Irrational Numbers: Expressible as Infinite Summations?

AI Thread Summary
Not all irrational numbers can be expressed as infinite summations, as there are uncountably many irrational numbers but only countably many mathematical expressions. While any specific irrational number can be represented by a converging sequence, there exist irrational numbers that cannot be uniquely expressed in this manner due to the limitations of mathematical notation. The pigeonhole principle supports the existence of these unexpressable irrationals, as the set of all mathematical statements is countable. Additionally, any physical representation of states in the universe is also countable, reinforcing the conclusion that some irrationals remain unexpressable.
jeffceth
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
I apologise if this belongs in another place, but:

Can all irrational numbers be expressed as infinite summations, ie like Pi and e?

I'm looking for: provable, disprovable, or neither. This is essential to something else I am working on.

sincerely,
jeffceth
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It depends on what you mean by "expressed". There is certainly an infinite series that converges to any irrational number you like. For example:

<br /> \pi = \pi + 0 + 0 + \ldots<br />

Ok that was a little too trivial. :smile: It turns out that by rearranging the terms of this sequence in the right way, you can make the left hand side of this equation any real number you want:

<br /> \ln 2=1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} - \ldots<br />


However...

In the language in which we write mathematics, we can only write countably many equations, proofs, theorems, articles, et cetera. However, there are an uncountably many number of irrational numbers. Thus, there exist irrational numbers for which we cannot explicitly write sequence that converges to that number.

The good news, however, is that for any irrational number we can express uniquely, we can write down a sequence that converges to it (though not necessarily in a way that is computationally useful).
 
Certainly every real number, rational or irrational, can be written in decimal form- therefore an "infinite summation".
 
Originally posted by Hurkyl
It depends on what you mean by "expressed". There is certainly an infinite series that converges to any irrational number you like. For example:

<br /> \pi = \pi + 0 + 0 + \ldots<br />

Ok that was a little too trivial. :smile: It turns out that by rearranging the terms of this sequence in the right way, you can make the left hand side of this equation any real number you want:

<br /> \ln 2=1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} - \ldots<br />


However...

In the language in which we write mathematics, we can only write countably many equations, proofs, theorems, articles, et cetera. However, there are an uncountably many number of irrational numbers. Thus, there exist irrational numbers for which we cannot explicitly write sequence that converges to that number.

The good news, however, is that for any irrational number we can express uniquely, we can write down a sequence that converges to it (though not necessarily in a way that is computationally useful).

I am especially interested in the fact that we can only write countably many mathematical expressions, and there are uncountably many irrationals. Logically, this makes sense, but can it be mathematically proven that at least one such irrational number exists that cannot be expressed uniquely by form of any expression we currently have?

sincerely,
jeffceth
 
Yes. It's easy enough to prove there are an uncountable number of irrational numbers.

Mathematical statements are defined to be strings of finite length of characters from a finite alphabet, and it's easy enough to show that the set of all of these strings is countable.

Thus, by the pigeonhole principle, there exists an (uncountable number of) irrational numbers that cannot be expressed uniquely with a mathematical statement.


We can appeal to physics to show that any other form of expression must have a countable number of states. Pick a fundamental unit for every observable quantity (e.g. length, momentum, charge) that is far smaller than anything we can measure. Then, in principle, we can write the state of the universe as a finite string of characters from a finite alphabet by "digitizing" every elementary particle in the universe by measuring all of the obvservable quantities of every particle and writing them down. Each of our measurements can only yield a finite number of results, there are only a finite number of observable quantities, and there are only a finite number of elementary particles in the observable universe, so there are actually only a finite number of distinguishable states of the universe.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top