writing it in terms of matrices and doing row reduction). What do you do there? You
add and subtract real numbers; you multiply and divide (which is the same as
multiplying by the multiplicative inverse). And you get an answer. Well, you can do
all that in any field, in exactly the same way, because that’s what the field axioms say
you can do.
So if you want to solve a system of linear equations in Z23 , then you can do it just as
you would in R, as you learned in MA100, except do your calculations in Z23 . Let’s
try to solve this one, in Z23 , by Gaussian elimination:
3x + 6y = 4 and 7x + y = 1

141
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Well, we can take 6 times the second equation from the first:

3x − 42x = 4 − 6 , i.e. 7x = 21

And we can multiply this by 7−1 to get x = 3. Plugging that into 3x + 6y = 4 we get
9 + 6y = 4, so 6y = 18, so y = 3. And we’re done.
There are lots more examples of fields, some of which you will meet later in your
programme — and what you’ve just seen is that all that linear algebra you’re learning
in MA100 doesn’t just apply to the real and complex numbers, it applies to all fields.
You’ve been learning much more than you thought you were! And this is a large part
of the reason for this axiomatic approach to algebra: it lets you clearly see where you
can use methods you already know to handle completely new structures.

8.3 Rational numbers and real numbers

So far, you probably never really saw a need for numbers which are not rational. You
can add, subtract, multiply and divide rational numbers (apart from dividing by
zero, which you saw in Section 3.10 is something you can’t do without running into
trouble) and you always get a rational number—why do we need more?
√
Theorem 8.1 The real number 2 is irrational. That is, there are no positive
m 2
integers m, n with = 2.
n

Proof. Suppose, for a contradiction, that there were such m, n.

8 If m, n are divisible by some d > 1, we may divide both m and n to obtain m0 , n0 such
that the rational number m0 /n0 equals m/n. So we may assume that m, n have no
common divisors greater than 1; that is, gcd(m, n) = 1.
Now, the equation (m/n)2 = 2 means m2 = 2n2 . So we see that m2 is even. We know
(from Chapter 2) that this means m must be even. So there is some m1 such that
m = 2m1 . Then, m2 = 2n2 becomes 4m21 = 2n2 , and so n2 = 2m21 . Well, this means n2
is even and hence n must be even. So m and n are both divisible by 2. But we
assumed that gcd(m, n) = 1, and this is contradicted by the fact that m and n have 2
as a common divisor. So our assumption that (m/n)2 = 2 must have been wrong and
we can deduce no such integers m and n exist.

Isn’t this theorem a thing of beauty?

Activity 8.2 Make sure you understand that this is a proof by contradiction, and
that you understand what the contradiction is.

What this theorem tells us is that, at least if we want to solve equations like x2 = 2,
then the rational numbers are not enough; we need more. Of course, we could just
invent new symbols and define them to satisfy the equations we want. But (as is the
case for E from Section 3.10) this is a dangerous thing to do—we might be assuming
something exists which doesn’t in fact exist; whose existence leads to a contradiction.
We’d better rather construct the reals.

142
8.3. Rational numbers and real numbers

8.3.1 Non-examinable: what are the real numbers exactly?

There is a simple way to define the real numbers, which you already saw in school.
We just say that these are all the things you can get by writing down a decimal
number: 123.4124581... for example. Except that we say 0.9999 and 1.000 are to be
considered the same (and similarly for any other decimal which after some point
consists only of nines). How do we formalise that?
Well, it’s easy enough; we can write a decimal as consisting of (for example) an
integer n together with a string of digits after the decimal: (123, 4, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1, ...).
This is a member of the set N × {0, 1, . . . , 9} × {0, 1, . . . , 9} × . . . . (There’s nothing
wrong with an infinite product of sets.) And we can easily write down an
equivalence relation which says that (n, a1 , a2 , . . . , ak , 9, 9, 9, . . . ) is equivalent to
(n, a1 , a2 , . . . , ak + 1, 0, 0, 0, . . . ) (whenever ak is not 9)—we just did it. The real
numbers are then the equivalence classes of this relation.
It is a pain to define addition and multiplication. It is not hard, it is just annoying. You
simply write out the details of how you would in practice add or multiply two
numbers by hand (as you learnt to do in primary school). It’s not hard, but it is
painful, to check that it doesn’t matter which representative of an equivalence class
you take. And you can check that the structure you end up with is a field—it
satisfies (F1)–(F6).
But there is something a bit worrying about this definition: it depends on the fact that
we do arithmetic in base 10. Maybe the Martians (who have six fingers, at least in the
B-movies I watch) will have a different set of real numbers? That would be
terrible—they would certainly attack us if they found out. And in any case, it’s not
even obvious this definition fixes the problem—is there a decimal whose square is
equal to 2? 8
In fact, these concerns turn out not to be real problems. It doesn’t make a difference
what base you use, and there is such a decimal. But nevertheless, mathematicians
tend to prefer one of two different constructions. These two constructions are really
different; depending on what you want one or the other might look ‘better’, and
some mathematicians will get very angry if you don’t like their favourite
construction. However—and we will not prove it!—it doesn’t really make a difference
which construction you use; you still get a set which behaves the way you think the
real numbers should. As before, the point of the construction isn’t that you should
keep thinking about it when you do calculations, it is to justify that your calculations
won’t give you a logical contradiction as we saw with E from Section 3.10.
The first way is called the ‘Dedekind cut’ construction.
The idea is the following: if I pick a point on the number line, intuitively it separates
the number line into the smaller points and the points at least as large. I can’t really
make formal sense of that idea—it’s recursive: I’m talking about the number line in
order to define the number line. But I can also talk about separating the fractions into
two sets, and I know how to work with those. Formalising this, I can say a set S of
rational numbers is a Dedekind cut if for every rational number x, either x is in S and
there is an element s of S which is larger than x, or alternatively x is larger than all
elements of S. And then I can say a real number is the same thing as a Dedekind cut. I
can easily define addition: it’s not hard to check that if S and S0 are Dedekind cuts,

143
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

then the set {s + s0 : s ∈ S, s0 ∈ S0 } is a Dedekind cut. More or less the same idea
works for multiplication (but you have to be rather careful with negative numbers!).
If q is a rational number, then { x ∈ Q : x < q} is a Dedekind cut which we can easily
check behaves like the rational number q (in the same way that the rational number 21
√
behaves like the integer 2). Now, this definition at least solves the 2 problem:
{q ∈ Q : q < 0 or q2 < 2} is a Dedekind cut, and its square is 2. This is a nice clean
definition, but it only works because we have a definition of ‘order’ < on Q.
The second route is the ‘Cauchy sequence’ construction. This is rather more
complicated.
The idea is the following: if I want to specify a real number, I’ll give a sequence of
rational numbers which get closer and closer to the number I want (the formal term is
‘Cauchy sequence’; it’ll
√be defined next term), such as longer and longer parts of the
decimal expansion of 2; I might give the sequence

(1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ...) .

It’s easy to add such sequences—I just add the terms:

( a1 , a2 , a3 , ...) + (b1 , b2 , b3 , ...) = ( a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , a3 + b3 , ...) .

Multiplication works similarly (this time negative numbers aren’t a problem). So far
this looks rather like the ‘decimals’ construction. But of course I might have many
possible sequences of rational numbers which get closer and closer to say 0 (or any
other real number), so I should write down an equivalence relation which says two
such sequences are equivalent. And then the real numbers are the equivalence classes
of this relation.
8 By the end of next term, you should be able to make formal sense of this second
construction—in fact, it would be a good check of your understanding to come back
and try to fill in the details. This construction has the advantage that it doesn’t use the
idea of ‘order’; you can use the same idea in lots of different situations. But it requires
a lot more work to set up.

8.3.2 Real numbers: a ‘sketchy’ introduction

For the purposes of this course, you can just think of the real numbers R as being
given; they are all the points on the number line, or equivalently they are all the
decimal numbers (bearing in mind that 0.4999... = 0.5000...). Let’s think for a bit
about these decimals, and (again a little bit informally) let’s write down some
properties they have.
First, let’s note that if ai ∈ N ∪ {0} and ai ≤ 9 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the (finite) decimal
expansion
a0 .a1 a2 . . . an
represents the rational number
a1 a an
a0 + + 2 2 +···+ .
10 (10) (10)n

144
8.3. Rational numbers and real numbers

For example, what we mean by 1.2546 is the number

2 5 4 6
1+ + + + .
10 100 1000 10000

Every positive real number can be represented by an infinite decimal expansion

a0 .a1 a2 a3 . . . ai . . . ,

where ai ∈ N ∪ {0} and ai ≤ 9 for i ≥ 1. We allow for ai to be 0, so, in particular, it is

possible that ai = 0 for all i ≥ N where N is some fixed number: such an expansion is
known as a terminating expansion. Given such an infinite decimal expansion, we say
that it represents a real number a if, for all n ∈ N ∪ {0},

a0 .a1 a2 . . . an ≤ a ≤ a0 .a1 a2 . . . an + 1/(10)n .

This formalism allows us to see that the infinite decimal expansion 0.99999 . . . , all of
whose digits after the decimal point are 9, is in fact the same as the number
1.0000000 . . . .
For example, two infinite decimal expansions are

3.1415926535 . . .

and
0.1833333333333 . . . .
(You’ll probably recognise the first as being the number π.) Suppose, in this second
decimal expansion, that every digit is 3 after the first three (that is, ai = 3 for i ≥ 3).
Then we write this as 0.183 (or, in some texts, 0.183̇). We can extend this notation to 8
cases in which there is a repeating pattern of digits. For example, suppose we have

0.1123123123123 . . . ,

where the ‘123’ repeats infinitely. Then we denote this by 0.1123.

8.3.3 Rationality and repeating patterns

You probably have heard stories of strange, obsessive mathematicians working out
the expansion of π to millions and millions of decimal places. (This has been the
subject of a novel, a play, a film, and a song!) This is relevant because the digits of π
have no repeating pattern, which you might think quite remarkable. In fact, it turns
out that a real number will have an infinitely repeating pattern in its decimal
expansion (which includes the case in which the pattern is 0, so that it includes
terminating expansions) if and only if the number is rational.
Let’s look at part of this statement: if a number is rational, then its decimal expansion
will have a repeating pattern (which might be 0). Let’s look at an example.

145
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Example 8.1 We find the decimal expansion of 4/7 by ‘long-division’.

0.5714285 · · ·
7 4.0000000
3.5
.50
.49
10
7
30
28
20
14
60
56
40
35
50

So,
4/7 = 0.571428.

Notice: we must have the same remainder re-appear at some point, and then the
calculation repeats. Here’s the calculation again, with the repeating remainder
highlighted in bold.

0.5714285 · · ·
8 7 4.0000000
3.5
.50
.49
10
7
30
28
20
14
60
56
40
35
50

Next, we think about the second part of the statement: that if the decimal expansion
repeats, then the number is rational.
Clearly, if the decimal expansion is terminating, then the number is rational. But what
about the infinite, repeating, case? We’ve given two examples above. Let’s consider
these in more detail.

146
8.3. Rational numbers and real numbers

Example 8.2 Consider a = 0.183. Let x = 0.003. Then 10x = 0.03 and so
10x − x = 0.03 − 0.003 = 0.03. So, 9x = 0.03 and hence x = (3/100)/9 = 1/300, so

18 1 55 11
0.183 = 0.18 + 0.003 = + = = ,
100 300 300 60
and this is the rational representation of a.

Example 8.3 Consider the number 0.1123. If x = 0.0123, then 1000x = 12.3123
and 1000x − x = 12.3. So 999x = 12.3 and hence x = 123/9990. So,
1 1 123 1122
0.1123 = +x = + = .
10 10 9990 9990

In general, if the repeating block is of length k, then an argument just like the
previous two, in which we multiply by 10k , will enable us to express the number as a
rational number.

8.3.4 Irrational numbers

A real number is irrational if it is not a rational number. So, given what we said above,
an irrational number has no infinitely repeating pattern in its decimal expansion.
What’s clear from above is that any real number can be approximated well by
rational numbers: for the rational number a0 .a1 a2 . . . an is within 1/(10)n of the real
number with infinite decimal expansion a0 .a1 a2 . . . .
8
We can,
√ in some cases, prove that particular numbers are irrational. We already saw
√
that 2 is irrational, and in general for any natural number n, either n is irrational
or it is an integer (i.e. it is never a rational number which is not an integer).

√
Activity 8.3 Prove that if n is any natural number then either n is an integer or
it is irrational.

Many other important numbers in mathematics turn out to be irrational. I’ve already
mentioned π, and there is also e (the base of the natural logarithm). It’s not easy to
prove either of these numbers is irrational—in fact, it’s quite hard to find examples of
irrational numbers.

