Are there systemic method to producing transcendental numbers?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter theName()
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether there are systematic methods for producing transcendental numbers. Participants explore various approaches, examples, and properties related to transcendental numbers, touching on both theoretical and practical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that numbers like π, π+1, and other combinations of transcendental numbers can generate more transcendental numbers.
  • Others question the existence of transcendental numbers that cannot be derived from operations on other transcendental numbers.
  • A participant mentions that any sum of two transcendental numbers is also transcendental, but notes the difficulty in determining whether a number is transcendental.
  • One participant discusses the properties of Liouville numbers as a class of transcendental numbers and provides a proof of their irrationality and transcendence.
  • The Gelfond-Schneider theorem is introduced as a method for generating transcendental numbers from algebraic numbers, with examples provided.
  • Another participant suggests using power series or Taylor polynomials to approximate transcendental functions, specifically mentioning the sine function.
  • There is a discussion about the transcendental nature of trigonometric functions evaluated at rational radian values, with some corrections made regarding terminology and properties.
  • A unique example of a number constructed from a series of digits is proposed as potentially transcendental, based on its construction involving triangular numbers.
  • One participant clarifies the correct terminology regarding Liouville numbers, correcting a previous misspelling.
  • Another participant argues that a systematic method for generating all transcendental numbers cannot exist due to the uncountable nature of transcendental numbers compared to the countable nature of algorithms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the methods for generating transcendental numbers, with no consensus reached on whether a systematic method exists. There are competing ideas regarding specific examples and properties of transcendental numbers.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific definitions and properties of transcendental and algebraic numbers, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions about the nature of transcendental numbers.

theName()
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
the title is the question.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes. pi, pi+1, pi+2, pi+any rational number...
 
matt grime said:
Yes. pi, pi+1, pi+2, pi+any rational number...

what about transendential numbers that are not the multiple, addition, substraction... of some other transendential numbers?
 
Every number sum of two transcendental numbers.

Sorry to appear obfuscatory, but your question is so open as to not have a meaningful answer. The first number known to be transcendental was shown to be so by demonstrating some property of rate of convergence about it truncated decimal expansions. That might be a method you consider good enough to meet your criteria.

In general it is *very* hard to even decide whether a number is transcendental.
 
Well, The Tangent, Sine or Cosine of Any Rational Value, when In Radians, Is Irrational. eg [tex]\sin 1[/tex] is irrational, Or the Natural Log Of any positive rational number that is not equal to 1.

The Louisville Constant is a good example of a Louisville Number, which is a general class of numbers which are all transcendental.

These numbers all fulfill the property: [tex]0<|x-p/q|<1/q^n[/tex] for integers p and q, q>1 and n is any positive integer. One property of the Louisville numbers is that they can be reasonably well approximated by rational numbers. As algebraic irrational numbers do not have this property, we can prove Louisville numbers are transcendental.

First we prove they are irrational by letting x = a Liouville number, x is irrational. Assume otherwise; then there exists integers c, d with x = c/d. Let n be a positive integer such that 2n−1 > d. Then if p and q are any integers such that q > 1 and p/q ≠ c/d, then

[tex]|x-p/q|=|c/d-p/q| >= 1/dq > 1/(2^{n-1} q) >= 1/q^n[/tex] (where >= means more or equal to)

which contradicts the definition of Liouville number. Therefore They are not rational. Then we use the property that irrational algebraic numbers cannot be approximated by rational numbers very well. Since Louisville numbers do not have this property, they can not be algebraic and therefore irrational.

Another Way of finding transcendental numbers is by using the Gelfond-Schnieder theorem. It states that if a and b are algebraic numbers, where a is not equal to zero or one, and b is not a real rational number, then a^b is a transcendental number. I believe perhaps this one may be the most helpful to you. This can generate many transcendental numbers, just let a equal some integer or so, not equal to 0 or 1, and b any irrational number, and we have a^b being transcendental. Eg 2^pi, 2^(root3) , or (sqrt2)^(sqrt2).

I have seen this be used to prove the transcendence of pi or e, can't remember, by Euler's Identity: [tex]e^{i\pi}=-1[/tex]. I can't be bothered to write the relativity simple proof, its a little exercise for you :)

From what I've written here you should be able to recognise that ln(3), cos 3, and 2^root 2 all fall into the set of transcendental numbers, I hope i helped.
 
Last edited:
The first thing I thought of when I read your question is the use of a power series or Taylor polynomial to describe or approximate a transcendental function. For example, the transcendental function [tex]sin\,x[/tex] can be represented by:

[tex] sin\,x = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n+1} x^{2n-1}}{(2n-1)!}[/tex]

Wikipedia has a good article on Taylor series here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
 
Last edited:
O, I just read over my post and realized I said something that was correct, but not intended. The sin, tan, or cos of any rational radian value is transcendental, as well as irrational. same goes for the natural log. And same goes for the Louisville numbers, they are not algebraic and therefore transcendental.
 
Gib Z said:
O, I just read over my post and realized I said something that was correct, but not intended. The sin, tan, or cos of any rational radian value is transcendental, as well as irrational.

Any rational radian value other than zero.
 
O yes, forgot about zero :) ty
 
  • #10
matt grime said:
Yes. pi, pi+1, pi+2, pi+any rational number...

what about .101001000100001000001...

which is .1 + .001 + .000001 + .0000000001 + .000000000000001 etc isn't this transcendental? The number of 0's between 1's keep increasing by one and the digit 1 appears in the triangular number position. All other digit positions 0

Explanation: .1 position 1 triangular
.101 positions 1 and 3 1,3 triangular
.101001 positions 1,3,6 all triangular
.1010010001 positions 1,3,6,10 all triangular etc.
 
  • #11
I believe you mean Liouville numbers, not "Louisville numbers". Named for Joseph Liouville who proved the existence of transcendental numbers in 1844.
 
  • #12
theName() said:
the title is the question.

There could never be a systematic method for generating all transcendentals, because there are uncountably many transcendentals; but only countably many "systems," if by system you mean an algorithm or procedure expressible as a finite string of symbols from a countable alphabet.

Familiar transcendentals such as pi and e are expressible by simple descriptions or algorithms; but most transcendentals don't have that property.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K