How does infinite descent prove the irrationality of \sqrt{2}?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter octahedron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of infinite descent as a method to prove the irrationality of \(\sqrt{2}\). Infinite descent is a form of mathematical induction that demonstrates the impossibility of having an infinite sequence of decreasing natural numbers. The argument establishes that if a property has an example, a smaller example can always be found, leading to a contradiction if only finitely many examples exist. This principle effectively shows that no rational representation of \(\sqrt{2}\) can exist.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical induction
  • Familiarity with properties of rational and irrational numbers
  • Basic knowledge of natural numbers
  • Concept of proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in depth
  • Explore other proofs of irrationality, such as the proof of \(\sqrt{3}\)
  • Learn about proof by contradiction techniques
  • Investigate the implications of infinite sequences in mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students studying number theory, and anyone interested in proofs of irrationality and mathematical logic.

octahedron
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
What is infinite descent? I saw a proof of the irrationality of [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] using that principle. How is it any different than the proof that relies on the contradiction of having two even numbers in the fraction, which completely makes sense to me?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Infinite descent is a particular method of applying of mathematical induction. The basic form of the argument is to show that whenever you have an example of some property, that you can find a smaller example. Under the right circumstances, this allows you to infer that no example exists.

One common example of the right circumstances is when 'size' is measured by natural numbers.


The term 'infinite descent' comes from one way of justifying the method -- if an example exists, you can recursively construct an infinite sequence of new examples, each smaller than the previous one. This is a contradiction if there can only possibly be finitely many examples smaller than the original.




You often see infinite descent arguments written in a different form. (I'll consider sizes measured by natural numbers, for simplicity)

1. Assume there is at least one example of some property.
2. Then, there must exist a smallest example.
3. Construct a new example smaller than that one.
4. By contradiction, infer that there are no examples of that property.
 
Thank you Hurkyl! I think I get it now -- the sequence can't be infinite for we only have a finite quantity of natural numbers less than x, and if an infinite number of solutions is obtained, we get a contradiction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K