Edexcel A-Level Mathematics A2 P4.1 Proof Questions
Practise contradiction arguments for integers, inequalities and curves, using algebra to expose an impossible conclusion.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2019
- Course
- Mathematics YMA01
- Level
- A2
Practise contradiction arguments for integers, inequalities and curves, using algebra to expose an impossible conclusion.
Prove by contradiction that for all positive numbers k
Assume that there exists a positive number k such that k+k9<6.
k+k9<6⇒k2+9<6k⇒k2−6k+9<0(k−3)2<0
But numbers squared are ≥0, hence k+k9≥6.
A1*
Use proof by contradiction to prove that the curve with equation
does not intersect the curve with equation
where A and B are the constants found in part (a).
(Solutions relying on calculator technology are not acceptable.)
Assume the curves meet:
8x−215x2+8=16−8x+2x2+24x30=8−16x+8x2+24x3=8(x−1)2+24x3
For 0<x<38,
8(x−1)2≥0,24x3>0
so
8(x−1)2+24x3>0
This contradicts the equation 0=8(x−1)2+24x3, so the curves do not meet.
(4)
A student was asked to prove, for p∈N, that
"if p3 is a multiple of 3, then p must be a multiple of 3 "
The start of the student's proof by contradiction is shown in the box below.
Assumption:
There exists a number p,p∈N, such that p3 is a multiple of 3, and p is NOT a multiple of 3
Let p=3k+1,k∈N.
Show the calculations and statements that are required to complete the proof.
Let p=3 k+2 then (3k+2)3=27k3+54k2+36k+8=3×(9k3+18k2+12k+3)−1 not a multiple of 3
So p cannot be of form 3 k+1 or 3 k+2, since p3 is a multiple of 3. Hence
p must be a multiple of 3, a contradiction of our assumption, hence for all
integers p, when p3 is a multiple of 3, then p is a multiple of 3
(3)
Hence prove, by contradiction, that 33 is an irrational number.
Assumption: there exist (integers) p and q such that 33=qp
(where p and q have no (non-trivial) common factors.)
Then 33=qp⇒p3=3q3
So p3 is a multiple of 3 and (so) p is a multiple of 3
But p=3k⇒27k3=3q3⇒q3=9k3
Hence q3 is a multiple of 3 so q is a multiple of 3, but as p and q have no
(non-trivial) common factors, this is a contradiction.
Hence 33 is an irrational number.*
A1*
(5)
(8 marks)
Notes:
(a)
M1: Attempts to expand (3k+2)3 or (3k−1)3.
Look for a cubic expression with 4 terms with at least two correct (allowing for incorrect signs).
A1: Achieves a correct 3×(…)+r,∣r∣<10 form for the expansion and states not a multiple of 3.
Suitable forms include (3k+2)3=3(9k3+18k2+12k+2)+2=3(9k3+18k2+12k+3)−1 or 3(9k3+18k2+12k)+8 or (3k−1)3=3(9k3−9k2+3k)−1 etc.
Alternatively, achieves correct (3k+2)3=27k3+54k2+36k+8 or (3k−1)3=27k3−27k2+9k−1 with a reason why it is not a multiple of 3 e.g 3 divides 27, 54 and 36, but not 8 hence not divisible by 3.
A1: Completes the proof. Must have scored both previous marks and a reference to both cases (in some form) leading to a "contradiction" and some indication that proof is complete. It is unlikely to be as complete as that shown in the scheme, but all three bold points must be conveyed. E.g. as a minimum after satisfying the first A "both cases give a contradiction hence the original statement is true".
(b)
May use different letters throughout.
B1: Sets up algebraically the initial statement to be contradicted. Essentially for showing they know what a rational number is algebraically. There is no requirement for this mark to state that p and q are integers with no (non-trivial) common factors (this may be implied for this mark).
M1: Cubes correctly and multiplies through by q3
A1: Deduces that both p3 is a multiple of 3 and hence p is a multiple of 3. Jumping directly to p is a multiple of 3 is A0.
dM 1: Sets p=3 k and proceeds to find q3 in terms of k. (May use a different letter.)
A1: Completes the proof. This requires
- Correct algebraic statements
- Correct deductions in correct order. E.g. p3 is a multiple of 3 so p is a multiple of 3
- initial statement must have included that p and q are integers (or accept natural numbers or a qp is a fraction) and have no common factors (or are co-prime, or in simplest form)
- correct reason for contradiction and acceptable conclusion
- There must have been no contrary statements during the proof (e.g. that p and q are prime)