8.3.5 ‘Density’ of the rational numbers

As we’ve seen, some important numbers in mathematics are not rational. An intuitive
question that arises is ‘how many real numbers are rational’ and this is a difficult
question to answer. There are infinitely many real numbers and infinitely many
rationals, and infinitely may real numbers are not rational. More on this in the next
section!

147
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

For the moment, let’s make one important observation: not only are there infinitely
many rational numbers, but there are no ‘gaps’ in the rational numbers. If you accept
the view of real numbers as (possibly) infinite decimal expansions, then this is quite
clear: you can get a very good approximation to any real number by terminating its
decimal expansion after a large number of digits. (And we know that a terminating
decimal expansion is a rational number.) The following theorem makes sense of the
statement that there are no ‘rational-free’ zones in the real numbers. Precisely,
between any two rational numbers, no matter how close together they are, there is
always another rational number.
Theorem 8.2 Suppose q, q0 ∈ Q with q < q0 . Then there is r ∈ Q with q < r < q0 .

Proof. Consider r = (1/2)(q + q0 ). Details are left to you!

Activity 8.4 Complete this proof.

8.4 Countability of rationals and uncountability of

real numbers
We know that N ⊆ Z ⊆ Q ⊆ R, and that each inclusion is strict (there are integers
that are not natural numbers, rational numbers that are not integers, and real
numbers that are not rational). All of these sets are infinite. But there is a sense in
which the sets N, Z and Q have the same ‘size’ and R is ‘larger’. Clearly we have to
define what this means in precise terms, because right now all we know is that there
8 are more real numbers than rationals, for instance, but there are infinitely many of
each type of number.
The following definition helps us.
Definition 8.1 (Countable sets) A set is countable if there is a bijection between the
set and N.

Note that in some textbooks this definition is called ‘countably infinite’. These
textbooks define ‘countable’ differently, asking only for an injective map from the set
to N. This really is different — there is an injective map from any finite set to N
(more or less by definition). But any infinite set which has an injection to N is
countable (by our definition; this needs a proof which I am skipping), so the
difference is really only whether we call finite sets ‘countable’ or not. We are saying
that ‘countable’ in particular means the set has to be infinite.
For instance, Z is countable: we can define f : N → Z by

f (1) = 0, f (2) = 1, f (3) = −1, f (4) = 2, f (5) = −2, f (6) = 3, f (7) = −3, . . . .

(In general, f (n) = (−1)n bn/2c, where bn/2c means the largest integer that is no
more than n/2.) It is straightforward to show that f is a bijection. Hence Z is
countable. So, in this sense, the sets Z and N have the same ‘cardinality’ (even
though Z is strictly larger than N). Working with infinite sets is not the same as

148
8.4. Countability of rationals and uncountability of real numbers

working with finite sets: two finite sets, one of which was a strict subset of the other,
could not have the same cardinality!
What does ‘countable’ mean? The formal definition is given above. But one way of
thinking about it is that if S is countable, then the members of S can be listed:
s1 , s2 , s3 , . . . , .
For, suppose S is countable. Then there is a bijection f : N → S. Let si = f (i ) for
i ∈ N. Then, because f is a bijection, the list s1 , s2 , s3 , . . . will include every element of
S, each precisely once.
What is more surprising is that Q is also countable.

8.4.1 Countability of the rationals

Theorem 8.3 The set Q of rational numbers is countable.

How can we prove Q is countable?

By constructing a bijection N → Q. We won’t do so by means of a formula, but
instead by thinking of a way in which all the rational numbers could be listed.
Arrange all the ordered pairs of natural numbers as follows:
(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···
(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ··· 8
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

Traverse this array as indicated in the following diagrams, where traversed elements
are emboldened and underlined as they are traversed.

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

149
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

8 (1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

150
8.4. Countability of rationals and uncountability of real numbers

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···

(1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) ···

(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) ···
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) ···
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) ···
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) (5, 6) ···
(6, 1) (6, 2) (6, 3) (6, 4) (6, 5) (6, 6) ···
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . ···
We get a listing of all the ordered pairs of natural numbers: 8
(1, 1), (2, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 1), (4, 1), (3, 2), (2, 3), . . .

From this we can get a listing of all positive rational numbers m/n: simply write
down the corresponding rationals and ignore any (m, n) such that the rational m/n
has already earlier appeared in the list:

(1, 1), (2, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 1), (4, 1), (3, 2), (2, 3), . . .
gives
1 2 1 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,...
1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 1
which becomes
1 2 1 1 3 4 3 2 1 1 5 6
, , , , , , , , , , , ,...
1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1
We can then include the negative rational numbers and 0 by starting with 0 and
replacing m/n by m/n and −m/n:
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2
0, , − , , − , , − , , − , , − , , − , , − , , − ,
1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 1 1 1 5 5 6 6
,− , ,− , ,− , ,− ,...
4 4 5 5 1 1 1 1

151
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

It’s clear that this listing describes a bijection from N to Q. So this proves Q is
countable.

We can go one step further in this direction. A number x is rational if and only if there
is some equation ax + b = 0, with a, b ∈ Z not both zero, to which it is a solution.
(Check that you agree this is obviously true!) This is a linear equation; what about
polynomials?
Definition 8.2 A number x is algebraic if it is a solution to an equation of the form

a n x n + a n −1 x n −1 + · · · + a 1 x + a 0 = 0
where n is a natural number and a0 , a1 , . . . , an are integers, not all zero.

The set of algebraic numbers

√ is ‘obviously much bigger’ than the rationals; for
example it contains 2. It turns out that e and π are not algebraic—but this is not
easy to prove!
But in fact the algebraic numbers are also countable!

Activity 8.5 Find out how to modify the proof that the rational numbers are
countable in order to show that the algebraic numbers are countable.

So, informally speaking, N, Z, Q, and the algebraic numbers, all have the same ‘size’.
What about R? Well, here it gets very interesting: the set of real numbers is not
countable. (It is said to be uncountable.)

8 8.4.2 Uncountability of the real numbers

Theorem 8.4 The set R is not countable. (That is, R is uncountable.)

