Easy Proof of Irrationality of Pi

  • Thread starter Thread starter climbhi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the search for easy proofs of the irrationality of Pi. Users express interest in non-calculus methods to demonstrate this property, referencing various approaches including inscribing polygons within a circle. The discussion highlights the concept that as the number of sides of the inscribed polygon increases, the calculated value of Pi approaches 3.1415926536..., reinforcing its irrational nature. Additionally, Lindemann's proof is mentioned as a notable example that requires minimal calculus.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic geometry, particularly the properties of circles and polygons.
  • Familiarity with the concept of irrational numbers.
  • Basic knowledge of limits and convergence in mathematics.
  • Awareness of historical mathematical proofs, specifically Lindemann's proof of Pi's transcendence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Lindemann's proof of the transcendence of Pi.
  • Explore non-calculus based proofs of irrational numbers.
  • Study the geometric method of inscribing polygons to approximate Pi.
  • Investigate Zeno's paradox and its implications in mathematical reasoning.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, and students interested in the properties of Pi, irrational numbers, and alternative mathematical proofs without reliance on calculus.

climbhi
[SOLVED] Easy Proof of Irrationality of Pi

Ooops, I found a critical error in my proof. Please ignore my stupidity if you already read it. So seeing as my easy "proof" failed perhaps someone here can help me out. Do any of you know of any easy proofs for the irrationality of pi? Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't, sorry. But one thing I find interesting about pi is that many cultures over the millennia have had it, although they all used different exact values for it.
 
I hate to bother you but, in fact, many cultures have used many different APPROXIMATE values for pi. There is only one exact value.
 
Originally posted by bogdan
http://pi314.at/math/irrational.html

Not the simplest...but not too complicated...
Thanks, I'm stuck at the first part where they say it is not hard to show that... but I think I followed most of it after that. Do you know of any proofs which do not use calculus? I'm looking for one to show to someone who has had math up to but not including calculus. Thanks!
 
I have not taken calculus either, so although this proof may not be the mathematical standard, it seems to make sense.

[pi]= circumference/diameter. Imagine inscribing polygons inside a circle of radius [squ]2. If the first polygon you inscribe is a square, the perimeter of such square would be 8, and diameter 2[squ]2. Therefore, [pi](square) = 8/2[squ]2 ~= 2.8284.

If the polygon you inscribed was a hexagon, diameter would still be 2[squ]2 but circumference of the hexagon would be 6[squ]2. Now, [pi](hexagon) = 3. As you continue to increase the number of sides for the inscribed polygon, your values for pi continue to approach the irrational 3.1415926536...

Since a circle has infinite number of sides, however, [pi] can never be fully equated by this method, making it possible for one to create polygons with sides that approach infinity in number, while getting closer to [pi] using this method. Since a polygon with infinite sides can never be obtained in such a way, neither can [pi], thus it is irrational.
 
That reasoning really isn't valid. One of the things I like to do when I have an argument I'm not really sure about is to try to apply it to something where the argument should obviously fail, if correct.


In this case, something akin to Zeno's paradox shows that it shouldn't hold. Suppose you are trying to figure out if the number 1 is irrational or not. Well, you can start building line segment of length 1/2. Then you can add to it another line segment of length 1/4, then 1/8, et cetera. You'll be able to get arbitrarily close to the number 1, but you can never actually obtain a line segment of length 1, so 1 must be irrational!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K