Proof: $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I tried to prove that $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4 via proof by contradiction. Does this look right?
Suppose $n^2 - 2$ is divisible by $4$. Then:
$n^2 - 2 = 4g$, $g in mathbbZ$.
$n^2 = 4g + 2$.
Consider the case where $n$ is even.
$(2x)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$.
$4x^2 = 4g + 2$.
$4s = 4g + 2$, $s = x^2, s in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication.
$2s = 2g + 1$
$2s$ is even, and $2g + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
Consider the case where $n$ is odd.
$(2x + 1)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$
$4x^2 + 4x + 1 = 4g + 2$
$4x^2 + 4x = 4g + 1$
$4(x^2 + x) = 4g + 1$
$4j = 4g + 1$, $j = x^2 + x, j in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under addition
$2d = 2e + 1$, $d = 2j, e = 2g; d, e in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication
$2d$ is even, and $2e + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
As both cases have a contradiction, the original supposition is false, and $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by $4$.
proof-verification
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I tried to prove that $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4 via proof by contradiction. Does this look right?
Suppose $n^2 - 2$ is divisible by $4$. Then:
$n^2 - 2 = 4g$, $g in mathbbZ$.
$n^2 = 4g + 2$.
Consider the case where $n$ is even.
$(2x)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$.
$4x^2 = 4g + 2$.
$4s = 4g + 2$, $s = x^2, s in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication.
$2s = 2g + 1$
$2s$ is even, and $2g + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
Consider the case where $n$ is odd.
$(2x + 1)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$
$4x^2 + 4x + 1 = 4g + 2$
$4x^2 + 4x = 4g + 1$
$4(x^2 + x) = 4g + 1$
$4j = 4g + 1$, $j = x^2 + x, j in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under addition
$2d = 2e + 1$, $d = 2j, e = 2g; d, e in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication
$2d$ is even, and $2e + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
As both cases have a contradiction, the original supposition is false, and $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by $4$.
proof-verification
4
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I tried to prove that $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4 via proof by contradiction. Does this look right?
Suppose $n^2 - 2$ is divisible by $4$. Then:
$n^2 - 2 = 4g$, $g in mathbbZ$.
$n^2 = 4g + 2$.
Consider the case where $n$ is even.
$(2x)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$.
$4x^2 = 4g + 2$.
$4s = 4g + 2$, $s = x^2, s in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication.
$2s = 2g + 1$
$2s$ is even, and $2g + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
Consider the case where $n$ is odd.
$(2x + 1)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$
$4x^2 + 4x + 1 = 4g + 2$
$4x^2 + 4x = 4g + 1$
$4(x^2 + x) = 4g + 1$
$4j = 4g + 1$, $j = x^2 + x, j in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under addition
$2d = 2e + 1$, $d = 2j, e = 2g; d, e in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication
$2d$ is even, and $2e + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
As both cases have a contradiction, the original supposition is false, and $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by $4$.
proof-verification
I tried to prove that $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4 via proof by contradiction. Does this look right?
Suppose $n^2 - 2$ is divisible by $4$. Then:
$n^2 - 2 = 4g$, $g in mathbbZ$.
$n^2 = 4g + 2$.
Consider the case where $n$ is even.
$(2x)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$.
$4x^2 = 4g + 2$.
$4s = 4g + 2$, $s = x^2, s in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication.
$2s = 2g + 1$
$2s$ is even, and $2g + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
Consider the case where $n$ is odd.
$(2x + 1)^2 = 4g + 2$, $x in mathbbZ$
$4x^2 + 4x + 1 = 4g + 2$
$4x^2 + 4x = 4g + 1$
$4(x^2 + x) = 4g + 1$
$4j = 4g + 1$, $j = x^2 + x, j in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under addition
$2d = 2e + 1$, $d = 2j, e = 2g; d, e in mathbbZ$ as integers are closed under multiplication
$2d$ is even, and $2e + 1$ is odd (by definition of even/odd numbers). An even number cannot equal an odd number, so we have a contradiction.