This theorem is really rather surprising: right now you know two examples of
numbers which are real but not algebraic (namely π and e, although we didn’t prove
it). Of course you can generate more examples from this: 2π is also not algebraic
(why?). Is π + e algebraic? Probably not, but this is an open problem. But (it is easy to
prove) in this way you’ll only find a countable set of numbers which are not
algebraic. What it means to say that R is not countable is that it is really much, much
larger than the rationals, or the algebraic numbers. Even though you only have two
explicit examples of real numbers which are not algebraic, once you know the
algebraic numbers are countable but the real numbers are not, you know that ‘most’
real numbers are not algebraic!
The proof uses the famous ‘Cantor diagonal’ argument.
Suppose that f : N → R and that
f (n) = xn0 .xn1 xn2 xn3 . . . .
We show there’s a number in R which isn’t the image under f of any element of N
(and hence f is not a surjection). Consider
y = 0.y1 y2 y3 . . .

152
8.5. Complex numbers

where
1 if xii 6= 1
yi =
2 if xii = 1.
For all n ∈ N, y 6= f (n) since yn is different from xnn .
Since f was arbitrary, this shows that there can be no function f : N → R that is
surjective. Hence R is not countable.

8.5 Complex numbers

8.5.1 Introduction
Consider the two quadratic polynomials,
p( x ) = x2 − 3x + 2 and q( x ) = x2 + x + 1
If you sketch the graph of p( x ) you will find that the graph intersects the x-axis at the
two real solutions (or roots) of the equation p( x ) = 0, and that the polynomial factors
into the two linear factors,
p( x ) = x2 − 3x + 2 = ( x − 1)( x − 2)
Sketching the graph of q( x ), you will find that it does not intersect the x-axis. The
equation q( x ) = 0 has no solution in the real numbers, and it cannot be factorised (or
factored) over the reals. Such a polynomial is said to be irreducible over the reals. In
order to solve this equation, we need to define the complex numbers.
8
8.5.2 Complex numbers: a formal approach
To start with, let’s formally construct the complex numbers from the real numbers.
This is where we can finally answer the question from Section 3.10 of what the
difference between C (which makes sense) and E (which doesn’t exist) is. The formal
construction this time is rather similar to the usual way you think about the complex
numbers (in contrast to the formal construction of Z we gave, which probably still
looks a bit funny).
We define the set C of complex numbers to be the set of all ordered pairs ( x, y) of real
numbers, with addition and multiplication operations defined as follows:
( a, b) + (c, d) = ( a + c, b + d), ( a, b) × (c, d) = ( ac − bd, ad + bc).

You should check that these definitions really work, that is, that (for example) the
multiplication is commutative, and that the distributive law holds. More generally,
you should check that C satisfies (F1)–(F6), i.e. it is a field: we can do all the algebra
we’re used to. (What C doesn’t have is an order: there isn’t any way of defining an
order < on C which plays nicely with addition and multiplication in the way that the
order plays nicely in N, Z, Q or R.)
You can also check that the complex numbers of the form ( x, 0) behave like the real
numbers, in other words that ( x, 0) + (y, 0) = ( x + y, 0), and ( x, 0) × (y, 0) = ( xy, 0),

153
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

which is what you expect for adding and multiplying real numbers. Finally, let’s
remember why we began this: we wanted to be able to solve the equation x2 + 1 = 0.
Well, that means we want a complex number ( a, b) such that
( a, b) × ( a, b) + (1, 0) = (0, 0). And we can find such a number:
(0, 1) × (0, 1) = (−1, 0), so we are done.
This is where the construction story stops, for us. We have constructed a field C
which contains the number line and in which we can solve x2 + 1 = 0. Let’s look back
to Section 3.10 briefly. There, we asked whether one can have a number system E
which satisfies (some of) the properties of a field and in which we can solve
x × 0 = 1. And we discovered that the answer is No. We proved that the answer is
No, by doing a calculation using the properties of this supposed-to-exist E, until we
came to a logical contradiction: we calculated that 1 = 1 + 1, but we also proved that
1 6= 1 + 1. And then came the question: why are the complex numbers different? Why
is it OK to ask for a solution to x2 + 1 = 0 but not to x × 0 = 1? More concretely: we
know that E doesn’t make sense—it doesn’t exist—but how do we know that if we
do some calculation with the complex numbers using the normal rules of
algebra—i.e. using the axioms of a field, (F1)–(F6)—we will not wind up calculating
something like that 1 = 1 + 1?
Well, suppose we came upon such a horrible calculation which shows 1 = 1 + 1 (i.e.
which finds a logical contradiction assuming the complex numbers exist). Now, this
calculation relies on the fact that C satisfies (F1)–(F6). And we proved that C satisfies
these, on the assumption that R satisfies them. (Well, actually, we didn’t really do this
proof; I simply told you to check it. But I assume you have done that by now.)
So we can rewrite our horrible calculation in terms of pairs of real numbers: and now
we have a logical contradiction which follows from our assumption that R exists. But
8 we constructed (OK, OK, we did not do that, but at least I promise we could do it..!)
the real numbers R from Q—and that means we can rewrite our horrible calculation
in terms of the rationals Q. Now we have a logical contradiction which follows from
our assumption that Q exists.
But we constructed Q from Z—and following that construction back we have a
logical contradiction which follows from our assumption that Z exists. And finally
we constructed Z from N, so we can follow that construction back too—rewriting all
the integers as equivalence classes of pairs of natural numbers—until finally our
hypothetical horrible calculation in C has been translated into a logical contradiction
in the natural numbers, using only the axioms of the natural numbers. And we said
we believe the natural numbers really do exist, that there are no logical contradictions
there.
Let’s be clear—you would not want to ever actually rewrite a calculation like this. A
complex number is a pair of real numbers, a real number is a set of rational numbers
(a Dedekind cut), a rational number is an equivalence class of pairs of integers, and
an integer is an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbers. So a complex number is
a pair of (sets of (equivalence classes of pairs of (equivalence classes of pairs of
natural numbers)))
which is a pretty unpleasant thing to think about. But you don’t actually have to
rewrite a calculation. We proved each step works, and it follows logically that if there

