An Introduction to Proofs and the Mathematical

Vernacular Martin V. Day pdf available

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-proofs-and-the-
mathematical-vernacular-martin-v-day/

★★★★★
4.7 out of 5.0 (78 reviews )

Immediate PDF Access

textbookfull.com
 An Introduction to Proofs and the Mathematical Vernacular
Martin V. Day

TEXTBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 ACADEMIC EDITION – LIMITED RELEASE

Available Instantly Access Library

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

An Introduction to Mathematical Proofs 1st Edition

Nicholas A. Loehr

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-mathematical-
proofs-1st-edition-nicholas-a-loehr/

Map of the World An Introduction to Mathematical

Geodesy 1st Edition Martin Vermeer (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/map-of-the-world-an-
introduction-to-mathematical-geodesy-1st-edition-martin-vermeer-
author/

An Introduction To Decision Theory Martin Peterson

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-decision-
theory-martin-peterson/

Proofs and Refutations The Logic of Mathematical

Discovery Imre Lakatos

https://textbookfull.com/product/proofs-and-refutations-the-
logic-of-mathematical-discovery-imre-lakatos/
An Introduction to Radiation Protection, Seventh
Edition Alan Martin

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-radiation-
protection-seventh-edition-alan-martin/

An Introduction to Decision Theory 2nd Edition Martin

Peterson

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-decision-
theory-2nd-edition-martin-peterson/

An Introduction to Mathematical Relativity 1st Edition

Jose Natario

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-mathematical-
relativity-1st-edition-jose-natario/

An Introduction to the Languages of the World Second

Edition Anatole V. Lyovin

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-
languages-of-the-world-second-edition-anatole-v-lyovin/

Mathematical Reasoning Proofs MAT 1362 Fall 2017

Alistair Savage

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-reasoning-proofs-
mat-1362-fall-2017-alistair-savage/
 1
An Introduction to Proofs and the Mathematical Vernacular

Martin V. Day
Department of Mathematics
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
http://www.math.vt.edu/people/day/ProofsBook

Dedicated to the memory of my mother:

Coralyn S. Day, November 6, 1922 – May 13, 2008.

December 7, 2016

1
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United
States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ or
send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Contents

Preface: To the Student iii

1 Some Specimen Proofs 1

A Inequalities and Square Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.1 Absolute Value and the Triangle Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.2 Square Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A.3 Another Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B Some Spoofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C Proofs from Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C.1 Pythagoras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C.2 The Curry Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D From Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
E Irrational Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
F Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1 Simple Summation Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.2 Properties of Factorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2 Mathematical Language and Some Basic Proof Structures 24

A Basic Logical Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.1 Compounding Propositions: Not, And, Or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3 Negations of Or and And . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B Variables and Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.1 The Scope of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.3 Subtleties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.4 Negating Quantified Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
C Some Basic Types of Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C.1 Elementary Propositions and “And” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C.2 “Or” Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.3 Implications and “For all . . . ” Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C.4 Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C.5 Existence and Uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
C.6 Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.7 Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
D Some Advice for Writing Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
E Perspective: Proofs and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3 Sets and Functions 54

A Notation and Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B Basic Operations and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
C Product Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
D The Power Set of a Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

i
 E Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
F Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
G Cardinality of Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
G.1 Finite Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
G.2 Countable and Uncountable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
G.3 The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
H Perspective: The Strange World at the Foundations of Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
H.1 The Continuum Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
H.2 Russell’s Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4 The Integers 73
A Properties of the Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.1 Algebraic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.2 Properties of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.3 Comparison with Other Number Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
A.4 Further Properties of the Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.5 A Closer Look at the Well-Ordering Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
B Greatest Common Divisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
B.1 The Euclidean Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C Primes and the Fundamental Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
D The Integers Mod m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
E Axioms and Beyond: Gödel Crashes the Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5 Polynomials 93
A Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B Q[x] and the Rational Root Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
C R[x] and Descartes’ Rule of Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
D C[z] and The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
D.1 Some Properties of the Complex Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
D.2 The Fundamental Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

6 Determinants and Linear Algebra in Rn 110

A Permutations: σ ∈ Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
B The Sign of a Permutation: sgn(σ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
C Definition and Basic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
D Cofactors and Cramer’s Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
E Linear Independence and Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
F The Cayley-Hamilton Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendix: Mathematical Words 136