As both cases have a contradiction, the original supposition is false, and $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by $4$.
proof-verification
proof-verification
asked Mar 13 '17 at 16:15
Daniel
8917
8917
4
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30
add a comment |
4
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30
4
4
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Your proof is perfect.
We can shorten your proof by for example going from $4x^2=4g+2$ (in case 1) to saying "The left-hand side has remainder $0$ after division by $4$, yet the right side has remainder $2$; this is impossible" (basically, looking at the expression $mod 4$ instead of dividing by $2$ and looking $mod 2$).
Also, the second case was trivially impossible, since $n^2=4g+2$ has no solutions if $n$ is odd (since then $n^2$ is odd, but $4g+2$ is even).
Depending on the context (what you know, what you can use, etc), steps like $x^2+x=j$ with the remark that integers are closed under addition and multiplication are mostly considered so trivial that it's not worth mentioning. I repeat however that this is completely dependent on context, and if you want to make sure your audience is aware of these facts and/or steps, you should mention them. More detailed explanations with steps rarely hurt the proof.
The proof can be done a lot quicker however (without contradiction) by looking $mod 4$. It is quite easy to prove that squares are either $0$ or $1mod 4$, so $n^2-2$ is either $-2$ or $-1mod 4$, and thus, $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by $4$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
For odd $n$, $n^2-2$ is odd.
For even $n$, $n^2$ is divisible by $4$, so that $n^2-2$ is not.
By contradiction:
Let $n$ be odd. Then $n^2-2$ is both odd and a multiple of four.
Let $n$ be even. Then $n^2-2$ and $n^2$ are both multiples of $4$, so that $2$ is a multiple of $4$.
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Assume $4 mid n^2-2$, for $n in mathbbz$. This means we can rewrite $n^2-2$ as $4k$, which implies $n^2=2(2k+1)$. This is clearly impossible; this implies $4 nmid n^2$ but $2 mid n^2$. So our initial assumption is wrong.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Anohter Idea of proof goes as follows:
First of all we need to know that any square of integer is either of the form 4k or 4k+1.
Suppose, to the contrary, that 4 divides $n^2-2$, then:
$$4k = n^2-2$$
$$4k+2 = n^2$$
A contradiction. Thus $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by 4.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Your proof is perfect.
We can shorten your proof by for example going from $4x^2=4g+2$ (in case 1) to saying "The left-hand side has remainder $0$ after division by $4$, yet the right side has remainder $2$; this is impossible" (basically, looking at the expression $mod 4$ instead of dividing by $2$ and looking $mod 2$).
Also, the second case was trivially impossible, since $n^2=4g+2$ has no solutions if $n$ is odd (since then $n^2$ is odd, but $4g+2$ is even).
Depending on the context (what you know, what you can use, etc), steps like $x^2+x=j$ with the remark that integers are closed under addition and multiplication are mostly considered so trivial that it's not worth mentioning. I repeat however that this is completely dependent on context, and if you want to make sure your audience is aware of these facts and/or steps, you should mention them. More detailed explanations with steps rarely hurt the proof.
The proof can be done a lot quicker however (without contradiction) by looking $mod 4$. It is quite easy to prove that squares are either $0$ or $1mod 4$, so $n^2-2$ is either $-2$ or $-1mod 4$, and thus, $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by $4$.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Your proof is perfect.
We can shorten your proof by for example going from $4x^2=4g+2$ (in case 1) to saying "The left-hand side has remainder $0$ after division by $4$, yet the right side has remainder $2$; this is impossible" (basically, looking at the expression $mod 4$ instead of dividing by $2$ and looking $mod 2$).
Also, the second case was trivially impossible, since $n^2=4g+2$ has no solutions if $n$ is odd (since then $n^2$ is odd, but $4g+2$ is even).
Depending on the context (what you know, what you can use, etc), steps like $x^2+x=j$ with the remark that integers are closed under addition and multiplication are mostly considered so trivial that it's not worth mentioning. I repeat however that this is completely dependent on context, and if you want to make sure your audience is aware of these facts and/or steps, you should mention them. More detailed explanations with steps rarely hurt the proof.