154
8.5. Complex numbers

is a logical contradiction which you can find by doing algebra with the complex
numbers using axioms (F1)–(F6), then there is a logical contradiction which you can
find in the natural numbers using the axioms of the natural numbers.1
Putting this more simply: if someone tells you they think the complex numbers don’t
make sense, you can now tell them that they logically also have to believe that
counting apples doesn’t work either.
Now, it is usual to say that the real numbers are contained in the complex numbers:
( a, 0) ‘is’ the real number a.
You should notice that (if you are trying to be very formal) the last statement isn’t
quite true. ( a, 0) is obviously not the same as the real number a. However, because the
numbers ( a, 0) behave exactly like the real numbers, we will commit an abuse of
notation and say that they are the same. So we will write N ⊂ Z ⊂ Q ⊂ R ⊂ C, even
though formally this is not really true. If you ask me what I really mean by N ⊂ C,
I’ll tell you that I want to refer to the set of complex numbers of the form ( a, 0) where
a is a positive integer. And that set, together with addition and multiplication as
defined on the complex numbers (and I should define an order <, which I can do in
the obvious way) indeed satisfies the axioms for the natural numbers. So it might not
formally be the set N which I started with, but it’s essentially the same; there is a
dictionary correspondence between them (as we proved in Section 3.9). The same is
true for all the other inclusions.
At this point we are going to stop trying to be formally careful. We’ve proved that
given N it makes sense to talk about Z, Q, R and C, and we’ve seen why it makes
sense to say that (for example) Q is contained in C. For the rest of your degree course,
you don’t have to remember the details of these constructions: you know they work,
and that’s enough. However, you should not forget the ideas, in particular the idea of
constructing new structures using equivalence relations and old structures. You’ll see 8
those ideas repeatedly, and next time they’ll be used to construct something you are
not so familiar with and have to work to understand.

8.5.3 Complex numbers: a more usual approach

Rather than the ordered pairs approach outlined above, it is more common to define
the complex numbers as follows. We begin by defining the imaginary number i which
has the property that i2 = −1. The term ‘imaginary’ is historical, and not an
indication that this is a figment of someone’s imagination—but historically the reason
for the name is that (before all these constructions were invented) some
mathematicians didn’t believe the complex numbers make sense: ‘imaginary’ is a
term of Descartes, and he meant it as an attack on the idea.
This symbol i is simply a nicer way of writing the pair (0, 1) of real numbers; it’s
easier to write on the board in calculations (in the same way that it’s easier to write ba
for the rational rather than the equivalence class [( a, b)] R of the relation R we defined
in Section 8.2.1). We can then say what we mean by the complex numbers.
1 I’mcheating here—we also used sets, and we didn’t justify that these sets make sense. But at least
according to the ZFC axioms, they do—in any case, we get back from a contradiction in the complex
numbers to a contradiction in something fundamental: natural numbers and sets.

155
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Definition 8.3 A complex number is a number of the form z = a + ib, where a and b
are real numbers, and i2 = −1. The set of all such numbers is
C = { a + ib : a, b ∈ R} .

If z = a + ib is a complex number, then the real number a is known as the real part of
z, denoted Re(z), and the real number b is the imaginary part of z, denoted Im(z).
Note that Im(z) is a real number.
If b = 0, then z is a real number, so R ⊆ C. If a = 0, then z is said to be purely
imaginary.
The quadratic polynomial q(z) = x2 + x + 1 can be factorised over the complex
numbers, because the equation q(z) = 0 has two complex solutions. Solving in the
usual way, we have √
−1 ± −3
x= .
2
√ p √ √ √
We write, −3 = (−1)3 = −1 3 = i 3, so that the solutions are
√ √
1 3 1 3
w = − +i and w = − −i .
2 2 2 2
Notice the form of these two solutions. They are what is called a conjugate pair. We
have the following definition.
Definition 8.4 If z = a + ib is a complex number, then the complex conjugate of z is
the complex number z = a − ib.

We can see by the application of the quadratic formula, that the roots of an
8 irreducible quadratic polynomial with real coefficients will always be a conjugate
pair of complex numbers.

Addition, multiplication, division

Addition and multiplication of complex numbers are defined as for polynomials in i

using i2 = −1.

Example 8.4 If z = (1 + i ) and w = (4 − 2i ) then

z + w = (1 + i ) + (4 − 2i ) = (1 + 4) + i (1 − 2) = 5 − i

and
zw = (1 + i )(4 − 2i ) = 4 + 4i − 2i − 2i2 = 6 + 2i

You should check that this is really exactly the same as the definitions we gave when
we formally constructed the complex numbers: the only difference is the way we’re
writing complex numbers.
If z ∈ C, then zz is a real number:
zz = ( a + ib)( a − ib) = a2 + b2 .

156
8.5. Complex numbers

Activity 8.6 Carry out the multiplication to verify this: let z = a + ib and
calculate zz.

z zw
Division of complex numbers is then defined by = since ww is real.
w ww
Example 8.5
1+i (1 + i )(4 + 2i ) 2 + 6i 1 3
= = = + i
4 − 2i (4 − 2i )(4 + 2i ) 16 + 4 10 10

Properties of the complex conjugate

A complex number is real if and only if z = z. Indeed, if z = a + ib, then z = z if and

only if b = 0.
The complex conjugate of a complex number satisfies the following properties:

z + z = 2 Re(z) is real

z − z = 2i Im(z) is purely imaginary

z=z

z+w = z+w

zw = z w
z
=
z 8
w w

Activity 8.7 Let z = a + ib, w = c + id and verify all of the above properties.

8.5.4 Roots of polynomials

Are we really done with construction? We invented the symbol i because we wanted
to have a solution to x2 + 1 = 0. But I also want a solution to x6 + 10x2 + 17 = 0. Do I
need a new symbol for that? It turns out the answer is No.
The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra asserts that a polynomial of degree n with
complex coefficients has n complex roots (not necessarily distinct), and can therefore
be factorised into n linear factors. Explicitly, any equation

a n z n + a n −1 z n −1 + · · · + a 1 z + a 0 = 0

where ai ∈ C has n solutions z ∈ C. Contrast this with the difficulty of solving

polynomial equations in R. So, the introduction of i enables us to solve all
polynomial equations: there’s no need to introduce anything else. A fancy way of
saying this is: ‘The field of complex numbers is algebraically closed.’
If the coefficients of the polynomial are restricted to real numbers, the polynomial can
be factorised into a product of linear and irreducible quadratic factors over R and

157
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

into a product of linear factors over C. The proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
is beyond the scope of this course (and this time not because it’s long and boring, but
because it is genuinely quite hard). However, we note the following useful result.
Theorem 8.5 Complex roots of polynomials with real coefficients appear in
conjugate pairs.

Proof. Let P( x ) = a0 + a1 x + · · · + an x n , ai ∈ R, be a polynomial of degree n. We

shall show that if z is a root of P( x ), then so is z.
Let z be a complex number such that P(z) = 0, then

a0 + a1 z + + a2 z2 · · · + a n z n = 0

Conjugating both sides of this equation,

a0 + a1 z + a2 z2 + · · · + a n z n = 0 = 0

Since 0 is a real number, it is equal to its complex conjugate. We now use the
properties of the complex conjugate: that the complex conjugate of the sum is the sum
of the conjugates, and the same is true for the product of complex numbers. We have

a0 + a1 z + a2 z2 + · · · + an zn = 0,

and
a0 + a1 z + a2 z2 + · · · + an zn = 0.
Since the coefficients ai are real numbers, this becomes

8 a0 + a1 z + a2 z2 + · · · + an zn = 0.

That is, P(z) = 0, so the number z is also a root of P( x ).

Example 8.6 Let us consider the polynomial

x3 − 2x2 − 2x − 3 = ( x − 3)( x2 + x + 1).

√
1 3
If w = − + i , then
2 2

x3 − 2x2 − 2x − 3 = ( x − 3)( x − w)( x − w)

Activity 8.8 Multiply out the last two factors above to check that their product is
the irreducible quadratic x2 + x + 1.

8.5.5 The complex plane

The following theorem shows that a complex number is uniquely determined by its
real and imaginary parts.

158
8.5. Complex numbers

Theorem 8.6 Two complex numbers are equal if and only if their real and
imaginary parts are equal.

There are two ways to prove this. We can do it directly, using the fact that the
complex numbers are a field:
Proof. Two complex numbers with the same real parts and the same imaginary parts
are clearly the same complex number, so we only need to prove this statement in one
direction. Let z = a + ib and w = c + id. If z = w, we will show that their real and
imaginary parts are equal. We have a + ib = c + id, therefore a − c = i (d − b).
Squaring both sides, we obtain ( a − c)2 = i2 (d − b)2 = −(d − b)2 . But a − c and
(d − b) are real numbers, so their squares are non-negative. The only way this
equality can hold is for a − c = d − b = 0. That is, a = c and b = d.

The other, much shorter (by now!) way to prove this is simply to observe that the
complex numbers are the same as pairs of real numbers (with addition and
multiplication as we defined them when we formally constructed the complex
numbers) and pairs of real numbers are by definition equal if and only if both
parts—which are precisely the real and imaginary parts—are equal.
As a result of this theorem, we can think of the complex numbers geometrically, as
points in a plane. For, we can associate the vector ( a, b) T uniquely to each complex
number z = a + ib, and all the properties of a two-dimensional real vector space
apply. A complex number z = a + ib is represented as a point ( a, b) in the complex
plane; we draw two axes, a horizontal axis to represent the real parts of complex
numbers, and a vertical axis to represent the imaginary parts of complex numbers.
Points on the horizontal axis represent real numbers, and points on the vertical axis
represent purely imaginary numbers. 8
( a, b)

7
z = a + ib

i


θ
(0, 0) 1

Complex plane or Argand diagram

√
Activity 8.9 Plot z = 2 + 2i and w = 1 − i 3 in the complex plane.

8.5.6 Polar form of z

If the complex number z = a + ib is plotted as a point ( a, b) in the complex plane,
then we can determine the polar coordinates of this point. We have

a = r cos θ, b = r sin θ

159
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

√
where r = a2 + b2 is the length of the line joining the origin to the point ( a, b) and θ
is the angle measured anticlockwise from the real (horizontal) axis to the line joining
the origin to the point ( a, b). Then we can write z = a + ib = r cos θ + i r sin θ.
Definition 8.5 The polar form of the complex number z is

z = r (cos θ + i sin θ ).
√
The length r = a2 + b2 is called the modulus of z, denoted |z|, and the angle θ is
called the argument of z.

Note the following properties:

z and z are reflections in the real axis. If θ is the argument of z, then −θ is the
argument of z.

|z|2 = zz.
θ and θ + 2nπ give the same complex number.
We define the principal argument of z to be the argument in the range, −π < θ ≤ π.

√
Activity 8.10 Express z = 2 + 2i, w = 1 − i 3 in polar form.
Describe the following sets of z: (a) |z| = 3, (b) argument of z is π4 .

Multiplication and division using polar coordinates gives

8 zw = r (cos θ + i sin θ ) · ρ(cos φ + i sin φ)

= rρ(cos(θ + φ) + i sin(θ + φ))

z r
= cos(θ − φ) + i sin(θ − φ)
w ρ

Activity 8.11 Show these by performing the multiplication and the division as
defined earlier, and by using the facts that cos(θ + φ) = cos θ cos φ − sin θ sin φ
and sin(θ + φ) = sin θ cos φ + cos θ sin φ.

DeMoivre’s Theorem

We can consider explictly a special case of the multiplication result above, in which
w = z. If we apply the multiplication to z2 = zz, we have

z2 = zz
= (r (cos θ + i sin θ ))(r (cos θ + i sin θ ))
= r2 (cos2 θ + i2 sin2 θ + 2i sin θ cos θ )
= r2 (cos2 θ − sin2 θ + 2i sin θ cos θ )
= r2 (cos 2θ + i sin 2θ ).

160
8.5. Complex numbers

Here we have used the double angle formulae for cos 2θ and sin 2θ.
Applying the product rule n times, where n is a positive integer, we obtain DeMoivre’s
Formula
Theorem 8.7
(cos θ + i sin θ )n = cos nθ + i sin nθ

Proof.
n
zn = z| ·{z
· · }z = r (cos θ + i sin θ )
n times

n
= r cos(θ| + ·{z
· · + θ}) + i sin(θ| + ·{z
· · + θ})
n times n times

8.5.7 Exponential form of z

Functions of complex numbers can be defined by the power series (Taylor
expansions) of the functions:
z2 z3
ez = 1 + z + + +··· z∈C
2! 3!

z3 z5 z2 z4
sin z = z − + − · · ·
3! 5!
cos z = 1 − + − · · ·
2! 4! 8
If we use the expansion for ez to expand eiθ , and then factor out the real and
imaginary parts, we find:
(iθ )2 (iθ )3 (iθ )4 (iθ )5
eiθ = 1 + (iθ ) + + + + +···
2! 3! 4! 5!
θ2 θ3 θ4 θ5
= 1 + iθ − − i + + i − · · ·
2! 3! 4! 5!