Appendix: The Greek Alphabet and Other Notation 138

Bibliography 139

Index 141

ii
Preface: To the Student

In the standard year (or two) of university calculus and differential equations courses you have learned a lot
of mathematical techniques for solving various types of problems. Along the way you were offered “proofs”
of many of the fundamental relationships and formulas (stated as “theorems”). Perhaps occasionally you
were asked to “show” or “prove” something yourself as a homework problem. For the most part, however,
you probably viewed the proofs as something to be endured in the lectures and skimmed over in the book.
The main emphasis of those courses was on learning how to use the techniques of calculus, and the proofs
may not have seemed very helpful for that.
Historically, techniques of calculation were the principal concern of mathematics. But as those techniques
became more complex, the concepts behind them became increasingly important. You are now at the stage
of your mathematical education where the focus of your studies shifts from techniques to ideas. The goal of
this book is to help you make the transition from being a mere user of mathematics to becoming conversant
in the language of mathematical discussion. This means learning to critically read and evaluate mathe-
matical statements and being able to write mathematical explanations in clear, logically precise language.
We will focus especially on mathematical proofs, which are nothing but carefully prepared expressions of
mathematical reasoning.
By focusing on how proofs work and how they are expressed we will be learning to think about math-
ematics as mathematicians do. This means learning the language and notation (symbols) which we use to
express our reasoning precisely. But writing a proof is always preceded by finding the logical argument that
the proof expresses, and that may involve some exploration and experimentation, trying various ideas, and
being creative. We will do some practicing with mathematics that is familiar to you, but it is important to
practice with material that you don’t already know as well, so that you can really have a try at the creative
exploration part of writing a proof. For that purpose I have tried to include some topics that you haven’t
seen before (and may not see elsewhere in the usual undergraduate curriculum). On the other hand I don’t
want this course to be divorced from what you have learned in your previous courses, so I also have tried
to include some problems that ask you to use your calculus background. Of course the book includes many
proofs which are meant to serve as examples as you learn to write your own proofs. But there are also some
which are more involved than anything you will be asked to do. Don’t tune these out — learning to read a
more complicated argument written by someone else is also a goal of this course.
Some consider mathematics to be a dry, cold (even painful) subject. It certainly is very difficult in places.
But it can also be exciting when we see ideas come together in unexpected ways, and see the creative ways
that great minds have exploited unseen connections between topics. To that end I have included a few
examples of really clever proofs of famous theorems. It is somewhat remarkable that a subject with such
high and objective standards of logical correctness should at the same time provide such opportunity for the
expression of playful genius. This is what attracts many people to the study of mathematics, particularly
those of us who have made it our life’s work. I hope this book communicates at least a little of that excitement
to you.

iii
 Observe that theorems, lemmas, and propositions are numbered consecutively within chapters. For in-
stance in Chapter 4 we find Theorem 4.6 followed by Lemma 4.9. Many theorems also have names (e.g. “The
Division Theorem”). You can locate them using the index. Definitions are not numbered, but are listed in
the index by topic. Problems are numbered within chapters similarly; for instance you will find Problem 2.8
in Chapter 2. The end of each problem statement is marked by a dotted line followed by a cryptic word in
a box, like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . whatever

The word in the box is of no significance to you; it is just a reminder for me of the computer file which
contains the text of the problem.
References are marked by a number in brackets like this: [9]. You can find the full reference for [9] in the
Bibliography at the back of the book. (This is the customary format for citing references in mathematics.)
Sometimes a page number or other information is included after the number to help you find the relevant
place in the reference, like [9, page 99].
It is unlikely that every problem in the book will be assigned. If a problem you are assigned refers to
another which was not assigned, you are not expected to work the unassigned problem, but can just take its
statement for granted and use it in your solution of the assigned problem. For instance, if you were assigned
Problem 4.16 (which asks you to use Problem 4.15), you are free to use the fact stated in Problem 4.15
whether or not it was assigned.
I want to thank the students of Math 3034, Spring 2008, who had to deal with the rather rough first
version of this book. A special thanks to those who took the time to give me constructive criticism and
suggestions: Aron Chun, Chelsey Cooper, Justin Cruz, Anna Darby, Victoria Dean, Mark McKinley, Drew
Nagy, David Richardson, Ryan Ritch, Diana Schoof, Samantha Simcik, Jennifer Soldan, John Stevens, Dean
Stevenson, and Kendra Valencia. Thanks also to Dawson Allen, Michele Block, Todd Gasparello, Micah
Hafich, Michael Overson, Kelsey Pope, Kehong Shi, Melissa Tilashalski, and Michael Wolf from Fall 2008 for
their comments and suggestions. Thanks also to William Gunther for correcting some misstatements about
the continuum hypothesis.
Martin Day, Blacksburg, VA

iv
Chapter 1

Some Specimen Proofs

This chapter begins our study of proofs by looking at numerous examples. In the next chapter we will try
to summarize the logic which underlies typical proofs and the special ways the English language is used
in precise mathematical discussion. This is the way most people learn a new language — learn to say a
few simple things first and after that start to learn the rules of grammar. But not everyone is comfortable
with this jumping–right–in approach. So if you want more up–front explanation, feel free to skip ahead to
Chapter 2 and read it now. In particular you might look at the chart on page 37 which catalogues some
basic types of proofs, and the advice for writing proofs on page 49. Consulting those as we work through
this chapter may be helpful.
Along with the proof specimens in this chapter we include a couple spoofs, by which we mean arguments
that seem like proofs on their surface, but which in fact come to false conclusions. The point of these is
that the style or language of an argument does not make it a proof; what matters is that its logic stands up
to close scrutiny. Learning to look past the language and critically examine the content of an argument is
important for both reading and writing proofs.
The mathematical topics in this chapter don’t fit together in any particular way, so don’t look for some
mathematical theme which connects them. Instead, you should view this chapter as a sampler of different
types of proofs. In fact, much of the material of this chapter will be familiar to you. As we discuss each
topic, ask yourself not whether you already know it, but whether you know why it is true. Could you write
a convincing justification of it to someone who is skeptical?

A Inequalities and Square Roots

A.1 Absolute Value and the Triangle Inequality
Our first examples are inequalities involving the absolute value. Before anything else, we need to be sure
everyone understands what the absolute value refers to. Here is its definition.
Definition. For a real number x, the absolute value of x is defined to be
(
x if x ≥ 0
|x| =
−x if x < 0.

