I have the following problem that I must prove by CONTRADICTION:
"Show that if you pick three socks from a drawer containing just blue socks and black socks, you must get either a pair of blue socks or a pair of black socks."
I started to solve it writing 2 propositions: p: I pick three socks from a drawer containing just blue socks and black socks. q: I get either a pair of blue socks or a pair of black socks.
The normal conditional statement can be: p -> q. Now, to prove by contradiction I have to start from: (not p -> q)
My book says that in order to negate a proposition (p in this case) I should write: "It is not the case that I pick three socks from a drawer containing just blue socks and black socks." Or I can also write "I do not pick three socks from a drawer containing just blue socks and black socks". I see that if I do not pick 3 socks then I can pick less than 3 or more than 3 or none at all.
How can I interpret this new statement? How can I start the solution?
To begin by contradiction of the statement "if $P$ then $Q$," you suppose $P$ and not $Q$ and show there's something wrong with that.
From a formal logic perspective, you take as a temporary premise $P$ and then as a temporary premise $\lnot Q$, and arrive at a contradiction. Once you're at a contradiction, you can dismiss $\lnot Q$ in favor of $Q$, and then close your conditional as if $P$ then $Q$.
In this case, you say "Suppose I pick three socks out of the drawer, and I get neither a blue pair nor a black pair."
From there, can you argue that you must have some kind of contradiction?