Consider the following claim.
Claim. For any sets S and T,
(SxT)n (Tx S)-(Sx S) = 0.
(a) (11 pts.) Use a proof by contradiction to prove the claim.
To get full points you must use a mixture of formal notation and word explanations (e.g. the
"column" format). Each step of your proof should have an explanation as to how/why you
could make that logical step. When in doubt, more detail is better than less.
Grading Notes. While a detailed rubric cannot be provided in advance as it gives away
solution details, the following is a general idea of how points are distributed for this problem.
We give partial credit where we can.
(9) Correctness. If your proof is not correct, this is where you'll get docked.
(5) Regardless of how you formulate your proof, somewhere you'll need certain facts
without which the proof wouldn't work. E.g. if it weren't true that the sum of two
integers is integer, would your proof fail? If so, then that is a fact I need to see
stated somewhere.
(1) The order of these facts must make sense, so that you're not inferring something
before you have all the facts to infer it. E.g. you cannot use the fact that the sum
of two integers is integer if you don't already know that you have two integers to
begin with.
(3) You also must use a proof by contradiction, which clearly states it is a proof by
contradiction, states what the contradictory assumption is, finds a contradiction,
and clearly states what and where that contradiction is.
(2) Communication. We need to see a mix of notation and intuition, preferably in the
"column" format with the notation on the left, and the reasons on the right. If you
skip too many steps at once, or we cannot follow your proof, or if your solution is overly
wordy or confusing, this is where you'll get docked.
(b) (2 pts.) Is it possible to prove this claim by contrapositive? If so, what would the statement of
the claim be (that you could then apply the contrapositive to)? If not, give a brief explanation
why it cannot be done.
Grading Notes. This problem is meant for you to think about whether you can modify
your proof to be of a different form, and explaining your answer.