diff --git a/Advanced/Proof Techniques/main.tex b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/main.tex
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..2eccb10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/main.tex	
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+% use [nosolutions] flag to hide solutions.
+% use [solutions] flag to show solutions.
+\documentclass[
+	solutions,
+	singlenumbering,
+	unfinished
+]{../../resources/ormc_handout}
+\usepackage{../../resources/macros}
+
+\usepackage{units}
+
+\uptitlel{Math Circle Basics}
+\uptitler{}
+\title{Proof Techniques}
+\subtitle{Prepared by \githref{Mark} on \today{}}
+
+% Default \implies is ugly
+\let\implies\Rightarrow
+\let\rimplies\Leftarrow
+\let\iff\Leftrightarrow
+\let\notimplies\nRightarrow 
+
+\begin{document}
+
+	\maketitle
+
+	\input{parts/0 intro}
+	\input{parts/1 contradiction}
+	\input{parts/2 induction}
+
+\end{document}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/0 intro.tex b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/0 intro.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..86737bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/0 intro.tex	
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+\section{Introduction}
+
+
+\definition{}
+A \textit{proof} is a mathematical argument that irrefutably
+demonstrates the truth of a given proposition.
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+Every proof involves some sort of \textit{implication}, denoted $\implies$. \par
+The statement \say{$A$ implies $B$} (written $A \implies B$), means that $B$ is true whenever $A$ is true.
+
+\problem{}<trueimplies>
+Which of the following are true? \par
+\note{You don't need to provide a proof.}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item $x$ is prime $\implies$ $x$ is odd.
+	\item $x$ is real $\implies$ $x$ is rational.
+	\item $x$ is odd $\implies$ $x$ is prime.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vfill
+
+
+
+\problem{}
+As you saw above, $A \implies B$ does not guarantee that $B \implies A$. \par
+Find two new statements $A$ and $B$ so that $A \implies B$ but $B \notimplies A$. \par
+\hint{\say{new} as in \say{not from \ref{trueimplies}}}
+
+\begin{solution}
+	A fairly trite example is below. \par
+	Note that \say{$X$ is a square} is a subset of the statement \say{$X$ is a rectangle.}
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	$X$ is a square $\implies$ $X$ is a rectangle, but $X$ is a rectangle $\notimplies$ $X$ is a square.
+\end{solution}
+
+
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+
+\definition{}<iffdef>
+As we just saw, implication is one-directional. \par
+The statements $A \implies B$ and $B \implies A$ are independent of one another. \par
+
+\vspace{1mm}
+ 
+If both are true, we write $A \iff B$. This can be read as \say{$A$ if and only if $B$.} \par
+In text, \say{if and only if} is often abbreviated as iff. \par
+
+\vspace{1mm}
+
+Bidirectional implication is the strongest relationship we can have between two statements: \par
+If $A \iff B$, $A$ and $B$ are \textit{equivalent.} They are always either both true or both false.
+
+\definition{}
+The \textit{floor} of $x$ is the largest integer $a$ so that $a \leq x$. This is denoted $\lfloor x \rfloor$. \par
+The \textit{ceiling} of $x$ is the largest integer $a$ so that $a \geq x$. This is denoted $\lceil x \rceil$.
+
+
+\generic{Property:}
+If $b_1 \leq a \leq b_2$ and $b_1 = b_2$, we must have that $b_1 = a = b_2$. \par
+
+\vspace{1mm}
+
+Also, if $a \leq b$ and $a \geq b$, we must have that $a = b$. \par
+This is a trick we often use when showing that two quantities are equal.
