Having hard time understanding proofs by contradiction.

Question

I am reading an introductory book on mathematical proofs and I don't seem to understand the mechanics of proof by contradiction. Consider the following example.

$\textbf{Theorem:}$ If $P \rightarrow Q$ and $R \rightarrow \neg Q$, then $P \rightarrow \neg R$.

$\textbf{Proof:}$ (by contradiction) Assume $P$, then it follows that $Q$. Now, assume $R$, then it follows that $\neg Q$. Contradiction, we have $Q$ and $\neg Q$ at the same time. Hence, $\neg R$. Therefore, if $P \rightarrow Q$ and $R \rightarrow \neg Q$, then $P \rightarrow \neg R$, as desired.

What I don't understand in this proof, is that why having arrived at contradiction, we decide that our assumption that $R$ is necessarily false? It also could have been that our first assumption, namely, $P$, was false. Or both of them could be false.

So my question is: in general, when proving by contradiction, how do we know which assumption exactly is false? And how do we know that exactly one assumption must be wrong in order to proceed with the proof?

Answer 1

In a proof with multiple assumptions you have to choose one of them to be "blamed" for the contradiction.

Think to your example in terms of assumptions; you start with a couple of them (they can be two Lemmas already proved, or two hypotheses) :

$P→Q$ and $R→¬Q$.

Then we proceed "formally" as follows (I'll use the Natural Deduction proof system; for a good explanation of the rules to be used, see : Ian Chiswell & Wilfrid Hodges, Mathematical Logic (2007), Ch.2 : Informal natural deduction, page 5-on) :

1) $P$ --- assumed

2) $Q$ --- from 1) and $P→Q$ by $\rightarrow$-elim (modus ponens)

3) $R$ --- assumed

4) $\lnot Q$ --- from 3) and $R→¬Q$ by $\rightarrow$-elim (modus ponens)

5) $\bot$ --- from 2) and 4) by $\lnot$-elim [i.e. using the rule : "from $\varphi$ and $\lnot \varphi$, infer $\bot$]

6) $\lnot R$ --- from 3) and 5) by $\lnot$-intro [i.e. using the rule : "if from $\varphi$ we have derived $\bot$, then infer $\lnot \varphi$], "discharging" temporary assumption 3)

7) $P \rightarrow \lnot R$ --- from 1) and 6) by $\rightarrow$-intro, "discharging" temporary assumption 1).

Thus we have proved :

$P→Q, R→¬Q \vdash P \rightarrow \lnot R$.

---

As per the above answer, we can apply contraposition : $\varphi \rightarrow \lnot \psi \vdash \psi \rightarrow \lnot \varphi$ to conclude also :

$P→Q, R→¬Q \vdash R \rightarrow \lnot P$.

In the previous proof, we have chosen the assumptiom $R$ to be "blamed" for the contradiction. We can as well choose $P$.

If you rewrite it introducing $\lnot P$ in step 6) above, you will end exactly with : $R \rightarrow \lnot P$.

---

Comment

In order to "have a feeling" with the above application of logical rules, modify the above proof using a single assumption $P \land R$.

Due to the fact that :

$P \land R \vdash P$ and $P \land R \vdash R$ [by : $\land$-elim]

we can repeat the same steps until 5) : $\bot$.

In this case, we have only one assumption to be "blamed" : $P \land R$ and we conclude with :

$\lnot (P \land R)$.

This means that, in the presence of the two Lemmas or hypotheses : $P \rightarrow Q$ and $R \rightarrow \lnot Q$, we cannot "jointly assert" $P$ and $R$.

Thus, one of them must be "removed". Which one ? it's up to us ...

Answer 2

To answer It also could have been that our first assumption, namely, P, was false. Or both of them could be false: yes, it could, but if you assume P, then R must be false, what you write $P\rightarrow\neg R$. You could have concluded $R\rightarrow \neg P$, of course (and it's the contraposition), by assuming $R$ instead of $P$.

Notice that both of these implications are true, even if $P$ and $R$ are false. You do not know which is false, because none is false a priori. You assume one is true, and you conclude something about the other.

---

When you do that in practice, it's usually not a problem. Example, let's prove $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational, by contradiction.

So, we assume $\sqrt{2}$ is rational, and we will be led to something that is certainly wrong, hence the assumption is wrong.

Since $\sqrt{2}$ is assumed to be rational, we have $\sqrt{2}=\frac pq$ for some integers $p$, $q$ that have no common factor (otherwise, factor them out).

Hence $p^2=2q^2$, so $2$ divides $p$, and $p=2p'$, and you rewrite your equality $4p'\,^2=2q^2$, or $q^2=2p'\,^2$. But then $2$ divides also $q$. It's not possible, since $p$ and $q$ have no common factor.

Hence something must be wrong. What? The only thing we have assumed, that $\sqrt{2}$ is a rational number.

