| Ryan
Dyck |
Hi, I was wondering if you would be able to help me out with a tricky irrational I'm working on. I'm trying to prove that is irrational. I know that and is irrational by a lengthy proof, and I know that is irrational by a proof that I hope I won't have to reproduce here. Anyway, so in an attempt to prove that is irrational I began by trying to show that if you add , which we know is irrational, to a simplified version of that I got in my proof, that the result would be irrational, but it didn't really work out. Any thoughts? It'd be greatly appreciated. Ryan |
||
| Saul
Foresta |
rational + rational can't be irrational |
||
| Saul
Foresta |
hmm, didn't mean to post that, sorry i meant consider e+21/2 and e-21/2 . |
||
| Saul
Foresta |
or actually, you can do it by contradiction, assume e+21/2 is rational, then e is the sum of two algebraic numbers, which you can show is always algebraic, hence contradiction. |
||
| Angelina
Lai |
can you expand saul? just as an extention to that q, would the sum of 2 irrational numbers always be irrational? |
||
| Chris |
I think what Saul is implying is that if e+21/2 is rational, it must be algebraic, therfore e must be the difference of two algebraic numbers (since 21/2 is algebraic) which is also algebraic, so e is algebraic, which is a contradiction, since e is transcendental. |
||
| Angelina
Lai |
ok thanks chris, that's better. |
||
| Sarah
Sarah |
Angelina, the sum and/or product of two irrationals is not always irrational e.g. and Proof that e's irrational isn't that horrible, is it? I remember it being on an old STEP.. Sarah |
||
| Ryan
Dyck |
Ok, great, thanks a lot for your help. I'll see if I can get anywhere with this, but I may have to post if I get stuck again. Thanks again, Ryan Dyck |
||
| Saul
Foresta |
here's one proof that e is irrational, i know nobody specifically asked for this but whatever. e=1+1/1!+1/2!+.... Anticipating a contradiction assume e=p/q where p,q are integers greater than 0, and (p,q)=1. Then, p/q=e=1+1/1!+1/2!+...., now multiply on both sides by q! to get, p(q-1)!=q!(1+1/1!+...+1/q!)+q!(1/(q+1)!+...) Now the LHS is an integer, and so is the first term on the RHS, so we are done if we can show that the second term on the RHS is between zero and one. Clearly it must be greater than zero, but note, (1/(q+1)+q!/(q+2)!+....)< (1/(q+1)+1/(q+1)2 +...+1/(q+1)k +...)=1/q, and hence we have our contradiction, so e must be irrational. |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
On this topic, who knows how to show that the sum of two algebraic numbers is again an algebraic number? What about the product? Inverses? Some of these things are easier to show than others. Indeed, , the set of algebraic numbers, is a
field.Just some things to think about. Regards, Olof |
||
|
Michael Doré
|
Hint: note that x is algebraic iff span< 1,x,x2 ,...> has finite dimension (as a subspace of the vector space R over the rationals Q). |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
If you've met field extensions, it turns out to be ludicrously easy to do all of these in one go. Michael - have you ever come across a way of constructing the minimum polynomial of ,
given the minimum polynomial of and
of ? I wonder if this is even theoretically
possible.