+
+
+
+
+\problem{}
+Although $A \iff B$ looks like a single statement, we often need to prove each direction seperately. \par
+Show that $x \in \mathbb{Z}$ iff $\lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$
+
+\begin{solution}
+	\textbf{Forwards:} $x \in \mathbb{Z} ~\implies~ \lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$ \par
+	If $x \in \mathbb{Z}$, by definition we have that $\lfloor x \rfloor = x$ and $\lceil x \rceil = x$ \par
+	So, $\lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	\textbf{Backwards:} $x \in \mathbb{Z} ~\rimplies~ \lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$ \par
+	Assume that $\lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$, and show that $x$ is an integer. \par
+	Note that $\lfloor x \rfloor \leq x \leq \lceil x \rceil$ (by definition) \par
+	Since $\lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil$, we must have that $\lfloor x \rfloor = x = \lceil x \rceil$. \par
+	$\lfloor x \rfloor$ is an integer, so $x$ must be an integer.
+\end{solution}
+
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+\problem{}
+We don't always need to prove each direction of an iff statement seperately. \par
+
+\begin{itemize}[itemsep = 1mm]
+	\item Convince yourself that we can \say{chain} iffs together: \par
+	If we show that $A \iff B \iff C \iff D$, do we know that $A \iff D$?
+
+	\item Does this still work if $A \iff B \implies C \iff D$?
+
+	\item Show that $x^2 - 6x - 6 = 3 \iff x = 3$ by building a chain of iffs. \par
+	\hint{You remember how to factor quadratics, right?}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\begin{solution}
+	Does this still work if $A \iff B \implies C \iff D$? \par
+	Of course not. $D \notimplies A$ since $C \notimplies B$.
+	We can only conclude that $A \implies D$.
+
+	\linehack{}
+
+	$x^2 - 6x - 6 = 3$ \par
+	$\iff x^2 - 6x - 9 = 0$ \par
+	$\iff (x-3)^2 = 0$ \par
+	$\iff x-3 = 0$ \par
+	$\iff x = 0$
+
+	Note that this is a well-defined argument. Every step is an iff statement we can rigorously justify.
+	We're not hand-wavily \say{rearranging} one equation into another,
+	we're building a chain of implications that eventually bring us to our result.
+	This is the logic behind most algebraic proofs.
+\end{solution}
+
+
+\vfill
+
+\problem{}
+Another trick you may find useful is the \say{implication cycle.} \par
+Convince yourself that if $A \implies B \implies C \implies D \implies A$, \par
+we can conclude that $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are equivalent. \par
+\note{$A \iff B$ means that $A$ and $B$ are equivalent. See \ref{iffdef}.}
+
+\vfill
+
+\problem{Bonus}
+Use an implication cycle to show that the following definitions of a \textit{squarefree integer} are equivalent.
+%\hint{Show that $A \implies B \implies C \implies D \implies A$}
+\begin{enumerate}
+	\item $n^2$ does not divide $q$ for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, $n \neq 1$
+	\item $p^2$ does not divide $q$ for any prime $p$ 
+	\item $q$ is a product of distinct primes
+	\item $q ~|~ n^k \implies q ~|~ n$ for all $n, k \in \mathbb{Z}^+$
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\begin{solution}
+	Assume $q$ has a square factor, so that $q = an^2$ for some $a, n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ \par
+	By D, we know that $q ~|~ (an)^2 \implies q ~|~ an$ \par
+	But $q ~|~ an \implies an^2 ~|~ an$ \par
+	$\implies n = 1$
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	So, $q$ cannot have a square factor that isn`t 1.
+\end{solution}
+
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+Often enough, proving a statement is simply a matter of \say{definition chasing,}
+where we expand the symbols used in the statement we're proving, and then do a bit of
+rearranging to arrive at the result we want.
+
+
+\definition{}
+Let $n, x \in \mathbb{Z}$. \par
+We say \say{$n$ divides $x$} if $x = kn$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$
+
+\definition{}
+Let $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. \par
+We say \say{$a$ is congruent to $b$ modulo $n$} (and write $a \equiv_{n} b$) if $n$ divides $a - b$. \par
+
+\definition{}
+Let $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}$. We define $a ~\%~ b$ as the remainder of $a \div b$.
