Proof that p^(1/n) is not in Q

  • Thread starter Thread starter foxjwill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if p is a prime number and n is a natural number, then p^(1/n) is not a rational number. Participants are examining the validity of various proof attempts and the implications of primality in the context of rational numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different proof structures, question the necessity of certain steps, and discuss the implications of prime factorization. Some participants suggest modifications to existing proofs, while others raise concerns about clarity and rigor.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants providing feedback on each other's proofs and suggesting refinements. There is a recognition of the need for clarity in the arguments presented, and some participants express uncertainty about specific conclusions drawn in the proofs.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions made regarding coprimality and the implications of prime factorization in the context of the proofs. Some participants note the complexity introduced by symbolic representations in the proofs.

foxjwill
Messages
350
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that if p is prime and r is a natural number, then [tex]p^{1/n} \not\in \mathbb{Q}[/tex].

Can someone check the validity of my proof? I have a strong feeling that it's invalid since the primality of p is never used.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Assume that [tex]p^{1/n}\in \mathbb{Q}[/tex]. Then for [tex]a,b\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] such that a and b are coprime, [tex]p^{1/n}={a \over b}[/tex], and therefore [tex]p={a^n \over b^n}[/tex]. So [tex]a^n[/tex] must be a multiple of [tex]b^n[/tex] which implies that a is a multiple of b. But by definition, a is not a multiple of b. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pick a number that isn't prime. (36)^(1/2)=6/1. Sure, 36=6^2/1^2. 6 and 1 are coprime. Where does your invalid proof fall apart? Now get in there and use that p is prime.
 
Assuming that a and b are coprime, [tex]p={a^n \over b^n}[/tex]. This implies that [tex]a^n=p b^n[/tex]. Since a^n and b^n are also coprime, a^n can be represented as the product of primes and b^n can be represented as the product of a different set of primes. But since there are no prime factors common to both a and b, none will magically appear in the equation to cancel out and leave p.

I'm not sure whether this version is rigorous enough. (or even valid)
 
Last edited:
Actually, that's pretty much it. You've shown p divides a^n. Can you show that means p divides a? If so, at least how many factors of p divide a^n? Can you show that means p divides b^n and hence b? Then you are done.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I reformatted my proof more rigorously in the format of the article durt linked to. Here it is:1) Assume that [tex]p^{1/n}[/tex] is rational. Then [tex]\exists a,b \in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] such that a is coprime to b and [tex]p^{1/n}={a \over b}[/tex].
2) It follows that [tex]p = {a^n \over b^n}[/tex].
3) By the unique factorization theorem, [tex]\exists x,y\in \mathbb{Z}^+_0[/tex] and odd integers r and s such that [tex]a = p^x r[/tex] and [tex]b = p^y s[/tex]
4) Therefore, [tex]a^n = p^{nx}r^n[/tex] and [tex]b^n=p^{ny}s^n[/tex].
5) Inserting back into 3), [tex]p^{nx}r^n=p p^{ny}s^n[/tex], so [tex]p^{nx}r^n=p^{ny+1}s^n[/tex].
6) This states that an integer with an even power of p equals an integer with an odd power of p. But this contradicts the prime factorization theorem, completing the proof.
Q.E.D.

edit: it's amazing what you can do with symbols!
 
It's amazing what you can obscure with symbols as well. Ouch. Now you've created an obscure monster. If p divides a then it can't divide b, right? So y is zero. Can you simplify that. Like, a lot? It's making my head hurt.
 
1) Assume that [tex]p^{1/n}[/tex] is rational. Then [tex]\exists a,b \in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] such that a is coprime to b and [tex]p^{1/n}={a \over b}[/tex].
2) It follows that [tex]p = {a^n \over b^n}[/tex].
3) By the unique factorization theorem, [tex]\exists x\in \mathbb{Z}^+_0[/tex] and odd integers r, s not multiples of p such that [tex]a = p^x r[/tex] and [tex]b = s[/tex]
4) Therefore, [tex]a^n = p^{nx}r^n[/tex] and [tex]b^n=s^n[/tex].
5) Inserting back into 3), [tex]p^{nx}r^n=ps^n[/tex], so [tex]p^{nx}r^n=ps^n[/tex].
6) This states that an integer has two different prime factorizations. This contradicts the prime factorization theorem, completing the proof.
Q.E.D.

How about that? I think the proof on the wikipedia article made the same complications as I did.
 
I'm still with Dick on the unnecessary nature of a lot of that.

We have pa^n=b^n, so p divides b^n, hence b. We may factor that out and deduce

a^n=p^{n-1}b' for some b', thus p divides a, contradicting the assumption that a and b were coprime.Alternately, one can simple say that in pa^n=b^n, the sum of the indices of the primes in a decomposition of the LHS is one more than a multiple of n, and on the right is a multiple of n, which contradicts the uniqueness of prime decomposition.
 
  • #10
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks.

Here's the (hopefully final) rewrite:
1) Assume that [tex]p^{1/n}[/tex] is rational. Then [tex]\exists a,b \in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] such that a is coprime to b and [tex]p^{1/n}={a \over b}[/tex].
2) It follows that [tex]p = {a^n \over b^n}[/tex], and that [tex]a^n=pb^n[/tex].
3) So, by the properties of exponents along with the unique factorization theorem, p divides both a^n and a.
3) Factoring out p from (2), we have [tex]a^n=p^{n-1}b'[/tex] for some [tex]b'\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] not divisible by p.
4) Therefore p divides a.
5) But this contradicts the assumption that a and b are coprime.
6) Therefore [tex]p^{1/n}\not\in \mathbb{Q}[/tex].
Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
You cannot conclude that b' is not divisible by p.
 
  • #12
matt grime said:
You cannot conclude that b' is not divisible by p.

oh, right. Now that I think about, that makes sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K