Irrational Numbers: Proving a Number is Irrational

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proofs of irrationality for specific numbers, particularly focusing on the number π and the square root of 2. Participants explore various methods of proving irrationality, including proofs by contradiction and theorems related to continuous functions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about proofs that demonstrate a number is irrational, specifically questioning how π is known to go on forever without a pattern.
  • One participant mentions that proofs of irrationality and transcendental-ness are typically difficult and admits not knowing an easy proof for π.
  • A detailed proof of the irrationality of √2 is presented, which involves a proof by contradiction and infinite descent, outlining several steps leading to a contradiction.
  • Another participant notes that irrationality and transcendental-ness are not the same, suggesting that while transcendental numbers are always irrational, the reverse is not necessarily true.
  • One participant introduces a theorem stating that if a certain continuous function has integer-valued iterated anti-derivatives at specific points, then the number is irrational, using π as an example.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of the theorem and whether the reverse is also true.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the concept of irreducible fractions in the context of rational numbers, with some participants expressing confusion about the proof steps.
  • One participant expresses enthusiasm for the proof of √2, calling it "awesome."
  • Another participant shares a link to a proof that π is irrational, noting the technical nature of such proofs.
  • A question arises about the term "iterated anti-derivative," indicating a desire for further clarification on the concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the complexity of proving irrationality but express differing views on the relationship between irrational and transcendental numbers. The discussion includes multiple competing views and remains unresolved on certain points, such as the reverse of the introduced theorem.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference external links for proofs, indicating that the discussion may depend on the definitions and interpretations of mathematical terms. There are also unresolved questions about specific proof steps and concepts, such as iterated anti-derivatives.

coleppard
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
What is a proof that a number is irrational.
For instance, how do we know the PI goes on forever without a pattern?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Proofs of irrationality and transcendental-ness are typically very difficult. I don't know an easy proof for pi offhand.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2"

One proof of the number's irrationality is the following proof by infinite descent. It is also a proof by contradiction, which means the proposition is proved by assuming that the opposite of the proposition is true and showing that this assumption is false, thereby implying that the proposition must be true.

1. Assume that [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is a rational number, meaning that there exists an integer a and an integer b such that [tex]a / b = \sqrt{2}[/tex].
2. Then [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] can be written as an irreducible fraction [tex]a / b[/tex] such that [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex] are coprime integers and [tex](a / b)^2 = 2[/tex].
3. It follows that [tex]a^2 / b^2 = 2[/tex] and [tex]a^2 = 2 b^2[/tex]. ([tex](a / b)^n = a^n / b^n[/tex])
4. Therefore [tex]a^2[/tex] is even because it is equal to [tex]2 b^2[/tex]. ([tex]2 b^2[/tex] is necessarily even because it is 2 times another whole number; that is what "even" means.)
5. It follows that [tex]a[/tex] must be even as (squares of odd integers are also odd, referring to b) or (only even numbers have even squares, referring to a).
6. Because a is even, there exists an integer [tex]k[/tex] that fulfills: [tex]a = 2k[/tex].
7. Substituting [tex]2k[/tex] from (6) for a in the second equation of (3): [tex]2b^2 = (2k)^2[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]2b^2 = 4k^2[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]b2 = 2k^2[/tex].
8. Because [tex]2k^2[/tex] is divisible by two and therefore even, and because [tex]2k^2 = b^2[/tex], it follows that [tex]b^2[/tex] is also even which means that [tex]b[/tex] is even.
9. By (5) and (8) [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex] are both even, which contradicts that [tex]a / b[/tex] is irreducible as stated in (2).

Since there is a contradiction, the assumption (1) that [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is a rational number must be false. The opposite is proven: [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is irrational.



Proofs of transcendental-ness are not as easy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
also, irrationality and transcendental-ness are not the same thing.

one usually implies the other but not always.
 
? "Transcendental" always implies "irrational".

All rational numbers are algebraic (of order 1).
 
