sqrt(2)sqrt(2) : rational or
irrational?
By Jeff Davies on December 12, 1997
:
Is
rational or irrational?
By Anonymous :
[The following brief reply is followed
by some clarifications of the concepts in darker blue. - The
Editor]
It's a highly non-trivial question, but the
answer is simple: it's irrational, even transcendental . This is a consequence of the
Gelfond-Schneider Theorem: ab is transcendental
provided a,b are algebraic, b is irrational, and a is neither 0
nor 1.
(The problem of proving this was one of the ones Hilbert famously proposed in 1900 , and it was
solved independently by G. and S. in, I think, 1936.)
Did this come up in the context of the excellent proof that one
can raise an irrational number to an
irrational power and get a rational number? In case the
answer is "no" and you haven't seen this: let a=sqrt(2),
b=aa , c=ba . Note that c=2 since it's
(aa )a = aa*a = a2 =
2. So either aa =b or ba =c is an example
of the phenomenon.
g
By Anonymous :
That was actually a reply I made to a personal e-mail
message asking `can you help?'; I mention this merely to excuse the perhaps
excessive terseness of what I said. So, a few words of clarification.
- transcendental
A number is transcendental if it isn't a root of any algebraic
equation with integer coefficients.
So, for instance, the square root of 2 is not transcendental
(it's a root of
).
In a sense that can be made perfectly precise, there are enormously more
transcendental numbers than algebraic ones (`algebraic' = `not transcendental').
Proving that a given number is transcendental is usually rather hard.
Some well-known numbers that are transcendental:
and
. The proofs that they are transcendental are each about a
page long, if you write them very tersely.
The Gelfond-Schneider Theorem, which as I mentioned implies that
is transcendental, is much harder.
One other thing: a consequence of the fact that
is transcendental
is that the old problem of `squaring the circle' is impossible: that is, it's
not possible to construct, using the usual methods with ruler and compass
alone, a square with area equal to the area of a given circle. This problem
goes back to the ancient Greeks.
- Hilbert's problems
At the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in 1900, David
Hilbert (possibly the greatest mathematician then living) proposed a list of
23 problems that he suggested mathematicians would do well to work on. They
have all proved extremely fertile; some have been solved and some have not.
The seventh of these problems was: determine whether, if
and
are
algebraic,
(the logarithm of
to base
) is always either
rational or transcendental.
This is equivalent to: is
always transcendental when
and
are algebraic,
is irrational, and
is neither 0 nor 1?
Gelfond and Schneider each (independently) proved that the answer is
`yes', in 1934 (not 1936, as I wrongly said). Some very far-reaching
generalisations of this theorem have since been proved, but there are still
lots of unresolved questions. As a random example: I don't think anyone has
any idea how to prove that
is transcendental (though it presumably is).
- Irrational number to irrational power
What I wrote was perhaps a bit too abbreviated, so I'll go over it a
little more slowly.
FACT: there are irrational numbers
,
such that
is rational.
PROOF: Let
;
;
.
If
is rational then we are already done:
,
.
If
is irrational then we can take
,
.
For (1) these
,
are irrational,
and (2)
,
which is rational. QED.
As it happens,
is irrational; but, as I said, that's not at all easy
to prove. In fact I don't know of any numbers
,
,
for which it's
easy to prove
-
,
are irrational
-
is rational
-
.
Hmm. That's more than the `few words' I predicted at the start. Never mind.