Is the square root of a prime number always going to be irrational?

Universe_Man
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
is the square root of a prime number always going to be irrational? just a random question.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I believe the square root of any natural number that is not a perfect square is irrational.
 
I would say yes, because let's denote our prime p. If \sqrt{p}=n, (n\in\mathbb{N}), then it means that p=n² <==> p/n=n (i.e. n divides p ==> p is not prime: a contradiction with the hypothesis). If \sqrt{p}=m/n, (m,n \in \mathbb{N}, n\neq 0,1, then it means that p = m²/n², i.e. p is rationnal ==> p is not prime: a contradiction with the hypothesis. The only remaining possibility is that \sqrt{p} is irrational.
 
Yes, you're both right.

Here's a proof of the prime case...

Suppose there exists a prime p such that \sqrt{p} \in \mathbb{Q}

Then \sqrt{p} = \frac{a}{b} \ where p,q \in \mathbb{Z}

Now, we can assume that a and b are relatively prime (ie the fraction is in lowest form). This is crucial for the remainder of the proof.

b \cdot \sqrt{p} = a

b^{2} \cdot p = a^{2}

From this last equation, we see that p divides a. Therefore, there exists some integer k such that a = pk. Substituting gives us:

b^{2} \cdot p = {(pk)}^{2} = p^{2} \cdot k^{2}

Thus, b^{2} = p \cdot k^{2}

Now, we have an equation that shows p divides b. So we have reached a contradiction. Since a and b were assumed to be relatively prime, they can't both possibly have p as a divisor. Therefore, no such integers a and b exist.
 
Last edited:
In general, I think that the nth root of any natural number that is not itself a perfect nth power is an irrational number.
 
BSMSMSTMSPHD said:
In general, I think that the nth root of any natural number that is not itself a perfect nth power is an irrational number.

This is true, and in fact the nth root of any rational number which doesn't have a perfect nth power in both the numerator and denominator (when written in lowest terms) is irrational. To see this (as I mentioned in another https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129729"), just note that when you take the nth power of a rational number, you get a rational number with the above property. So conversely, a number which doesn't have this property can't be the nth power of a rational number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top