There is a very interesting theorem that says

"Let c be a positive real number. If there exist a function f, continuous on [0, c] and positive on (0, c), such that f and all of its iterated anti-derivatives can be taken to be integer valued at 0 and c, then c is irrational."

If f(x)= sin(x), then all anti-derivatives can be taken (by taking the constant of integration to be 0) as sin(x), -sin(x), cos(x), or -cos(x). The values of those at 0 and [itex]\pi[/itex] are 0, 1, or -1, all integers. Therefore, [itex]\pi[/itex] is irrational.
 
Transcendental" always implies "irrational

that's true yeah.
 
Irrational said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2"

One proof of the number's irrationality is the following proof by infinite descent. It is also a proof by contradiction, which means the proposition is proved by assuming that the opposite of the proposition is true and showing that this assumption is false, thereby implying that the proposition must be true.

1. Assume that [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is a rational number, meaning that there exists an integer a and an integer b such that [tex]a / b = \sqrt{2}[/tex].
2. Then [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] can be written as an irreducible fraction [tex]a / b[/tex] such that [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex] are coprime integers and [tex](a / b)^2 = 2[/tex].
3. It follows that [tex]a^2 / b^2 = 2[/tex] and [tex]a^2 = 2 b^2[/tex]. ([tex](a / b)^n = a^n / b^n[/tex])
4. Therefore [tex]a^2[/tex] is even because it is equal to [tex]2 b^2[/tex]. ([tex]2 b^2[/tex] is necessarily even because it is 2 times another whole number; that is what "even" means.)
5. It follows that [tex]a[/tex] must be even as (squares of odd integers are also odd, referring to b) or (only even numbers have even squares, referring to a).
6. Because a is even, there exists an integer [tex]k[/tex] that fulfills: [tex]a = 2k[/tex].
7. Substituting [tex]2k[/tex] from (6) for a in the second equation of (3): [tex]2b^2 = (2k)^2[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]2b^2 = 4k^2[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]b2 = 2k^2[/tex].
8. Because [tex]2k^2[/tex] is divisible by two and therefore even, and because [tex]2k^2 = b^2[/tex], it follows that [tex]b^2[/tex] is also even which means that [tex]b[/tex] is even.
9. By (5) and (8) [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex] are both even, which contradicts that [tex]a / b[/tex] is irreducible as stated in (2).

Since there is a contradiction, the assumption (1) that [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is a rational number must be false. The opposite is proven: [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] is irrational.



Proofs of transcendental-ness are not as easy.
That is a flipping awesome proof!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I followed it all except this:
Irrational said:
2. Then [tex]\sqrt{2}[/tex] can be written as an irreducible fraction [tex]a / b[/tex]
How does it follow from 1. that it must be irreducible?
 
  • #10
think what it's supposed to mean is that if it's rational, it can be written as a fraction.

any fraction can be 'reduced' to it's simplest form (that you can't divide top and bottom by 2/3/.../whatever...)

copy and paste from wikipedia so don't blame me for any inaccuracies.
 
  • #11
Irrational said:
think what it's supposed to mean is that if it's rational, it can be written as a fraction.

any fraction can be 'reduced' to it's simplest form (that you can't divide top and bottom by 2/3/.../whatever...)
Right. That's obvious now. Thanks.
 
  • #13
HallsofIvy said:
There is a very interesting theorem that says

"Let c be a positive real number. If there exist a function f, continuous on [0, c] and positive on (0, c), such that f and all of its iterated anti-derivatives can be taken to be integer valued at 0 and c, then c is irrational."

If f(x)= sin(x), then all anti-derivatives can be taken (by taking the constant of integration to be 0) as sin(x), -sin(x), cos(x), or -cos(x). The values of those at 0 and [itex]\pi[/itex] are 0, 1, or -1, all integers. Therefore, [itex]\pi[/itex] is irrational.

Is the reverse also true?
 
  • #14
Office_Shredder said:
I had no idea you could have symbols like pi in the URL for a website

Yes, they're encoded with IDN/punycode, I believe. Neat stuff.
 
  • #15
Excuse me for jumping between your discussion but could you explain what is iterated anti-derivative?
thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K