Is the square root of a prime number always going to be irrational?

AI Thread Summary
The square root of a prime number is always irrational, as demonstrated through logical proof. If the square root of a prime number were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction in lowest terms, leading to a contradiction where both the numerator and denominator would have the prime as a common divisor. This contradiction confirms that no such rational representation exists for the square root of a prime number. Additionally, the nth root of any natural number that is not a perfect nth power is also irrational. Therefore, the assertion holds true across various cases involving prime numbers and natural numbers.
Universe_Man
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
is the square root of a prime number always going to be irrational? just a random question.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I believe the square root of any natural number that is not a perfect square is irrational.
 
I would say yes, because let's denote our prime p. If \sqrt{p}=n, (n\in\mathbb{N}), then it means that p=n² <==> p/n=n (i.e. n divides p ==> p is not prime: a contradiction with the hypothesis). If \sqrt{p}=m/n, (m,n \in \mathbb{N}, n\neq 0,1, then it means that p = m²/n², i.e. p is rationnal ==> p is not prime: a contradiction with the hypothesis. The only remaining possibility is that \sqrt{p} is irrational.
 
Yes, you're both right.

Here's a proof of the prime case...

Suppose there exists a prime p such that \sqrt{p} \in \mathbb{Q}

Then \sqrt{p} = \frac{a}{b} \ where p,q \in \mathbb{Z}

Now, we can assume that a and b are relatively prime (ie the fraction is in lowest form). This is crucial for the remainder of the proof.

b \cdot \sqrt{p} = a

b^{2} \cdot p = a^{2}

From this last equation, we see that p divides a. Therefore, there exists some integer k such that a = pk. Substituting gives us:

b^{2} \cdot p = {(pk)}^{2} = p^{2} \cdot k^{2}

Thus, b^{2} = p \cdot k^{2}

Now, we have an equation that shows p divides b. So we have reached a contradiction. Since a and b were assumed to be relatively prime, they can't both possibly have p as a divisor. Therefore, no such integers a and b exist.
 
Last edited:
In general, I think that the nth root of any natural number that is not itself a perfect nth power is an irrational number.
 
BSMSMSTMSPHD said:
In general, I think that the nth root of any natural number that is not itself a perfect nth power is an irrational number.

This is true, and in fact the nth root of any rational number which doesn't have a perfect nth power in both the numerator and denominator (when written in lowest terms) is irrational. To see this (as I mentioned in another https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129729"), just note that when you take the nth power of a rational number, you get a rational number with the above property. So conversely, a number which doesn't have this property can't be the nth power of a rational number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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...
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