The proof can be done a lot quicker however (without contradiction) by looking $mod 4$. It is quite easy to prove that squares are either $0$ or $1mod 4$, so $n^2-2$ is either $-2$ or $-1mod 4$, and thus, $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by $4$.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Your proof is perfect.
We can shorten your proof by for example going from $4x^2=4g+2$ (in case 1) to saying "The left-hand side has remainder $0$ after division by $4$, yet the right side has remainder $2$; this is impossible" (basically, looking at the expression $mod 4$ instead of dividing by $2$ and looking $mod 2$).
Also, the second case was trivially impossible, since $n^2=4g+2$ has no solutions if $n$ is odd (since then $n^2$ is odd, but $4g+2$ is even).
Depending on the context (what you know, what you can use, etc), steps like $x^2+x=j$ with the remark that integers are closed under addition and multiplication are mostly considered so trivial that it's not worth mentioning. I repeat however that this is completely dependent on context, and if you want to make sure your audience is aware of these facts and/or steps, you should mention them. More detailed explanations with steps rarely hurt the proof.
The proof can be done a lot quicker however (without contradiction) by looking $mod 4$. It is quite easy to prove that squares are either $0$ or $1mod 4$, so $n^2-2$ is either $-2$ or $-1mod 4$, and thus, $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by $4$.
Your proof is perfect.
We can shorten your proof by for example going from $4x^2=4g+2$ (in case 1) to saying "The left-hand side has remainder $0$ after division by $4$, yet the right side has remainder $2$; this is impossible" (basically, looking at the expression $mod 4$ instead of dividing by $2$ and looking $mod 2$).
Also, the second case was trivially impossible, since $n^2=4g+2$ has no solutions if $n$ is odd (since then $n^2$ is odd, but $4g+2$ is even).
Depending on the context (what you know, what you can use, etc), steps like $x^2+x=j$ with the remark that integers are closed under addition and multiplication are mostly considered so trivial that it's not worth mentioning. I repeat however that this is completely dependent on context, and if you want to make sure your audience is aware of these facts and/or steps, you should mention them. More detailed explanations with steps rarely hurt the proof.
The proof can be done a lot quicker however (without contradiction) by looking $mod 4$. It is quite easy to prove that squares are either $0$ or $1mod 4$, so $n^2-2$ is either $-2$ or $-1mod 4$, and thus, $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by $4$.
edited Mar 13 '17 at 16:28
answered Mar 13 '17 at 16:17
vrugtehagel
10.5k1548
10.5k1548
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
For odd $n$, $n^2-2$ is odd.
For even $n$, $n^2$ is divisible by $4$, so that $n^2-2$ is not.
By contradiction:
Let $n$ be odd. Then $n^2-2$ is both odd and a multiple of four.
Let $n$ be even. Then $n^2-2$ and $n^2$ are both multiples of $4$, so that $2$ is a multiple of $4$.
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
For odd $n$, $n^2-2$ is odd.
For even $n$, $n^2$ is divisible by $4$, so that $n^2-2$ is not.
By contradiction:
Let $n$ be odd. Then $n^2-2$ is both odd and a multiple of four.
Let $n$ be even. Then $n^2-2$ and $n^2$ are both multiples of $4$, so that $2$ is a multiple of $4$.
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
For odd $n$, $n^2-2$ is odd.
For even $n$, $n^2$ is divisible by $4$, so that $n^2-2$ is not.
By contradiction:
Let $n$ be odd. Then $n^2-2$ is both odd and a multiple of four.
Let $n$ be even. Then $n^2-2$ and $n^2$ are both multiples of $4$, so that $2$ is a multiple of $4$.
For odd $n$, $n^2-2$ is odd.
For even $n$, $n^2$ is divisible by $4$, so that $n^2-2$ is not.
By contradiction:
Let $n$ be odd. Then $n^2-2$ is both odd and a multiple of four.
