Can sqrt(2) + sqrt(5) be proven irrational?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rsnd
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the expression sqrt(2) + sqrt(5) can be proven to be irrational. Participants explore various proof techniques, including contradiction and algebraic manipulation, while addressing the implications of assuming rationality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using a proof by contradiction, assuming sqrt(2) + sqrt(5) is rational and manipulating the equation to derive a contradiction.
  • One participant describes reaching an equation involving sqrt(10) and questions how this relates to proving irrationality.
  • Another participant proposes rearranging the equation before squaring it to simplify the proof process.
  • One approach involves demonstrating that sqrt(2) + sqrt(3) is irrational by analyzing its minimum polynomial, although this method is considered by some to be overly complex for the current problem.
  • Another participant suggests that if sqrt(2) + sqrt(5) is rational, then rearranging leads to sqrt(2) being expressed in terms of rational numbers, resulting in a contradiction.
  • One participant introduces a method using two expressions, sqrt(5) + sqrt(2) and sqrt(5) - sqrt(2), to show that if one is rational, the other must be irrational, leading to a contradiction.
  • Corrections are made regarding the algebraic steps in the squaring proof, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accuracy in the expressions used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views and methods for proving the irrationality of sqrt(2) + sqrt(5). There is no consensus on a single approach, and various techniques are debated without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about specific algebraic manipulations and the implications of their proofs. There are mentions of assumptions regarding the irrationality of sqrt(2) and sqrt(5) that are taken for granted in the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying irrational numbers, proof techniques in mathematics, or exploring algebraic properties of square roots.

rsnd
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
how do you prove that sqrt(2) + sqrt(5) is irrational...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
by contradiction, suppose r=sqrt(2)+sqrt(5) and r is rational. play around with that and see what you can show this implies.
 
matt grime said:
by contradiction, suppose r=sqrt(2)+sqrt(5) and r is rational. play around with that and see what you can show this implies.
i did get it down to 7+2root10 = m^2/n^2 where i assumed root 2 + root 5 = m/n...and before that i proved root 10 to be irrational...so i am kinda stuck on the 7+2root10 = m^2/n^2 bit...how does that mean anything...
 
why not do rearrange the equation before squaring it so that after squaring you only have, say sqrt(2) to deal with, which i presume you know is irrational.

i don't see why you're showing 7+ something is not of the from m^2/n^2, to be honest, either, and you certainly don't need to write r=m/n either.
 
look at this
for √2 + √3, let it equal a...
a^2 = 5 + 2√6
a^2 - 5 = 2√6
a^4 - 10a^2 + 25 = 24
a^4 - 10a^2 + 1 = 0

The minimum polynomial of a is x^4 - 10x^2 + 1. (I haven't proven it actually is the minimum, but it will still suffice for this method of proof)

Now, the only possible rational roots of this are 1 and -1, and neither of these is √2 + √3, so it's irrational
 
I think that's aiming way too high for this question, and besides, if you're going to go and use theorems like that then why not simply invoke the fact that sqrt(2)+sqrt(3) is an algebraic integer, and hence if it were rational it would be integral, which it clearly isn't.

r-sqrt(2) = sqrt(5)
square and rearrange to get sqrt(2) rational, contradiction.
 
i had an argumetn like this

let root 2 + root 5 = m/n...i.e. assume they are rational...and we have already proved that root 10 is irrational...
squaring both sides:
2+5+2.root2.root5 = m2/n2
or 7+2.root10=m2/n2
this is where i got up to...
now i am thinking that if i put everything in terms of root 10 then:
root 10 = (m2/n2 - 7)/2
so we have irrational = "(m2/n2 - 7)/2"
so that implies that (m2/n2 - 7) is irrational and also m2/n2 is irrational and they cannot be irrationals and integers at the same time and therefore its a contradiction...makes sence? may b not...im just insane!
 
Assuming you already know √(2) is irrational, matt grime's suggestion, "rearrange the equation before squaring it " gives this:

Suppose r= √(2)+ √(5) is rational. Then r- √(2)= √(5).
Squaring both sides, r2- 2√(2)r+ 2= 5 so 2√(2)= r2- 3. Then √(2)= (r2- 3)/2. Since the rational numbers are closed under multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction, the right hand side is rational, giving the contradiction that √(2) is rational.
 
Another way of doing it, which I think is slightly "nicer" than squaring is as follows :

Let [tex]\sqrt{5} + \sqrt{2} = x_1[/tex] and [tex]\sqrt{5} - \sqrt{2} = x_2[/tex]

Assume [tex]x_1[/tex] is rational and can be expressed as [tex]\frac{p}{q}[/tex], where p and q are coprime integers.

[tex]\frac{1}{2}(x_1 - x_2) = \sqrt{2}[/tex], which is irrational, hence [tex]x_2[/tex] has to be irrational (since [tex]x_1[/tex] is rational by assumption).

But [tex]x_1x_2 = 3[/tex], giving [tex]x_2 = \frac{3}{x_1} = \frac{3q}{p}[/tex]

This implies [tex]x_2[/tex] is rational, contradicting the above.

Hence [tex]x_1[/tex] is irrational (QED).
 
  • #10
Yes, that is nice.
 
  • #11
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, that is nice.

Thank you. :smile:

BTW, there is a small error in your explanation of the squaring proof. It should go like so :

[tex]r^2 - 2\sqrt{2}r + 2 = 5[/tex]
[tex]2\sqrt{2}r = r^2 - 3[/tex]
[tex]\sqrt{2} = \frac{1}{2}(r - \frac{3}{r})[/tex]

And LHS is irrational, RHS is rational, contradiction. You forgot the 'r' when you typed it out. Just a minor point, doesn't change the substance of your proof at all. :biggrin:
 
  • #12
thanks to all! it kinda makes sence!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K