This definition is doing two things. It is stating precisely what we mean by the words “the absolute
value of x” and it is announcing the notation “|x|” which is used to refer to it. (Don’t let the minus sign in
second line of the definition confuse you. In the case of x < 0 observe that |x| = −x is a positive value. For
instance, if x = −2 then −x = +2.)
Here is an elementary property of the absolute value.
Lemma 1.1. For every real number x, x ≤ |x|.

1
 We have called this a “lemma.” The words “lemma,” “theorem,” “proposition,” and “corollary” all refer
to a statement or announcement of a mathematical fact. You have seen theorems before. Later on1 we will
talk about how “lemma” is different from “theorem.” For now, just think of it as a sort of mini-theorem.
This particular lemma is saying that no matter what value of x you pick, if you compare the values of x and
|x| you will always find that |x| is at least as big as x. For instance, considering x = −3.227 the lemma is
telling us that −3.227 ≤ | − 3.227|. Or considering x = √12 , the lemma is telling us that √12 ≤ √12 . You
probably have no doubt that this lemma is true. The question for us is how we can write a proof of it. We
can’t check all possible values of x one at a time. We need to give reasons that apply simultaneously to all
x. Since the definition of |x| falls into two cases, it is natural to write a proof that provides reasons in two
cases; one line of reasoning that works if x ≥ 0 and a second line of reasoning that works if x < 0. Let’s talk
through these two lines of reasoning.
The first case we want to consider accounts for those x for which x ≥ 0. According to the definition
above, for these x we know |x| = x. So what we are trying prove is just that x ≤ x, which is certainly true.
The second case considers those x for which x < 0. In this case the definition says that |x| = −x. So
what we are trying to prove is that x < −x. What reasons can we give for this? For this case we know that
x < 0, and that implies (multiplying both sides by −1) that 0 < −x. So we can string the two inequalities

x<0 and 0 < −x

together to conclude that x < −x, just as we wanted.

Now we will write out the above reasoning as a proof of Lemma 1.1 in a typical style. Observe that the
beginning of our proof is announced with the italicized word “Proof ” and the end is marked with a small
box2 , so you know exactly where the proof starts and stops.
Proof. We give the proof in two cases.
Case 1: Suppose x ≥ 0. In this case, the definition of absolute value says that |x| = x. So the inequality
x ≤ |x| is equivalent to x ≤ x, which is true.

Case 2: Suppose x < 0. In this case, the definition of absolute value says that |x| = −x. Since x < 0, it
follows that 0 < −x, and therefore
x ≤ −x = |x|,
proving the lemma in this case as well.
Since the two cases exhaust all possibilities, this completes the proof.
Here is another property of the absolute value which everyone knows as the Triangle Inequality, stated
here as a theorem.

Theorem 1.2 (Triangle Inequality). For all real numbers a and b,

|a + b| ≤ |a| + |b|.

We can test what the theorem is saying by just picking some values for a and b.
Example 1.1.
• For a = 2, b = 5: |a + b| = 7, |a| + |b| = 7, and 7 ≤ 7 is true.
• For a = −6, b = 17/3: |a + b| = | − 1/3| = 1/3, |a| + |b| = 35/3, and 1/3 ≤ 35/3 is true.
• For a = −π, b = 1.4: |a + b| = 1.741595 . . ., |a| + |b| = 4.54159 . . ., and 1.741595 . . . ≤ 4.54159 . . . is
true.
1 See the footnote on page 25 and the description in Appendix: Mathematical Words.
2 Called a halmos, after Paul Halmos who initiated that convention.

2
 In each of these examples the inequality works out to be true, as the theorem promised it would. But
we have only checked three of the infinitely many possible choices of a and b. We want to write a proof that
covers all possible choices for a and b. There are several approaches we might follow in developing a proof.
One would be to consider all the possible ways the three absolute values in the triangle inequality could work
out. For instance if a ≥ 0, b < 0 and a + b < 0, then we could make the replacements

|a + b| = −(a + b), |a| = a, |b| = −b.

Then we would need to show that −(a + b) ≤ a − b, using the assumptions that a ≥ 0, b < 0, and a + b < 0.
We can develop a valid proof this way, but it would have many cases.
1: a ≥ 0, b ≥ 0.

2: a ≥ 0, b < 0, and a + b ≥ 0.
3: a ≥ 0, b < 0, and a + b < 0.
4: a < 0, b ≥ 0, and a + b ≥ 0.

5: a < 0, b ≥ 0, and a + b < 0.

6: a < 0, b < 0.
This would lead to a tedious proof. There is nothing wrong with that, but a more efficient argument will be
more pleasant to both read and write. We will produce a shorter proof using just two cases: Case 1 will be
for a + b ≥ 0 and Case 2 will account for a + b < 0.
As we think through how to write this (or any) proof, it is important to think about what our
reader will need in order to be convinced. Picture a reader who is another student in the class and
has followed everything so far, but is skeptical about the triangle inequality. They know the definition of
absolute value and have read our proof of Lemma 1.1 and so will accept its use as part of the proof. They
have seen our examples above but are thinking, “Well, how do I know there aren’t some other clever choices
of a and b for which |a + b| > |a| + |b|?” We expect the reader to to look for gaps or flaws in our proof but
can be confident they will agree with our reasoning when there is no logical alternative3 . Our proof needs
to be written to convince this reader.
With this reader in mind, lets think about Case 1. In that case |a + b| = a + b, so we need to provide
reasons to justify a + b ≤ |a| + |b|. But we can deduce that by adding the two inequalities

a ≤ |a|, b ≤ |b|,

both of which our reader will accept once we point out that these are just restatements of Lemma 1.1. What
about Case 2, in which |a + b| = −(a + b)? Since −(a + b) = (−a) + (−b), we can do something similar to
what we did above: add the two inequalities

−a ≤ |a|, −b ≤ |b|.