Answer 3

Note that you don`t want to prove or contradict $P$ or $R$ themselves. What you want to prove is the implication $P\rightarrow\neg R$. So you pick the assumption of this implication, in this case $P$, and use it for further argumentation.
Now you can start your argumentation with another assumption like $R$ or with anything else. Important difference: now you can look for contradictions.

Answer 4

In proving $A\rightarrow B$ by contradiction, you assume $\neg(A\rightarrow B)$. The negation of $A\rightarrow B$ is $A\wedge \neg B$ (the one false case of an implication).

In your case this means you get to assume $P\rightarrow Q$, $R\rightarrow \neg Q$, and $\neg(P\rightarrow \neg R)$. However $\neg(P\rightarrow \neg R)$ is equivalent to $P\wedge R$. So you get $P$, $R$, $P\rightarrow Q$ and $R\rightarrow\neg Q$.

From that you should be able to get your contradiction. (There are other ways of proving this problems as well.)

Answer 5

Let me give a brief and less formal explanation than the other answers.

If you start with a set of assumptions {A₁, A₂, ... A_n} and derive a contradiction, it proves that the set of assumptions is internally inconsistent (or as @J-Marcos phrased it, "jointly incompatible") -- i.e. they can't all be true.

So you can pick any one of the assumptions, let's say A_i, and conclude that on the basis of the other assumptions, A_i must be false.

Answer 6

Proofs by contradiction prove that your assumptions are jointly incompatible. In this case, from $P\to Q$ and $R\to\neg Q$ you may conclude that $P\uparrow R$, where $\uparrow$ denotes NAND. Note that $P\uparrow R$ is true iff $P$ and $R$ cannot be simultaneously true. Negation is a particular case of NAND, when a sentence is 'self-incompatible' (i.e., $S\equiv(S\uparrow S)$). When reasoning by contradiction, you have in general no reason to conclude that a single one of your assumptions is false (in other words, to conclude that its negation is true), unless you have reasons to maintain the truth of all the other assumptions (which appears not to be the case in the statement of your Theorem, where no reason is given for one to prefer $P$ over $R$).

Of course, $P\uparrow R$ is equivalent to $P\to\neg R$ and to $R\to\neg P$ (and to $\neg P\lor\neg R$), but I feel this facile observation does not tell the full story. Because many people seem not to be comfortable with a disjunctive conclusion such as $\neg P\lor\neg R$, they seem to prefer restating this as an implication.

Answer 7

So my question is: in general, when proving by contradiction, how do we know which assumption exactly is false? And how do we know that exactly one assumption must be wrong in order to proceed with the proof?

If you make more than one assumption and get a contradiction, you cannot without further argument know which assumption(s) is(are) false.

However IMHO the point (which I cannot see clearly stated in any previous answers) is that if you set up the problem carefully you need only make one assumption: namely, assume that the result as a whole is false. In this case, assume that

If $P\to Q$ and $R\to\neg Q$, then $P\to\neg R$

is false. By standard propositional logic equivalences, this means that

$P\to Q$ and $R\to\neg Q$ are both true, and $P\to\neg R$ is false,

that is,

$P\to Q$ and $R\to\neg Q$ are both true, and $P$ is true and $R$ is true.

From this you easily deduce that $Q$ is true and therefore $R$ is false; but $R$ is also true, which is a contradiction.

Therefore, the theorem as a whole cannot be false and must be true.

Answer 8

Great question. The answer is that, at that point in the proof, you're still assuming that $P$ is true. With the assumptions stated more prominently, the proof goes like this:

We are given that $P \to Q$ and that $R \to \neg Q$. Now we begin imagining that $P$ is true. Since $P$ is true and $P \to Q$, we know that $Q$ is true. Now we begin imagining that $R$ is true. Since $R$ is true and $R \to \neg Q$, we know that $\neg Q$ is true as well. So, $Q$ and $\neg Q$ are both true, which is a contradiction. Now we stop imagining that $R$ is true. Since assuming that $R$ is true leads to a contradiction, $R$ must be false. Now we stop imagining that $P$ is true. Since assuming that $P$ is true leads to the conclusion that $R$ is false, $P \to \neg R$.

Sure, either $P$ or $R$ could be false, and the other one true. Why do we say that $R$ is false instead of allowing the possibility that $P$ is false? Because we haven't yet stopped imagining that $P$ is true.

Answer 9

We are trying to prove that given $P \rightarrow Q$ and $R \rightarrow \neg Q$, we get $P \rightarrow \neg R$

The proof you describe derives a contradiction by assuming $P$ and $R$, so at least one of the assumptions have to be false.

You wonder why we have to select $R$ as the false assumption. We do not have to do so, but it does not matter. If $\neg P$ then $P\rightarrow \neg R$ is vacously true.

Answer 10

So my question is: in general, when proving by contradiction, how do we know which assumption exactly is false? And how do we know that exactly one assumption must be wrong in order to proceed with the proof?

If you look at a proof as an ordered (numbered) sequence of statements, the assumption that is negated by a contradiction is always the last assumption previously introduced that has yet to be discharged.