Proof: $n^2 - 2$ is not divisible by 4

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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 $4$.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 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














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 $4$.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 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












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 $4$.










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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












  • 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










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 $4$.




share|cite|improve this answer





























    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 $4$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 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

















    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer




















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        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






























        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 $4$.




        share|cite|improve this answer


























          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 $4$.




          share|cite|improve this answer
























            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 $4$.




            share|cite|improve this answer














            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 $4$.





            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Mar 13 '17 at 16:28

























            answered Mar 13 '17 at 16:17









            vrugtehagel

            10.5k1548




            10.5k1548




















                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 $4$.






                share|cite|improve this answer


















                • 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














                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 $4$.






                share|cite|improve this answer


















                • 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












                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 $4$.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                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 $4$.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                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












                • 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










                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 13 '17 at 20:26









                    Dave huff

                    478211




                    478211




















                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer






















                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            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.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Sep 11 at 3:04









                            Maged Saeed

                            421315




                            421315



























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                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













































































                                這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                                Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?