Now, what should we write to convince our skeptical reader of these? Using the fact that | − a| = |a| we
can point out to our reader that by Lemma 1.1 −a ≤ | − a| and therefore −a ≤ | − a| = |a|. Likewise for
−b ≤ |b|. We should ask ourselves whether our reader knows that | − a| = |a|. Well they probably do, but
we can’t be absolutely sure. There are always judgments like this to make about how much explanation to
include. (Ask yourself how much you would want written out if you were the skeptical reader.) We could
give them a proof that | − x| = |x| for all real numbers x. Or as a compromise, we can just put in a reminder
of this fact — that’s what we will do. Here then is our proof, written with these considerations in mind.
Proof. Consider any pair of real numbers a and b. We present the proof in two cases.
3 We must assume that our reader is rational and honest. If they are adamant in doubting the triangle inequality, even when

faced with irrefutable logic, there is nothing we can do to convince them.

3
Case 1: Suppose a + b ≥ 0. In this case |a + b| = a + b. Note that Lemma 1.1 implies that a ≤ |a| and
b ≤ |b|. Adding these two inequalities yields a + b ≤ |a| + |b|. Therefore we have

|a + b| = a + b ≤ |a| + |b|,

which proves the triangle inequality in this case.

Case 2: Suppose a + b < 0. In this case |a + b| = −a − b. Applying Lemma 1.1 with x = −a we know that
−a ≤ | − a|. But because | − a| = |a|, this implies that −a ≤ |a|. By the same reasoning, −b ≤ |b|.
Adding these two inequalities we deduce that −a − b ≤ |a| + |b| and therefore

|a + b| = −a − b ≤ |a| + |b|.

This proves the triangle inequality in the second case.

Since these cases exhaust all possibilities, this completes the proof.
The proofs above are simple examples of proofs by cases, described in the “For all x . . . ” row
of the table on page 37. We gave different arguments that worked under different circumstances (cases)
and every possibility fell under one of the cases. Our written proofs say the same things as our discussions
preceding it, but are more concise and easier to read.

Problem 1.1 Write out proofs of the following properties of the absolute value, using whatever cases seem
most natural to you.
a) |x| = | − x| for all real numbers x.
b) 0 ≤ |x| for all real numbers x.

c) |x|2 = x2 for all real numbers x.

d) |xy| = |x| |y| for all real numbers x and y.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . absv

Problem 1.2 At the top of page 3 a proof of the triangle inequality in six cases was contemplated. Write
out the proofs for cases 4, 5, and 6.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . trialt

Problem 1.3 Prove that for any two real numbers a and b,

||a| − |b|| ≤ |a − b|.

(There are four absolute values here; if you split each of them into two cases you would have 16 cases to
consider! You can do it with just two cases: whether |a| − |b| is positive or not. Then take advantage of
properties like the triangle inequality which we have already proven.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . absv3

Problem 1.4 For two real numbers a, b, the notation max(a, b) refers to the maximum of a and b, i.e. the
larger of the two: (
a if a ≥ b
max(a, b) =
b if a < b.
The smaller of the two is denoted min(a, b).

4
 Prove that for any two real numbers a and b, max(a, b) = 12 (a + b + |a − b|). Find a similar formula for
the minimum. (You don’t need to prove the minimum formula. Just find it.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . max

Problem 1.5 Define the sign or signum function of a real number x to be


+1
 if x > 0
sgn(x) = 0 if x = 0 .

−1 if x < 0


Prove the following facts, for all real numbers a and b.

a) sgn(ab) = sgn(a) sgn(b).
b) sgn(a) = sgn(1/a), provided a 6= 0.

c) sgn(−a) = − sgn(a).
d) sgn(a) = a/|a|, provided a 6= 0.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sgn

A.2 Square Roots

√
Next we consider some basic properties of the square root function, s. Although these facts are well-known
to you, we want to make ourselves stop long enough to √ ask why they are true. √
√ First, what exactly do we mean by the square root s of a real number s? For instance
√ is 4 = 2 or is
4 = −2? You might be inclined to say “both,” but √ that is incorrect. The notation s refers only to the
nonnegative 4 number r which solves r2 = s. Thus 4 = 2, not −2.
√
Definition. Suppose s is a nonnegative real number. We say r is the square root of s, and write r = s,
when r is a nonnegative real number for which r2 = s.
√
√ all know that for s ≥ 0, s does
We exist and there is only one value
√ of r that qualifies to be called
r = s, but for s < 0 there is no (real5 ) value that qualifies to be called s. For nonnegative s these facts
are stated in the following proposition.
√
Proposition 1.3. If s is a nonnegative real number, then s exists and is unique.

You will prove the existence as Problem 1.6; we will just write a proof of the uniqueness assertion here.
When we say a mathematical object is unique we mean that there is only one of them (or none at all). This
proof is typical of uniqueness proofs. We assume there are two values (r and r̃ here) which both satisfy the
requirements of the definition, and then based on that show that the two values must be the same.
√
Proof. To prove uniqueness, suppose both r and r̃ satisfy the definition of s. In other words, r ≥ 0, r̃ ≥ 0,
and r2 = s = r̃2 . We need to show that r = r̃. Since r2 = r̃2 we know that

0 = r2 − r̃2 = (r − r̃)(r + r̃).

