Prove √ is not a rational number

  • Thread starter Thread starter polatinte
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that m√n is not a rational number for natural numbers m and n greater than 1, where n is not an mth power. The proof strategy involves establishing a contradiction by assuming m√n is rational, leading to the conclusion that certain conditions on integers a and b must hold. The use of modular arithmetic and induction is suggested as part of the proof process, with a base case established for n=2. The conversation highlights the complexity of the proof and suggests that counting prime factors may simplify the argument.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of irrational numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with modular arithmetic concepts
  • Knowledge of mathematical induction techniques
  • Basic number theory, particularly prime factorization
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the classic proof of the irrationality of √2
  • Learn about modular arithmetic applications in number theory
  • Explore mathematical induction and its proofs in depth
  • Investigate prime factorization and its role in proving irrationality
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying number theory, educators teaching proofs of irrational numbers, and anyone interested in advanced mathematical reasoning.

polatinte
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



"Prove m√n is not a rational number for any natural numbers with n,m > 1, where n is not an mth power"

Homework Equations



Natural numbers for us start at 1.
Since we know n is not an mth power, then n [itex]\neq[/itex] km for an arbitrary integer k.

The Attempt at a Solution



I believe this would follow a similar argument for the classic proof that √2 is irrational.

We set up the contradiction that m√n is actually rational. Then am=nbm for some a,b [itex]\in[/itex] [itex]Z[/itex], b [itex]\neq[/itex] 0, a,b are irreducible.
Then am is a multiple of n, so a is a multiple of n.

I'm assuming I need to prove this as a lemma.
I've attempted proving this by modular arithmetic.

Prove by contrapositive (If a is not a multiple of n, then am is not a multiple of n). But then there would be n-1 cases to check (infinitely many), so I follow with induction.
Base case: n=2, a [itex]\equiv[/itex] 1 (mod 2), then a2 [itex]\equiv[/itex] 12 = 1 [itex]\equiv[/itex] 1 (mod 2).
Base case checks out, so we can assume the inductive hypothesis that this is true for all n.
To show show n+1, the (mod n) turns into (mod n+1), so how do I use the inductive hypothesis on this?
This is the point where I get lost. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can do this proof much more easily just by counting prime factors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K