Proofs of Irrationality Correct?

  • Thread starter courtrigrad
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proofs
In summary: No, it doesn't have to have an even number of prime factors. You could have any number of prime factors, it just can't have an odd number of them.
  • #1
courtrigrad
1,236
2
Are 2b, 2c, and 2d correct? The last part of 2d I am getting stuck.

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/weblog.php?w=564

note: you can comment on the site as a guest

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm just going to comment on 2b, though you could have put this in your other thread, no?


q^2*n=p^2 does NOT imply n divides p like you claim, n is not necessarily prime.

You didn't bother to show such an r and m even exist, and it doesn't really matter since you didn't use them anyways except to state their existence. It looks like you just cut and pasted some of my suggestions without understanding or even using them?

the purpose of pulling out this squarefree thing r from n was to let you isolate a prime with an odd power appearing on one side but not the other. See, this is where 2*q^2=p^2 goes wrong, you will have 2 appearing to an odd power on the left (possibly 1) and an even power on the right (possibly 0). You *know* unique factorization even if you haven't proven it at this point right? Something should be fishy about a prime appearing to different exponents on either side. This is what you exploit in the sqrt(2) case, this is what you can exploit in the sqrt(n) case when n is not a perfect square.
 
  • #3
What you are now claiming in that link, n=r*m^(2k+1) with r squarefree, is no longer possible in general. I don't see why you think m would have to divide p either.

If you are going to try to invoke unique factorization, aka the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (not algebra), then you can just compare the exponents of primes in n*q^2=p^2. Since n is not a perfect square you should know that it has a prime appearing to an odd power (you MUST prove this if you haven't established it already). Again, you should only use unique factorization if this is something you, your book, or your notes have proven already.
 
  • #4
How would you prove that [tex] \sqrt[p]{n} [/tex] is irrational? Assume that it is rational. I said it was equal to [tex] \frac{a}{b} [/tex] where [tex] a,b [/tex] are positive integers. Then we get [tex] b^{p}\times n = a^{p} [/tex]. From this last equation, we see that [tex] n [/tex] divides [tex] a [/tex]. Therefore there exists some integer [tex] k [/tex] such that [tex] a = nk [/tex]. Substituting gives us [tex] b^{p}\times n = n^{p}k^{p} [/tex] or [tex] b^{p} = n^{p-1}k^{p} [/tex]. Can we conclude that [tex] n [/tex] divides [tex] b [/tex]?

By the way, this is from a calculus book not an analysis book (Courant and John)

Thanks
 
  • #5
courtrigrad said:
How would you prove that [tex] \sqrt[p]{n} [/tex] is irrational?

I would settle the square case first before trying to tackle this more general version.

courtrigrad said:
Assume that it is rational. I said it was equal to [tex] \frac{a}{b} [/tex] where [tex] a,b [/tex] are positive integers. Then we get [tex] b^{p}\times n = a^{p} [/tex]. From this last equation, we see that [tex] n [/tex] divides [tex] a [/tex].

This doesn't follow. This gives n divides a^p, you can't then conclude n divides a since n isn't necessarily prime here.

courtrigrad said:
By the way, this is from a calculus book not an analysis book (Courant and John)

The title of the book doesn't really matter.
 
  • #6
ok, I got the [tex] \sqrt{n} [/tex] case. What about the [tex] \sqrt[p]{n} [/tex] case? [tex] p [/tex] can't be a perfect pth power. I have to show that because of unique factorization, you can't have an odd and even number of prime factors on two different sides of the equality sign.

So a perfect pth power has an even number of prime factors?
 

1. What is a proof of irrationality?

A proof of irrationality is a mathematical argument that shows a number cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, it is a way to demonstrate that a number is irrational, meaning it cannot be written as a terminating or repeating decimal.

2. How do you prove a number is irrational?

There are many different proofs of irrationality, but one common method is to assume that the number is rational and then use logical deductions to reach a contradiction. This shows that our initial assumption was incorrect and the number must be irrational.

3. What are some well-known proofs of irrationality?

Some of the most famous proofs of irrationality include the proof that √2 is irrational by Hippasus, the proof that π is irrational by Johann Lambert, and the proof that e is irrational by Charles Hermite.

4. Are there any patterns or similarities between different proofs of irrationality?

Yes, many proofs of irrationality use similar techniques and logical deductions. For example, many proofs use proof by contradiction or the rational root theorem.

5. Why are proofs of irrationality important in mathematics?

Proofs of irrationality are important because they help us understand the properties of irrational numbers and how they relate to rational numbers. They also have practical applications in fields such as cryptography and number theory.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
622
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
678
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
767
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top