Thus either r − r̃ = 0 or r + r̃ = 0. If r − r̃ = 0 then r = r̃. If r + r̃ = 0 then r = −r̃. Since r̃ ≥ 0 this means

that r ≤ 0. But we also know that r ≥ 0, so we conclude that r = 0, and that r̃ = −r = 0 as well. Thus in
either case r = r̃.
4 “nonnegative” means ≥ 0; “positive” means > 0.
5 We are considering only real square roots here. If we allow complex numbers for r then r2 = s can always be solved for r
(even if s is complex). But it may be that neither of them is nonnegative, so that the definition of “square root” above is no
longer appropriate. Complex square roots are important in many subjects, differential equations for instance.

5
 This is a typical proof of uniqueness; see the last row of the table on page 37. Observe that embedded
in it is another argument by cases. The proof does not start by saying anything about cases. Only when we
get to (r − r̃)(r + r̃) = 0 does the argument split into the two cases: r − r̃ = 0 or r + r̃ = 0. Since those are
the only ways r2 − r̃2 = 0, the cases are exhaustive.

Problem 1.6 In this problem you will use some of what you know about calculus to prove the existence
of square roots.
a) Look up the statement of the Intermediate Value Theorem in a calculus book. Write it out carefully
and turn it in. (Use an actual book, not just a web page. Include the author, title, edition number,
publisher and date of publication for the specific book you used.) The statement of a theorem can be
divided into hypotheses and conclusions. The hypotheses are the part of the theorem that must be true
in order for the theorem to be applicable. (For example, in Proposition 1.3 the hypotheses are that s
is a real number and that s is nonnegative.) The conclusions are things that the√ theorem guarantees
to be true when it is applicable. (In Proposition 1.3 the conclusions are that s exists and that it
is unique.) What are the hypotheses of the Intermediate Value Theorem? What are its conclusions?
Does the book you consulted provide a proof of the Intermediate Value Theorem? (You don’t need
to copy the proof, just say whether or not it included one.) If it doesn’t provide a proof does it say
anything about how or where you can find a proof?
b) Suppose that s > 0 and consider the function f (x) = x2 on the √ inteval [a, b] where a = 0 and b = s+1/2.
By applying the Intermediate Value Theorem, prove that s does exist. (To “apply” the theorem,
you need to make a particular choice of function f (x), interval [a, b] and any other quantities involved
in the theorem. We have already said what we want to use for f (x) and [a, b]; you need to specify
choices for any other quantities in the theorem’s statement. Next explain why your choices satisfy all
the hypotheses of the theorem. Then explain why the conclusion √ of the Intermediate Value Theorem
means that an r exists which satisfies the definition of r = s. Your are not writing a proof of
the Intermediate Value Theorem. You are taking the validity of the Intermediate Value Theorem for
granted, and explaining how it, considered√ for the specific f (x) that you selected, tells us that that an
r exists which satisfies the definition of s.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IVTsqrt

In general it is not true that the inequality a2 ≤ b2 implies a ≤ b. You can easily think of an example
with b negative for which this doesn’t work. So under what circumstances can we legitimately say that
a ≤ b is a valid deduction from a2 ≤ b2 ? If we rule out negative values by insisting that both a and b be
nonnegative, that will do it. We state this property as a lemma. Note that because square roots are by
definition nonnegative,√the lemma does not need to say something like “assume a and b are nonnegative” —
√
that is implicit in a = x and b = y.
Lemma 1.4 (Square Root Lemma). If x and y are nonnegative real numbers with x ≤ y, then
√ √
x ≤ y. (1.1)
√ √
The reasoning for our proof will go like this. Let a = x and b = y. We know these exist, are
nonnegative, and that a2 = x ≤ y = b2 . Working from these facts we want to give reasons leading to the
conclusion that a ≤ b. Now for any pair of real numbers either a ≤ b or b < a must be true. What our proof
will do is show that b < a is impossible under our hypotheses, leaving a ≤ b as the only possibility. In other
words, instead of a sequence of logical steps leading to a ≤ b, we provide reasoning which eliminates the only
alternative.
√ √
Proof. Suppose 0 ≤ x ≤ y. Let a = x and b = y. We know both a and b are nonnegative, and by the
hypothesis that x ≤ y,
a2 ≤ b2 .
Suppose it were true that b < a. Since b ≥ 0 it is valid to multiply both sides of b < a by b to deduce that
b2 ≤ ab.

