Liouville's proof of existence of
transcendental numbers
By Yatir Halevi on Wednesday, September
18, 2002 - 07:46 pm:
How did Liouville 'construct' a transcendental number?
Yatir
By Michael Doré on Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 01:00 am:
He discovered the following result, called Liouville's
theorem (or at least this is one result called Liouville's theorem - there's
a different one in complex analysis).
Suppose
is algebraic of degree
(that is it is the root of a
th
degree irreducible polynomial with integer coefficients). Then you can find
such that for all rational
(with
) we have
.
To prove this, let
be an irreducible polynomial of degree
with integer
coefficients such that
.
has bounded gradient in
so there exists
such that for any rational
in
we have:
(Note that we don't need to worry about rationals outside
since these have
so can't possibly affect the theorem.)
Now just note that
is a non-negative integer and it is not zero
(as
is irreducible) so it is at least 1. And
. Hence:
as required.
This theorem allows us to construct many transcendental numbers. The key is to
find a number which is so well approximated by rationals that the conclusion of
Liouville's theorem cannot possibly hold for any
, thus proving the number
is transcendental. For example it is an easy exercise now to show that
is transcendental. Historically this
was the first number to be proved as such.
Most transcendental numbers aren't well enough approximated by rationals to
allow Liouville's theorem to prove they're transcendental. Still I rather like
the above proof of Liouville's theorem as it combines analysis and algebra in
a nice way.
By Yatir Halevi on Thursday, September 19,
2002 - 05:28 am:
Michael, could you please explain how to prove that the number
you gave as an example is transcendental?
Yatir
By Michael Doré on Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 11:24 am:
Consider more generally the sum
where
are strictly increasing positive integers with
. Suppose this is algebraic of degree
. We will use Liouville
to derive a necessary condition on the
s.
We can find
such that
for any rational
. Take
. Then
. We get:
and this must hold for all
.
Let's estimate the thing on the left hand side. We have
for all
. So:
Using the formula for a geometric progression this gives us:
for all
.
In other words, if
is algebraic of degree
then there exists
such that
for all
.
So to ensure that
is not algebraic we just need to make sure this condition
is violated for every positive integer
. For instance if (for every
)
tends to infinity as
tends to infinity, then the condition
is certainly violated. If you set
then
which tends to infinity as
tends to
infinity (for any fixed
).
Hence
is transcendental. You can replace 2 with
any other base, such as 10, if you want. Thus the number
1.110001000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001... is transcendental.