I Is e^pi a unique transcendental, or perhaps not transcendental?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter cc math
  • Start date Start date
cc math
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ramanujan discovered a relationship between e^pi and the golden ratio which involved an infinite nested arithmetic series of repeating term.
Argument: Since such a series is the equivalent of a simple finite algebraic and geometric expression, there can be presented an algebraic expression of a transcendental number which is equal to an algebraic number.
Some, such as Euler, have stated that this should not be possible per their definition of transcendental.
So my question is: Are their subgroups of transcendental numbers, such that those that can be calculated/presented as a finite algebraic expression, and those that can only be presented as an infinite arithmetic or product series, or neither, so as to distinguish them from each other?

Notes:
Ramanujan found a general class equation for e^pi at integer intervals involving infinite product series. But as far as I know, there is only one nested arithmetic relation (Please correct me if I am wrong).

Essentially:
The ‘silver ratio’ of the ‘golden ratio’ is equal to e^(2/5*pi) divided by the ‘silver ratio’ of e^(2*pi)/2.

The geometrical expression of this relation is more straightforward.

By ‘silver ratio’, I refer to the ‘halving’ of a non-right angle of a right triangle, or simply, the sum of the long leg with the hypotenuse of a right triangle, with the short leg as 1.

Thanks for any thoughts on this.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
cc math said:
Ramanujan discovered a relationship between e^pi and the golden ratio which involved an infinite nested arithmetic series of repeating term.
Argument: Since such a series is the equivalent of a simple finite algebraic and geometric expression, there can be presented an algebraic expression of a transcendental number which is equal to an algebraic number.
Some, such as Euler, have stated that this should not be possible per their definition of transcendental.
So my question is: Are their subgroups of transcendental numbers, such that those that can be calculated/presented as a finite algebraic expression, and those that can only be presented as an infinite arithmetic or product series, or neither, so as to distinguish them from each other?

Notes:
Ramanujan found a general class equation for e^pi at integer intervals involving infinite product series. But as far as I know, there is only one nested arithmetic relation (Please correct me if I am wrong).

Essentially:
The ‘silver ratio’ of the ‘golden ratio’ is equal to e^(2/5*pi) divided by the ‘silver ratio’ of e^(2*pi)/2.

The geometrical expression of this relation is more straightforward.

By ‘silver ratio’, I refer to the ‘halving’ of a non-right angle of a right triangle, or simply, the sum of the long leg with the hypotenuse of a right triangle, with the short leg as 1.

Thanks for any thoughts on this.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelfond's_constant
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelfond–Schneider_theorem#Corollaries
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, dextercioby, PeroK and 1 other person
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top