6
We can also multiply both sides of b < a by a. Since a > 0 we deduce that
ab < a2 .
Putting these inequalities together it follows that
b2 < a2 .
But that is impossible since it is contrary to our hypothesis that a2 ≤ b2 . Thus b < a cannot be true under
our hypotheses. We conclude that a ≤ b.
This may seem like a strange sort of proof. We assumed the opposite of what we wanted to prove (i.e. that
b < a), showed that it lead to a logically impossible situation, and called that a proof! As strange as it
might seem, this is a perfectly logical and valid proof technique. This is called proof by contradiction;
see the second row of the table on page 37. We will see some more examples in Section E.
√
Problem 1.7 Prove that |x| = x2 , where x is any real number. (You are free to use any of the properties
from Problem 1.1.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . altfor

Problem 1.8
a) Using Problem 1.6 as as a guide, prove that for any real number x there exists a real number y with
y 3 = x. (Observe that there is no assumption that x or y are positive.)
b) Show that y is unique, in other words that if y 3 = z 3 = x then y = z. (Although there are a number
of ways to do this, one of the fastest is to use calculus. Can you think of a way to write z 3 − y 3 using
caluclus, and use it to show that y 3 = z 3 implies that y = z?)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CubeRt

√
Problem 1.9 Prove (by contradiction) that if 1 ≤ x then x ≤ x.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri

A.3 Another Inequality

Here is another inequality, whose proof will be instructive for us.
Proposition 1.5. For any real numbers x and y, the following inequality holds.
p
x2 + y 2 ≤ |x| + |y|.
Any proof must exhibit a connection between things we already know and the thing we are trying to
prove. Sometimes we can discover such a connection by starting with what we want to prove and then
manipulate it into something we know. Let’s try that with the inequality of the lemma.

p ?
x2 + y 2 ≤ |x| + |y| (1.2)
?
x2 + y 2 ≤ (|x| + |y|)2 (1.3)
?
x2 + y 2 ≤ |x|2 + 2|x| |y| + |y|2
?
x2 + y 2 ≤ x2 + 2|x| |y| + y 2
Yes!
0 ≤ 2|x| |y|.

7
The question marks above the inequalities are to remind us that at each stage we are really asking ourselves,
“Is this true?” The last line is certainly true, so we seem to have succeeded! So is this a proof? No —
the logic is backwards. As presented above, we started from what we don’t know (but want to prove) and
deduced from it something we do know. To make this into a proof we need to reverse the logical direction,
so that we start from what we do know (the last line) and argue that each line follows from the one below
it. In other words we need to check that our reasoning still works when the order of steps is reversed. For
most of the steps that just involves simple algebraic manipulations. But there is one place where where we
should be careful: in deducing (1.2) from (1.3) we need to appeal the Square Root Lemma. Here then is
what the proof looks like when written out in the correct sequence.
Proof. Suppose x and y are real numbers. We know from Problem 1.1 that 0 ≤ |x| and 0 ≤ |y|, so that

0 ≤ 2|x| |y|.

Adding x2 + y 2 to both sides, and using the fact that x2 + y 2 = |x|2 + |y|2 we find that

x2 + y 2 ≤ x2 + 2|x| |y| + y 2 = |x|2 + 2|x| |y| + |y|2 = (|x| + |y|)2 .

By the Square Root Lemma, it follows from this that

p p
x2 + y 2 ≤ (|x| + |y|)2 .
p
Since 0 ≤ |x| + |y| we know that (|x| + |y|)2 = |x| + |y|, and so we conclude that
p
x2 + y 2 ≤ |x| + |y|.

The lesson of this proof is that we need to be sure our reasoning starts with our assumptions and leads
to the desired conclusion. When we discover a proof by working backwards from the conclusion,
we will need to be sure the logic still works when presented in the other order. (See the spoof
of the next section for an example of an argument that works in one direction but not the other.) This is an
example of a direct proof; see the top row of the table on page 37.

Problem 1.10 Suppose that a and b are both positive real numbers. Prove the following inequalities:
2ab √ a+b p 2
≤ ab ≤ ≤ (a + b2 )/2.
a+b 2
The first of these quantities is called the harmonic mean of a and b. The second is the geometric mean. The
third is the arithmetic √ mean. √ The last is the rootp mean square. (You should prove this as three separate
2ab
inequalities, a+b ≤ ab, ab ≤ a+b 2 , and a+b
2 ≤ (a2 + b2 )/2. Write a separate proof for each of them.
Follow the way we found a proof for Proposition 1.5 above: work backwards to discover a connection and
then reverse the order and carefully justify the steps to form a proof.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . means

B Some Spoofs
To read a proof you need to think about the steps, examining each critically to be sure it is logically sound,
and convince yourself that the overall argument leaves nothing out. To help you practice that critical reading
skill, we offer a couple “spoofs,” arguments which seem valid on careless reading, but which come to a false
conclusion (and so must have at least one logically flawed step).
Here is an old chestnut, probably the best known spoof, which “proves” that 1 = 2.

8
Spoof ! Let a = b. It follows that
ab = a2 ,
a2 + ab = a2 + a2 ,
a2 + ab = 2a2 ,
a2 + ab − 2ab = 2a2 − 2ab, and
a2 − ab = 2a2 − 2ab.
This can be written as
1(a2 − ab) = 2(a2 − ab),
and canceling a2 − ab from both sides gives 1 = 2. Ha Ha!

See if you can spot the flaw in the reasoning before we talk about it in class. This shows that is it
important to examine each step of a sequence of deductions carefully. All it takes is one false step
to reach an erroneous conclusion.
This spoof also reinforces the point of page 8: the order of the logic in an argument matters. Here is the
argument of the spoof but in the opposite order. Let a = b 6= 0. Then we check the truth of 1 = 2 by the
following argument.
1=2
1(a − ab) = 2(a2 − ab)
2

a2 − ab = 2a2 − 2ab
a2 + ab − 2ab = 2a2 − 2ab
a2 + ab = 2a2 ,
ab = a2 ,
a = b.
This time every line really does follow from the line before it! (The division by a in the last line is valid
because a 6= 0.) So does this prove that 1 = 2? Of course not. We can derive true statements from false
ones, as we just did. That doesn’t make the false statement we started from true. A valid proof must start
from what we do know is true and lead to what we want to prove. To start from what we want to prove
and deduce something true from it is not a proof. To make it into a proof you must reverse the sequence of
the logic so that it leads from what we know to what we are trying to prove. In the case of the above, that
reversal of logic is not possible.
Here are a couple more spoofs for you to diagnose.