θ 2 θ 4
θ3 θ5

= 1− + −··· +i θ − + −···
2! 4! 3 5!

From which we conclude:

Euler’s Formula: eiθ = cos θ + i sin θ

If you’re being careful, you might notice something a bit strange here—what exactly
do I mean by these funny infinite sums? and why am I allowed to rearrange the terms
in them? Sure, I know addition is commutative, but that will only let me change
places of finitely many terms in the sum (which I don’t quite understand anyway),
and I still have infinitely many more thing which I need to change places. The answer
to that objection is: we’ll explain properly some of it next term, and some next year in
MA203 Real Analysis. For now, take it on faith that it does actually make sense.

161
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Definition 8.6 The exponential form of a complex number z = a + ib is

z = reiθ
where r = |z| is the modulus of z and θ is the argument of z.

In particular, the following equality is of note because it combines the numbers e, π

and i in a single expression: eiπ = −1.
If z = reiθ , then its complex conjugate is given by z = re−iθ . This is because, if
z = reiθ = r (cos θ + i sin θ ), then
z = r (cos θ − i sin θ ) = r (cos(−θ ) + i sin(−θ )) = re−iθ .

We can use either the exponential form, z = reiθ , or the standard form, z = a + ib,
according to the application or computation we are doing. For example, addition is
simplest in the form z = a + ib, but multiplication and division are simpler in
exponential form. To change a complex number between reiθ and a + ib, use Euler’s
formula and the complex plane (polar form).

Example 8.7 √
2π
ei = cos 2π
3 2π 1 3
3 + i sin 3 = − 2 + i 2 .
√ √ √ √
e2+i 3 = e2 ei 3 = e2 cos 3 + ie2 sin 3.

Activity 8.12 Write each of the following complex numbers in the form a + ib:
8
3π 3π 11π
e −1
π
ei 2 ei 2 ei 4 ei 3 e 1+ i

√ π √
Let z = 2 + 2i = 2 2 ei 4 and w = 1 − i 3 = 2e−i 3 , then
π
Example 8.8
√
w6 = (1 − i 3)6 = (2e−i 3 )6 = 26 e−i2π = 64
π

√ π √
zw = (2 2ei 4 )(2e−i 3 ) = 4 2e−i 12
π π

and √ 7π
z
= 2ei 12 .
w

Notice that in the above example we are using certain properties of the complex
exponential function, that if z, w ∈ C,
ez+w = ez ew and (ez )n = enz for n ∈ Z.
This last property is easily generalised to include the negative integers.

162
8.6. Learning outcomes

Example 8.9 Solve the equation z6 = −1 to find the 6th roots of −1.
Write z6 = (reiθ )6 = r6 ei6θ , −1 = eiπ = ei(π +2nπ )
Equating these two expressions, and using the fact that r is a real positive number,
we have
π 2nπ
r=1 6θ = π + 2nπ, θ = +
6 6
This will give the six complex roots by taking n = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Activity 8.13 Show this. Write down the six roots of −1 and show that any one
raised to the power 6 is equal to −1. Show that n = 6 gives the same root as n = 0.
Use this to factor the polynomial x6 + 1 into linear factors over the complex
numbers and into irreducible quadratics over the real numbers.

8.6 Learning outcomes

At the end of this chapter and the relevant reading, you should be able to:

demonstrate that you understand how the rational numbers can be formally
constructed by means of an equivalence relation and that addition and
multiplication of rational numbers can be defined as operations on the
equivalence classes

indicate that you know that a real number is rational if and only if it has an 8
infinitely repeating pattern in its decimal expansion

find the decimal expansion of a rational number

determine, in the form m/n, a rational number from its decimal expansion

prove that certain numbers are rational or irrational

demonstrate that you understand that there are rational numbers arbitrarily
close to any real number

state what it means to say that a set is countable or uncountable

demonstrate that you know that the rationals are countable and the reals
uncountable

show that you know what is meant by complex numbers, and demonstrate that
you can add, subtract, multiply and divide complex numbers

state the definition of the complex conjugate of a complex number

show that you know that every polynomial of degree n has n complex roots and
that these occur in conjugate pairs

indicate complex numbers on the complex plane

163
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

determine the polar and exponential form of complex numbers

state and use DeMoivre’s theorem and Euler’s formula

8.7 Sample exercises

Exercise 8.1
√
Prove that 5 is irrational.

Exercise 8.2
1 + 2i
Express the complex number in the form a + bi.
4 − 5i

Exercise 8.3
Solve the equation x2 − 2ix + 3 = 0.

Exercise 8.4
Write each of the following complex numbers in the form a + ib:
3π 3π 11π
e −1 .
π
ei 2 ei 2 ei 4 ei 3 e 1+ i

Exercise 8.5
√ √
Express 1 + 3i in exponential form. Hence find (1 + 3i )30 .

8 8.8 Comments on selected activities

Learning activity 8.1 Suppose that
a a0 c c0
= 0 and = 0 .
b b d d
What we need to check is that
a c a0 c0
× = 0 × 0.
b d b d
a a0
Now, the fact that = 0 means precisely that [( a, b)] = [( a0 , b0 )], which means that
b b
ab0 = a0 b. Similarly, we have cd0 = c0 d. Now,
a c ac a0 c0 a0 c0
× = , and 0 × 0 = 0 0
b d bd b d bd
and so we need to prove that
ac a0 c0
= 0 0.
bd bd
This means we need to prove that
[( ac, bd)] R [( a0 c0 , b0 d0 )].

164
8.8. Comments on selected activities

Now,

[( ac, bd)] R [( a0 c0 , b0 d0 )] ⇐⇒ acb0 d0 = a0 c0 bd

⇐⇒ ( ab0 )(cd0 ) = ( a0 b)(c0 d),

which is true because ab0 = a0 b and cd0 = c0 d.