|
||
| David
Loeffler |
Not unless you know more about and than just their minimal polynomials: consider and first then . |
||
|
Michael Doré
|
There are however easy ways of deriving _some_ polynomial (not necessarily the minimal one) which kills if you know about tensors and stuff. FIrst find matrices , with integer entries which have , (respectively) as eigenvalues. (Hint for doing this: let , have entries 1 just above the diagonal, and all the rest of the entries zero except those on the bottom row.) Now consider the tensor where here denotes the tensor product. This has an eigenvalue with some eigenvector (where , are column vectors). So must be a solution to the equation: and it's easy to check the left hand side is a polynomial with integer coefficients. |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
Ah yes, of course, David. Well put. Michael - can't say I've done tensors yet, but the idea is clear enough. Easy when you know how! - Olof |
||
| Anand
Deopurkar |
Does anyone know the proof that e is transcendental ? |
||
| Emma
McCaughan |
This is one that's in our archive: here ! Feel free to ask more questions here if you need help understanding what's there. |
||
| James |
Umm, can someone explain what an algebraic number is please. I know that any rational number can be written p/q where p and q are integers, is this what you mean? |
||
| James |
It seems that my question has been answered by the link in Emma's message. |
||
| Chris |
Algebraic means that it can be written as the solution to a polynomial , with being integers. Thus it follows that numbers such as and are algebraic. |
||
| Chris |
Ooops, didn't see your second post, never mind |
||
| James |
Thanks Chris, thats actually made it much clearer to me now. |
||
| Demetres
Christofides |
This is really tough. Suppose e is algebraic, say ![]() Let ![]() where p is a 'large prime' Define ![]() Define ![]() 1. Integrate by parts n times to show that ![]() 2. Using the above expression for J, show that if you choose p large enough, then but
![]() 3. Go back to the expression of I as an integral and find an upper bound for I in terms of t,n and p. Use this together with the definition of J to find an upper bound for J depending on the ai 's,n and p. But ai 's and n are fixed while you can take p as large as you want. Show that for
some constant C independent of p.4. Show that you result in 3 contradicts 2 Demetres |
||
|
Michael Doré
|
Hmmm, did I really post that thing which is now in the archive? Either I forgot to give the proofs of Liouville and Lindemann (the former is easy, the latter is essentially an extension of the proof Demetres has given that e is transcendental) or they got deleted somehow. Also I misstated Liouville's theorem - you need to add the condition that x is irrational. |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
Michael - I remember eagerly awaiting the proofs. I seem to remember that there was a problem with one of the trig statements as well - it allowed you to deduce that pi + e was either transcendental or algebraic, but I think that's been corrected. I think there was probably an iff somewhere. I've always wondered if there isn't a simpler proof of Lindemann's theorem (simpler than the standard one, that is). Anyone know of alternative proofs? |
||
|
Michael Doré
|
Sorry about that. I think I must have been _totally_ out of it when I wrote that message... |
||
| Brad
Rodgers |
The only proof I know of Lindemann is the one given in Hardy and Wright, which is presumably the standard one. There is however another proof of 's transcendence, one which in my opinion is a good deal simpler. It's due to Hilbert. Recall that for an integer , , and thus for an integral polynomial (with integer coefficients, that is) Suppose then that is algebraic. There exist integers such that , and, without loss of generality, . Let (for as above) and define and . Note that . Now, we require two lemmas: Lemma 1: For infinitely many , is a nonzero integer. Proof: Substituting into the integral for , where or as or not, and the are polynomials with integer coefficients. Using (1), we have that the first term of is divisible by , and that the rest are divisible by . But , which, by Fermat's theorem, is congruent to when is prime, and since isn't divisible by an infinitude of primes, there are an infinitude of for which isn't divisible by , and thus an infinitude of for which is a nonzero integer. Lemma 2: . Proof: Let It is relatively easy to show that , from which it follows . But, since , Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 contradict each other, and thus cannot be algebraic. Brad |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
That's a great proof Brad. Really nice. Very well explained as well - nice one. Michael - it was still good getting all those transcendentality results gathered in one place. Besides, an unproven statement usually inspires mathematicians to go and find out themselves. At least I know I did! Olof |
||
| Bugz
Podder |
this stuff looks scary... when is it taught? second or third year university? |
||
| Olof
Sisask |
I'm not sure about other universities, but I don't think the transcendence of e (or any other number for that matter) is usually taught out. At least it wasn't in the Number Theory module here at Warwick, and the only other possibility I can see for it is if it's in a fourth year reading module called Algebraic Number Theory. Which, come to think of it, it might just be. Anyway, if you're interested in number theory, I wouldn't wait till university to check out all the results - you can cover them much more quickly yourself with a copy of Hardy and Wright! Olof |
||
| Demetres
Christofides |
Prof. Baker sometimes gave a course called 'Transendental number Theory' in the 4th year at Cambridge. He's got a book under the same title published by CUP. It is quite a hard reading. Demetres |