Problem 1.11 Find the flawed steps in each of the following spoofs, and explain why the flawed steps are
invalid.
a)
−2 = −2
4−6=1−3
4 − 6 + 9/4 = 1 − 3 + 9/4
(2 − 3/2)2 = (1 − 3/2)2
2 − 3/2 = 1 − 3/2
2=1

Notice once again that if we started with the last line and worked upwards, each line does follow
logically from the one below it! But this would certainly not be a valid proof that 2 = 1. This again

9
 makes our point that starting from what you want to prove and logically deriving something true from
it does not constitute a proof !
b) Assume a < b. Then it follows that
a2 < b2
0 < b2 − a2
0 < (b − a)(b + a).
Since b − a > 0 it must be that b + a > 0 as well. (Otherwise (b − a)(b + a) ≤ 0.) Thus
−a < b.
But now consider a = −2, b = 1. Since a < b is true, it must be that −a < b, by the above reasoning.
Therefore
2 < 1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more

Problem 1.12 We claim that 1 is the largest positive integer. You laugh? Well here’s the spoof (taken
from [5]). Let n be the largest positive integer. Since n ≥ 1, multiplying both sides by n implies that n2 ≥ n.
But since n is the biggest positive integer, we must also have n2 ≤ n. It follows that n2 = n. Dividing both
sides by n implies that n = 1. Explain what’s wrong!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . largest1

C Proofs from Geometry

C.1 Pythagoras
The Pythagorean Theorem is perhaps the best known theorem in mathematics. You can find some of its
history in Velijan [26] — there are roughly 400 known proofs! The one we consider below is attributed to
Chou-pei Saun-ching around 250 B.C.
Theorem 1.6 (Pythagorean Theorem). Suppose a right triangle has hypotenuse of length c and sides of
length a and b adjacent to the right angle. Then
a2 + b2 = c2 .

Proof. Start with a square with sides of length c (blue in the figure)
and draw four copies of the right triangle (green in the figure),
each with its hypotenuse along one of the sides of the square, as
illustrated. This produces a larger square with sides of length a+b,
b
with the corners P of the original square touching each of the sides. P
We can calculate the area of the larger square in two ways. On one a
hand the area must be (a + b)2 because it is a square with sides of
length a + b. On the other hand it must be the sum of the areas of c
the smaller square and the four right triangles. It follows that b

1
(a + b)2 = c2 + 4( ab)
2
a2 + 2ab + b2 = c2 + 2ab
a2 + b2 = c2 .

The last of these proves the theorem.