√
Learning activity 8.3 The obvious thing to do is to try mimicking the proof that 2 is
irrational. So let’s try. Suppose for a contradiction that there are integers a and b such
2
that ba = n. As before, we can assume gcd( a, b) = 1. We get

a2 = nb2

and it follows that a2 is divisible by n. But it doesn’t follow that a is divisible by n, in

general (It is true, by Theorem 6.7, if n is prime; but for example 62 = 36 is divisible
by 18, but 6 is certainly not divisible by 18). In order to get further, it helps to think
about the prime factorisation of n.
Learning activity 8.5 This isn’t easy. Maybe the best way to do the problem is to make
it more abstract, and split it up into a bunch of building-blocks. Here is one way.
Fact 1: Suppose S and T are countable sets. Then the product S × T is countable.
We saw how to prove this for the example S = T = N. To do general S and T,
imagine writing out the same table, but instead of writing (for instance) (1, 2) write
(s1 , t2 ) where s1 is the first element of S and t2 is the second element of T (in both
cases, according to the bijections which show S and T are countable).
Fact 2: Suppose Si is a countable set for each i ∈ N. Then the union S1 ∪ S2 ∪ . . . is
countable. 8
This is basically the same idea. Write out the same table, but replace for instance (5, 7)
with the 5th element of S7 ; in general, replace ( a, b) with the ath element of Sb .
Now we can do the proof. We need one more fact: an equation
an x n + · · · + a1 x + a0 = 0, where not all the ai are zero, has at most n different
solutions. Think about why this is!
There are countably many equations a1 x + a0 = 0 (because Z2 is countable, by Fact
1). Each has (at most) one solution (a rational number x). So (by counting through
such equations and skipping over rational numbers we counted earlier) we see
(again) that the rational numbers are countable.
There are countably many equations a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 = 0 (because Z3 is countable, by
Fact 1). Each has at most two solutions. So (by counting through such equations, and
for each equation its at most two solutions, and skipping over solutions we counted
earlier) we see that there are countably many numbers which are solutions to some
equation a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 = 0 where the ai are integers, not all zero.
And we can repeat this argument: for each n there are countably many numbers
which are solutions to some equation an x n + · · · + a1 x + a0 = 0 where the ai are
integers and not all zero.
And finally, by Fact 2, the union of all these sets of solutions is also countable—and
that union is by definition all the algebraic numbers.

165
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Learning activity 8.8 We have

( x − w)( x − w) = x2 − (w + w) x + ww.

Now, w + w = 2 Re(w) = 2(− 12 ) and ww = 1

4 + 34 so the product of the last two
factors is x2 + x + 1.
Learning activity 8.9

2i • z = 2 + 2i

(0, 0) 1 2
−i
√
• w = 1−i 3
−2i

Learning activity 8.10 Draw the line from √ the originπto the point z in the diagram
above. Do the same for w. For z, |z| = 2 2 and θ = 4 , so
√
z = 2 2 cos( π4 ) + i sin( π4 ) . The modulus of w is |w| = 2 and the argument is − π3 ,
so that
π π π π
w = 2 cos(− ) + i sin(− ) = 2 cos( ) − i sin( ) .
8 3 3 3 3
The set (a) |z| = 3, is the circle of radius 3 centered at the origin. The set (b), argument
of z is π4 , is the half line from the origin through the point (1,1).
Learning activity 8.13 The roots are:
π 3π 5π
z1 = 1 · e i 6 , z2 = 1 · e i 6 , z3 = 1 · e i 6 ,
7π 9π 11π
z4 = 1 · e i 6 , z5 = 1 · e i 6 , z6 = 1 · e i 6 .
i 13π i π6
These roots are in conjugate pairs, and e 6 =e :
5π
z4 = z3 = e −i 6 , z5 = z2 = e −i 2 , z6 = z1 = e −i 6 .
π π

The polynomial factors as

x6 + 1 = ( x − z1 )( x − z1 )( x − z2 )( x − z2 )( x − z3 )( x − z3 ),
√
Using the a + ib form of each complex number, for example, z1 = 23 + i 21 , you can
carry out the multiplication of the linear terms pairwise (conjugate pairs) to obtain
x6 + 1 as a product of irreducible quadratics with real coefficients:
√ √
x6 + 1 = ( x2 − 3 x + 1)( x2 + 3 x + 1)( x2 + 1).

166
8.9. Solutions to exercises

8.9 Solutions to exercises

Solution to exercise
√ 8.1 √
Suppose we have 5 = m/n where m, n ∈ Z. Since 5 > 0, we may assume that
m, n > 0. (Otherwise, both are negative, and we can multiply each by −1.) We can also
suppose that m, n have greatest common divisor 1. (For, we can cancel any common
factors.) Then (m/n)2 = 5 means that m2 = 5n2 . So 5 | m2 . Now m can, by the
Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, be written as a product of primes m = p1 p2 . . . pk .
Then m2 = p21 p22 . . . p2k . If no pi is 5, then 5 does not appear as a factor in m2 and so 5
does not divide m2 . So some pi is equal to 5. So 5 | m. Now, this means that m = 5r for
some r ∈ N and hence m2 = (5r )2 = 25r2 and so 25r2 = 5n2 . Then, n2 = 5r2 , so 5 | n2 .
Arguing as before, 5 | n.√So 5 is a common factor if m and n, which contradicts
gcd(m, n) = 1. Hence 5 is not rational.

Solution to exercise 8.2

We have

1 + 2i 1 + 2i 4 + 5i
=
4 − 5i 4 − 5i 4 + 5i
(1 + 2i )(4 + 5i )
=
(4 − 5i )(4 + 5i )
4 + 8i + 5i + 10i2
=
16 − 25i2
−6 + 13i
=
41
6 13
= − + i.
41 41
8
You can check that this is the correct answer by calculating the product

6 13
− + i (4 − 5i )
41 41

and observing that the answer is 1 + 2i.

Solution to exercise 8.3

To solve the equation x2 − 2ix + 3 = 0, we could use the formula for the solutions of a
quadratic equation. Or we could note that the equation is equivalent to ( x − i )2 = −4, so
the solutions are given by x − i = 2i and x − i = −2i, so they are x = 3i and x = −i.

Solution to exercise 8.4

We have
1 1
eiπ/2 = i, ei3π/2 = −i, ei3π/4 = − √ + i √ ,
2 2
√
i (11π/3) −i (π/3) 1 3
e =e = −i , e1+i = e1 ei = e cos(1) + i e sin(1),
2 2
e−1 = e−1 + 0i is real, so already in the form a + ib.

167
8. Rational, real and complex numbers

Solution to exercise
√ 8.5
To express z = 1 + 3i in exponential form, we first note that
√ !
√ 1 3
1 + 3i = 2 + i
2 2

and this is r (cos θ + i sin θ ) when r = 2, θ = π/3. So z = 2eπi/3 . Then,

√ 30 30
30
(1 + 3i ) =z = 2e πi/3
= 230 e30πi/3 = 230 e10πi = 230 .

168