Let $n$ be even. Then $n^2-2$ and $n^2$ are both multiples of $4$, so that $2$ is a multiple of $4$.
edited Mar 13 '17 at 16:40
answered Mar 13 '17 at 16:21
Yves Daoust
120k668217
120k668217
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
|
show 2 more comments
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
2
2
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
This is not a proof by contradiction though
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:24
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
@vrugtehagel why do you need a proof by contradiction?
– mez
Mar 13 '17 at 16:26
2
2
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
@mez, that's what the OP is asking.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:27
2
2
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
@BrianTung obviously, you can transform it into the standard not-really-proof-by-contradiction by assuming the statement is true, then proving that it's false directly, and then stating that the assumption was false. Don't get me wrong; I like the elegance and simplicity of this proof, I just don't think that it's what the OP was looking for.
– vrugtehagel
Mar 13 '17 at 16:32
2
2
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
The question doesn't clearly state that proof by contradiction IS required, just that he did try this as a technique
– Cato
Mar 13 '17 at 16:39
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Assume $4 mid n^2-2$, for $n in mathbbz$. This means we can rewrite $n^2-2$ as $4k$, which implies $n^2=2(2k+1)$. This is clearly impossible; this implies $4 nmid n^2$ but $2 mid n^2$. So our initial assumption is wrong.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Assume $4 mid n^2-2$, for $n in mathbbz$. This means we can rewrite $n^2-2$ as $4k$, which implies $n^2=2(2k+1)$. This is clearly impossible; this implies $4 nmid n^2$ but $2 mid n^2$. So our initial assumption is wrong.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Assume $4 mid n^2-2$, for $n in mathbbz$. This means we can rewrite $n^2-2$ as $4k$, which implies $n^2=2(2k+1)$. This is clearly impossible; this implies $4 nmid n^2$ but $2 mid n^2$. So our initial assumption is wrong.
Assume $4 mid n^2-2$, for $n in mathbbz$. This means we can rewrite $n^2-2$ as $4k$, which implies $n^2=2(2k+1)$. This is clearly impossible; this implies $4 nmid n^2$ but $2 mid n^2$. So our initial assumption is wrong.
answered Mar 13 '17 at 20:26
Dave huff
478211
478211
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Anohter Idea of proof goes as follows:
First of all we need to know that any square of integer is either of the form 4k or 4k+1.
Suppose, to the contrary, that 4 divides $n^2-2$, then:
$$4k = n^2-2$$
$$4k+2 = n^2$$
A contradiction. Thus $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by 4.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Anohter Idea of proof goes as follows:
First of all we need to know that any square of integer is either of the form 4k or 4k+1.
Suppose, to the contrary, that 4 divides $n^2-2$, then:
$$4k = n^2-2$$
$$4k+2 = n^2$$
A contradiction. Thus $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by 4.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Anohter Idea of proof goes as follows:
First of all we need to know that any square of integer is either of the form 4k or 4k+1.
Suppose, to the contrary, that 4 divides $n^2-2$, then:
$$4k = n^2-2$$
$$4k+2 = n^2$$
A contradiction. Thus $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by 4.
Anohter Idea of proof goes as follows:
First of all we need to know that any square of integer is either of the form 4k or 4k+1.
Suppose, to the contrary, that 4 divides $n^2-2$, then:
$$4k = n^2-2$$
$$4k+2 = n^2$$
A contradiction. Thus $n^2-2$ cannot be divisible by 4.
answered Sep 11 at 3:04
Maged Saeed
421315
421315
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2184937%2fproof-n2-2-is-not-divisible-by-4%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
4
You could simplify your proof slightly. In the first case, you could go from $4x^2 = 4g + 2$ to $4(x^2-g) = 2$. This would imply that $4$ divides $2$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, in the second case, you could go from $4(x^2+x) = 4g + 1$ to $4(x^2+x-g) = 1$ so that $4$ divides $1$ which is also a contradiction.
– Cameron Williams
Mar 13 '17 at 16:30