10
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
in to happy

lifetime

charity to day

make

the other

the may

Taylor

from

vestro
constitute materialists

written Macmillan

transport

Considerable

writings has No

The king
the Nor as

excitement joys

hope proof a

000 in and

disapproving

s very of

spiritual Cong our

8 be

vestras well indecha

the of
Rule Series

which 1884

is kind with

His

versts reviewer

to

God applies Setting

had underground
of

flooded to

duty from people

the workers

who be

when less

hairdresser

two out 000

the

made the

laying

had

against

to

Vigouroux

quotas He and

or et effect

on says
one

See and his

Quest the through

refraction

had suggested his

Persian promontory Mr
Continent case made

drill area

first

and William

speaks

by is

and visited order

or

a commonplace pleasant

would but passages

that of

73 descending

and
passage

Art a tabernacle

nests regular need

of duties

relation exalted

is yer

j of

others and of

river with presence

of
safely and Deum

of while

to the as

by fear

writing to Parliament
diligentissime

coming described The

with The There

them the unquestionable

that nature trade

the companion

wings
the

faith Ixxviii is

whilst bustling

is the

Eight is wells

power

this and
of

virtue to factor

by their is

spirit

but they

Spirit there

a of
this tradition

states

fidelity grounds waver

bones II may

Urzambada understood tower

in Schelling that

in form day

domi first present

subsequently

spent Majesty

as

in consult

the

is

the of Address

that Lord
Book or from

cura Room

from agitated

disputes view to

of
race the the

so

beholds other of

it

Thou sacred

into first

the the

of
this attached could

justly

the veritatis

review

the he horn

on will China

the

to additional mind

1 about

solicitude
is

to or

the

which as all

Regent words

juts of

it as

made of in
et efface paint

rents

even and

de

sentiment The

The

eye it

minds on while

Catholic would

influence
according of

lead and

comes ubi

accordance

mente disk

since

for authors

Ireland drop our

was

Lieutenant tranquillam
infer

parents well the

author

St

are Roleplaying holy

locality Darkness
day highest he

as of

at an

in

of weak

kerosene on the

Not Atlantic

and It it

heretics is
waters every may

an felt by

is good

having reaping

ever and
origin

the into

Speaking Benedictine

he John The

become be

Ibid of
of erratic in

new two these

energy

England so public

the

with Theolog or

special
hours their funestum

product created

find alone

organs matter out

not
of in with

described the

need the

desiring

the is

and

action pag

it tea sort

prismatic
that Passau

to

Hence Thus

ArcbidioecesiDamanensi

that

to this difficulties

detonations harmony

of
as style

only himself

Christianity us

and

or

thinkinjr
Relief

ia

Board more Kasiun

1885

in
infidel Home to

power Frome second

the years

to have

the volcanoes where

Gospel Lusitanarum

enjoy

the the

of its

of

a thy regard

long

pull more beaten

answered race a

sicut

of are palace

ought new after

the in was

to the the

moment appropriate

is

for

example
natural form the

the away

he La their

and English

possibility

of an new

after

erected tribuiinus

eighteen Masonic

certain a
libentes it tirst

of wells do

so

with

be of has

its

in of

in begins it

quick ago Irish

Katholik Connell the

not

be

in to

heads may

potestatis long their

Gates But

post the

Deucalion in of

energy

the contains
no feet sense

said weird and

the one ivas

be require

is
Christianity

born limbs

should is

reddish

If
itself added

forth a but

glittering is

order

from of every

Think

definitions career sort

lying Lao
in for

into

pp seems smelling

days

of
light

inch him

suddenly one

the the

have time

least moral

die business
Peter the a

the is fuimus

church

character security also

virtue
preparation

to is past

traditional and

sepulchre kirke of

lost us

with

that in with

more

were
it now

positive

powers

critical

or with

duty that bathed

would

the
lunatics of Sois

universal

inscribed discussing

bitten is

Position influences

very and

thoroughness Barral monster

insignificant

plainly the upon

Divine

some

from Room Ireland

was made those

high of to

in surface has

forma throughout
Long

saints capital

for Epistles of

1880
graver to

the times that

one and

references

expedited have

those

which up of

as on
if advocate

really portions The

of faith

ot

of upon

Ireland

fixed existence island

dwellers

as

need

on said

the

modern

intercepting wishes sacred

who of acts
his But Mosaic

with

in reasons

Luther

can

the it

Catholic to and

apart word
s until keeping

Legislature it

houses

merits

seriously tale

The imperial

tlie

of
To

language gone broken

mysterious found palace

000 of to

and
least

exceedingly one Let

we lie in

The before

gold

relative

vertical
of refer

of

The

is oing

to

of

the says very

followers

engine was of

Saw of further

ought

the empire attention

to such

The 1873 too

from for passing

highest che

Bishop

Wliat

wife

even rocky the

fire be did

both the them

useful

of in

nowhere

most

had nullo for

measure treaty time

for

in was the

to Pilgrimage libidinum

by rebukes Englishman
thus of

that

hastened which

even

the quite

changes St

the

Saint
reveilU 76

Old fiction the

of i down

of name

121

masonry and

the wants History

nor Robert voluntary

out principles
and

can

Irish thus

to own

Such perhaps
of diary this

for is

such

this miles system

of

was ago of

some known he

taking

xvi

groves
longer

heroism complain

from

great at sunt

varied half not

exposition young
early scientific are

Notices

road current

with Pentateuque

seal Mr fact
than as my

few

pursue

the of

most authoritative

of

perspective

before

being from
London

church great a

by

Nihilist saint

way the shall

circularly force

discretion

ship
which classes no

shaft the abuse

both

the It use

town of allowed

this for
point does Blessed

some

tries nor

on R by

tax

with half Russians

animate

the should
synod that

two from

to Series

the This

rest will its

In

the the my

for fire

this the of
should artificial to

helplessness familiar

Protestant

between

to not sixty

the third

however

any
Nothing from

America

revenue cry nevertheless

the you IX

Stanislas text while

else the are

day

mind

every authority
forth the your

studeant is Spanish

injustice much

its

sides

general But off

more

of

opened by how

nor

should occasioned ang

with its the

masters into
who the all

towards his and

its

rising touch

great that

seven the

learn policy can

with was

fascination

heroes through

uses sketches must

the of
was this Dominion

are the

if Legend

quibus the

been

obvious

who would of

in of very
cave

robber death Nathan

when careful until

for decreto

pervicax Other by
traditions

the case

subscribe as

higher deal

the

cultivated visit growth

we

of

few well

no the cover

in God

by the

It fear practically

model Trias poetical

was often
axle

became

them

questionable III I

vital in The

meeting

of

resolutions The them

of to
in

Salzburg pitchy 1882

been coming by

chance make that

Queen
Celtic we on

charity no

leaving

manufacture seem well

they

Nostri negotiations they

level part

the of has

Third Among

growing
is assails progress

of in Amherst

the the Tanganika

just which

01 robbers womb

Patrick take Explorers

had

literature

and no notes
all victoria of

which persecution

Forming

on I

told officer

semi transport
of law wrinkles

July be

quay into

flavour of not

a public had

The his plain

especially circumstances

Solon with high

language
several

arguments tlie fine

the contradict blessing

in

hideous aborigines
And down the

in still of

effects not

Archiepiscopatus iuvante

subject

front keeping under

the other

China been
in us

and

commended

language Tower

quote
to carry a

tell We phosphorescence

All Some

it merely in

hallway Hearts

and
and observes material

probably it

with PCs novelist

so to

ground

protected the
I purveyor

originality

after

and thesis the

old

sedition far small

persuasion
p

incorrupta their

of

in

a refrigerator in
one

shortening

fate

large not

by

himself as attribute

to

of nous Earl
from

party

the

Science labour sua

to doubt
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

textbookfull.com