# Contradictions and Cases#

Proof by contradiction and proof by cases are two common forms for
mathematical proofs. Recalling the general node format
(Listing 7), both of these proof structures are encoded
using node `MODIFIERS`

.

## Proof by contradiction#

Proofs by contradiction use the `contra`

modifier.

To encode a proof by contradiction:

Deduce a

`flse`

node from a set of nodes (often just two) that are mutually contradictory.Link the

`flse`

node to a`supp`

node using the`contra`

modifier.

Example:

```
deduc Thm {
supp S {
sy="$S$"
}
asrt A {
sy="$A$"
}
meson="Suppose S. Then A."
}
deduc Pf of Thm.A {
supp T {
en="Suppose not $A$."
}
asrt B {
sy="$B$"
}
asrt C {
sy="$C$"
}
asrt D {
sy="$D$"
}
flse F contra T {}
meson = "
Suppose T. Then B and C. From C get D, using Thm.S, hence F, by B.
Therefore Thm.A.
"
}
```

When a proof is displayed in PISE, the `contra`

modifier activates
the “up tack” or falsum symbol on the `flse`

node, so that hovering
highlights the contradicted `supp`

node, and clicking brings it on screen.

## Proof by cases#

Proofs by cases use the `versus`

modifier.

To encode a proof by cases:

Use a set of

`subdeduc`

nodes, one for each case.Start each

`subdeduc`

with a`supp`

node, indicating the assumption that defines the case.On one of these

`supp`

nodes, use the`versus`

modifier to link it with the alternative cases.Deduce the common conclusion, citing each of the

`subdeduc`

nodes as reason.

Example:

```
deduc Thm {
supp S {
sy="$S$"
}
asrt A {
sy="$A$"
}
meson="Suppose S. Then A."
}
deduc Pf of Thm.A {
subdeduc caseX {
supp X {
sy="$X$"
}
asrt B {
sy="$B$"
}
asrt A {
sy="$A$"
}
meson = "Suppose X. Then B, hence A, by Thm.S."
}
subdeduc caseY {
supp Y versus caseX.X {
sy="$Y$"
}
asrt C {
sy="$C$"
}
asrt A {
sy="$A$"
}
meson = "Suppose Y. Then C by Thm.S, hence A."
}
meson = "Thm.A by caseX and caseY."
}
```

When a proof is displayed in PISE, the `versus`

modifier adds a “CASE” label
to each of the `supp`

nodes that define the cases. The “CASE” label is
activated, so that hovering highlights the case `supp`

nodes, and clicking
brings them on screen.

## Using auxiliary deducs#

It is often a good idea to write skeletal proofs in each subdeduc node, while writing a separate deduc to fill in the argument, so that the subdeduc can be expanded and collapsed.

An example of this technique can be seen in a proof by cases, each part of
which is a proof by contradiction, in
the proof of FLT for regular primes, from Hilbert’s *Zahlbericht*.