Proof of square root 3 irrational using well ordering

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the irrationality of the square root of 3 using the well-ordering principle. Participants explore the steps involved in demonstrating that there exists a smaller element in a set defined by rational multiples of √3, and they express confusion about certain algebraic manipulations and the implications of these steps.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the proof shows the existence of a smaller element in the set S={a=b√3: a,b€Z}, expressing confusion over the algebraic manipulation used.
  • Another participant provides an alternative formulation of the relationship between s and t, suggesting that 3t - s can be expressed in terms of √3 and the difference s - t, but does not clarify the implications fully.
  • A participant attempts to restate the proof, suggesting that the contradiction arises from the relationships involving √3 and the ordering of elements, but their reasoning is met with requests for clarification on specific steps.
  • There is a discussion about the clarity of the proof steps, particularly regarding the subtraction of equations and the implications of the terms involved, with suggestions for improved wording and structure.
  • Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the proof's logic and the significance of the relationships established in the equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the clarity and correctness of the proof steps. There are multiple interpretations of the algebraic manipulations, and confusion remains about the implications of certain expressions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the proof relies on specific algebraic manipulations that may not be immediately clear, and there is an emphasis on the need for precise language regarding the ordering of elements in the proof.

bonfire09
Messages
247
Reaction score
0
The part I don't understand is how they show there exists a smaller element. They assume s=t√3 is the smallest element of S={a=b√3: a,b€Z} . Then what they do is add s√3 to both sides and get s√3-s=s√3-t√3. I don't get how they thought of that or why it works.I know there exists an element smaller than S but the way they prove is confusing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi bonfire09! :smile:

√3 = s/t = 3t/s

3t - s = √3(s - t)

but 3t -s < s (because it's (√3 - 1)s, or about 0.7s) :wink:
 
So do I have it right?

Since t=s√3 we can rewrite as t√3=s ⇔ 3t=s√3. So we subtract s from both side and we get [itex]3t-s=s√3-s ⇔ 3t-s=s√3-t√3⇔3t-s=√3(s-t)⇔s√3-s= √3(s-t)⇔s(√3-1)=√3(s-t)[/itex] But this is a contradiction since√3-1<√3 and s-t< s so √3 is irrational. Would this be a better way of restating this part of the proof?
 
hi bonfire09! :smile:

(just got up :zzz:)
bonfire09 said:
So do I have it right?

Since t=s√3 we can rewrite as t√3=s ⇔ 3t=s√3. So we subtract s from both side and we get 3t-s=s√3-s ⇔ 3t-s=s√3-t√3⇔3t-s=√3(s-t)

(why do you say "subtract s from both sides"?

what you're actually doing is "subtract one equation from the other" :wink:)

your equations should stop here …

you have now proved that if the pair (s,t) is in S, then so is (3t-s,s-t), because 3t-s and s-t are obviously in Z
But this is a contradiction since√3-1<√3 and s-t< s so √3 is irrational.

the first part is a little unclear … you haven't specifically said what √3 - 1 has to do with it!

also, it would be better if you used the word "ordering" somewhere! :smile:
 
Thanks the part where you said to subtract both equations instead of s was what I was confused about.
 
ah, what i meant was:

you have two equations

s = t√3

3t = s√3​

if you subtract them you immediately get

(3t - s) = (t -s)√3​

and both brackets are clearly in Z :smile:

(your way, which is to subtract s from both sides of 3t = s√3, gives you (3t -s) = s(√3 - 1), which is correct, but the RHS isn't obviously an integer times √3, so you have to waste time proving that it is :wink:)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K