π irrational


By Niranjan Srinivas on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 11:06 am:

hi all,
can anyone prove that pi is irrational ?
I hope it will not involve very high mathematics ?
thanks
cheers
Niranjan.


By David Loeffler on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 06:24 pm:
Hmm. I only know one proof, which was on a problem sheet one of our lecturers gave out about a month ago. It involves mathematics of supposedly only A-level standard (it was an introductory sheet for new students) but it is rather involved.

It goes (sort of) like this: let q be any integer.

Let An = qn /n! 0 π xn (π-x )n sin(x)dx

Then show, by integrating An by parts twice, that An+2 =(4n+6)q An+1 -(qπ )2 An . This is quite fiddly, as it is easy to get very confused with the sheer volume of algebra, but it doesn't need you to do anything particularly clever.

Now for the important bit. Suppose π is rational; then we can write π=p/q, so that both q and qπ are integers.

Then if we use this q in the recurrence relation above, we see that An+2 is a sum of integer multiples of An+1 and An . So if these are integers, An+2 is also an integer. We can check the values of A0 , which is 2, and A1 , which is 4q. So, if our q exists, then A0 , A1 , and hence A2 and all the other A's are integers.

Now we are almost there, although it may not look like it. How big is An ? Since sin(x)0 for x=0..π, An is positive for all n.

However, for x between 0 and π, xn pn ,

(p-x )n pn ,

and sin(x)1.

So An is at most qn /n! 0 π π2n dx=π(q π2 )n /n!.

Can you see that as we make n larger and larger, this will inevitably get smaller and smaller? In other words, it tends to 0 as n gets big.

So, we know three things about An :

This can't be right, since if the last two are true, we would have to have An at least 1, which goes against the first.

So we have, at last, reached a contradiction. Thus our original assumption that q existed must have been false; we can't write π=p/q, i.e. it is irrational. QED.

David


By Kerwin Hui on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 12:03 am:

Maybe looking at this archive is a good idea.

Kerwin


By Arun Iyer on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:57 pm:

a much similar but slightly different variation of the proof is given here....
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath313.htm

love arun