+
+\problem{}
+Let $a, b, n$ be positive integers. \par
+Show that $a + b ~\equiv_n (a ~\%~ n) + (b ~\%~ n)$
+
+\begin{solution}
+	$a + b ~\equiv_n (a ~\%~ n) + (b ~\%~ n)$ \par
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+	...can be rewritten as... \par
+	$n$ divides $a + b - (a ~\%~ n) - (b ~\%~ n)$ \par
+	
+	\vspace{2mm}
+	...which can be rearranged to... \par
+	$n$ divides $(a - (a ~\%~ n)) + (b - (b ~\%~ n))$
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+	...which is clearly true, if you think about the meaning of \say{$n$ divides $x$} and \say{$a ~\%~ b$}.
+\end{solution}
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/1 contradiction.tex b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/1 contradiction.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5d8eebd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/1 contradiction.tex	
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+\section{Proofs by Contradiction}
+
+\definition{}
+A very common (and somewhat contraversial) proof technique is
+\textit{proof by contradiction}. It works as follows: 
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+Say we want to prove a statement $P$. Assume that $P$ is false, and show that this implies a false statement.
+In other words, we show that $P$ can't \textit{not} be true. \par
+If it's false, we either get a known impossibility ($1 = 2$, pigs fly, et cetera), \par
+or we find that (not $P$) $\implies$ (not (not $P$)), which is a contradiction in itself.
+
+
+\problem{}
+Show that the set of integers has no maximum using a proof by contradiction.
+
+\begin{solution}
+	Assume there is a maximal integer $x$. \par
+	$x + 1$ is also an integer. \par
+	$x + 1$ is larger than $x$, which contradicts our original assumtion!
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	This is a \textit{proof by infinite descent}, a special type of proof by contradiction.\par
+	Such proofs have the following structure:
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item Assume there is a smallest (or largest) object with property $X$.
+		\item Show that we have an even smaller object that has the same property $X$.
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{solution}
+
+\vfill
+
+\definition{}
+We say a number $x \in \mathbb{R}$ is \textit{rational} if we can write $x$ as $\nicefrac{p}{q}$, \par
+where $p, q$ are integers with no common factors.
+
+\problem{}
+Show that $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational. \par
+\hint{Start by chasing definitions. \say{Not irrational} $=$ \say{rational.}}
+
+\begin{solution}
+	Suppose $\sqrt{2}$ is rational. Then, there exist $p, q$ so that $\sqrt{2} = \frac{p}{q}$.
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	Multiply by $q$ and square to find that $2q^2 = p^2$, which implies that $p^2$ is even. \par
+	This then implies that $p$ is even, \par
+	which implies that $p^2$ is divisible by 4, \par
+	which implies that $q^2$ is divisible by 2, \par
+	and thus we see that $q$ is also even.
+
+	\vspace{2mm}
+
+	$p$ and $q$ are both even, so they cannot be coprime. \par
+	Therefore, we cannot write $\sqrt{2}$ as $\nicefrac{p}{q}$ for comprime $p, q$, \par
+	and $\sqrt{2}$ is therefore irrational.
+\end{solution}
+
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/2 induction.tex b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/2 induction.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..009540f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Advanced/Proof Techniques/parts/2 induction.tex	
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+\section{Proofs by Induction}
+
+\definition{}
+The last proof technique we'll discuss in this handout is \textit{induction.} \par
+This is particularly useful when we have a \say{countable} variable, usually an integer. \par
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+A proof by induction consists of two parts: a \textit{base case} and a \textit{inductive step}. \par
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+\vfill
+
+Note that although induction is a powerful proof technique, it usually leads to uninteresting results. \par
+If we prove a statement using induction, we conclude that it is true---but we get very little insight on
+\textit{why} that is. 
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+Alternative proofs are take a bit more work than inductive proofs, but they are much more valuable. \par
+For example, consider the following proof of X:
+
+\makeatletter
+\@makeORMCbox{tmpbox}{Alternative Proof}{ogrape!10!white}{ogrape}
+\makeatother
+
+\begin{tmpbox}
+	sdfasdf
+\end{tmpbox}
+
+
+\pagebreak
\ No newline at end of file