# Prove the following used the method of contradiction: The sum of two consecutive integers is always odd.

"Prove the following used the method of contradiction: The sum of two consecutive integers is always odd."
I thought this proof would be a straightforward direct proof. So, the contradiction would be "The sum of two integers is always even." Sparing the rigorous details: an integer n added to another integer $\left(n+1\right)$ leads to $\left(2n+1\right)$, which contradicts the statement, since $2n+1$ is the representation of an odd number.
My teacher, however, proved this with two cases. The first case: a direct proof, using my strategy above, for $n+\left(n+1\right)$. The second case, basically a similar proof to the one in the first case but now using $\left(n-1\right)+n$. This second case is what has confused me. Isn't this step a bit redundant? Is it necessary? Does it enhance the proof, or just add superfluous information to it?
You can still ask an expert for help

## Want to know more about Discrete math?

• Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

• Math expert for every subject
• Pay only if we can solve it

encoplemt5
Step 1
If you stick strictly with a direct proof (denoting two consecutive integers by n and $n+1$, summing them to get $2n+1$, therefore odd), you'll be fine.
For one thing, your assumed contradiction, the negation of "the sum of two consecutive numbers is always odd" is not correctly stated; its negation needs to be "it is not the case that that the sum of two consecutive numbers is always odd", which means, "there exists two consecutive integers whose sum is even."
Proof by contradiction here turns out to be much more work than simply using a direct proof.
Your teacher may have chosen to represent two cases, in the event some students designated the two consecutive integers as $\left(n-1\right)$ and n, while others, like you, denoted these consecutive integers as n and $\left(n+1\right).$
Step 2
As you note, the proof proceeds the same, in either case, but given that your teacher was providing an answer key, he or she may have simply tried to cover all the bases: all the approaches students may have used.
But to answer your question, aside from this pedagogical concern your teacher may have had, the proof does not require a proof by cases. So I do not believe your teacher expected you or any other student to provide both cases. Doing so does not add any more information, is rather redundant, etc, save for the pedagogical concerns your teacher may have had.