Prove Irrationality of \log_{10}(2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that \log_{10}(2) is irrational. The proof begins by assuming \log_{10}(2) is rational, expressed as p/q, leading to the equation 2^q = 10^p. This results in a contradiction due to the unique prime factorization of numbers, as 2^q contains only the prime factor 2, while 10^p contains both 2 and 5. A participant acknowledges the proof's validity but points out that the equation could hold true for p=q=0, suggesting this should be considered to avoid oversight. Overall, the proof effectively demonstrates the irrationality of \log_{10}(2).
jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50

Homework Statement



Prove that \log_{10}(2) is irrational.

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



Suppose not, then \log_{10}(2) = p/q where p and q are integers. This implies that 2 = 10^{p/q} or similarly, 2^q = 10^p. However, this is a contradiction since each number's prime factorization is unique - 2^q contains only 2's as prime factors while 10^p contains both 2's and 5's. Therefore, our assumption that \log_{10}(2) was rational must have been incorrect. This completes the proof.

I'm really bad at these irrationality proofs so I was wondering if someone could comment on the validity of my method. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks like a perfectly valid proof to me!
 
Swell! Thank you very much!
 
this is really clever!
i would have had no idea what to have done.
 
This comment is probably somewhat pedantic, but I think it's worth saying anyways.

2^q = 10^p is not quite a contradiction -- it can be satisfied when p=q=0. Of course, it's easy to derive a contradiction from that possibility.
 
Perhaps it's a bit pedantic but I definitely should have considered that case. Thanks for your input Hurkyl!
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top