IT MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER to disprove something than to prove it, for to prove a theorem false, often all you need to do is provide a counterexample. ``Disproofs'' can be as simple as this:
Usually, however, counterexamples are not that easy to come
by. Frequently, you are not asked to disprove something, but are given
a statement and told to either prove or disprove it. A good general
strategy in such cases is to search for a proof, but use any
weaknesses in your proof strategy to search for counterexamples. Here
is an example of this technique. The definition we need here is this:
is defined to be the unique integer
such that, for
some
,
,
, and
. That is,
is the remainder when
is divided by
. Note that from
the definition it follows that
.
When asked to do things with pairs of objects, it is often possible to
simplify the relationship between the two numbers to help with the
proof. In this case, we can assume without loss of
generality, because if
, we can swap
and
and get the
same equation -- we are taking advantage of the problem's symmetry. We must be careful not to forget the third case, however,
that
. This turns out to be the chink in our proof that leads
to a counterexample, but for right now let's plow ahead regardless.
First assume . Then
(from the definition
above, with
and
). But
, from our
observation above that
is always less than
. Hence
for any values of
or
. By switching
around
and
, we get a similar proof for the case
.
But now we try to prove the theorem for the case . And here we
run into problems, because
if
, and
if
, so then
,
disproving the theorem. Here's the disproof:
Disproof: The theorem is false: if , for instance, then
.
In the process of finding this counterexample, though,
we found out something more than was asked for: we know exactly
those conditions that make
. Thus we are
able to prove a modified version of the theorem.
Proof: