MHB Prove that if p and q are positive distinct primes, then log_p(q) is irrational.

KOO
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Prove that if p and q are positive distinct primes,then $\log_p(q)$ is irrational.

Attempt:

Proof by contradiction: Assume $\log_p(q)$ is rational.Suppose $\log_p(q) = \dfrac{m}{n}$ where $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\gcd(m,n) = 1$.

Then, $p^{\frac{m}{n}} = q$ which implies $p^m = q^n$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KOO said:
Prove that if p and q are positive distinct primes,then $\log_p(q)$ is irrational.

Attempt:

Proof by contradiction: Assume $\log_p(q)$ is rational.Suppose $\log_p(q) = \dfrac{m}{n}$ where $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\gcd(m,n) = 1$.

Then, $p^{\frac{m}{n}} = q$ which implies $p^m = q^n$.

Almost there! Can $p^m=q^n$ happen for any two distinct primes?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top