Prove the irrationality of pi by contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction Pi
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the irrationality of pi through integration by parts (IBP) and analyzing the integral $$I_n = \int_0^{\pi} f(x) \sin(x) dx$$, where $$f(x) = \frac{q^n x^n (\pi - x)^n}{n!}$$. Participants explore various IBP applications and substitutions, struggling to relate $$I_n$$ to $$I_{n-1}$$ and derive bounds for $$I_n$$. They conclude that $$I_n$$ approaches zero as $$n$$ increases while also being an integer, leading to a contradiction that implies pi is irrational. The conversation references Niven's proof as a foundational approach to this topic.
  • #31
Adesh said:
How ##I_n## will be an integer? By the summation equation I think ##I_n## will be a rational number.
Seems to me you are right on that, that part was also a bit unclear to me.
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
We have that $$f(x) = \frac{q^n x^n (\pi - x)^n}{n!}$$ and also $$I_n = \sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^j \left(f^{(2j)}(\pi) + f^{(2j)}(0)\right)$$I believe all the derivatives evaluated at ##\pi## or ##0## for which ##j < n## will be zero (since they will still contain a multiplicative ##x## or ##(\pi - x)## term).

So the sum will I think reduce to a constant term ##(-1)^n \left(f^{(2n)}(\pi) + f^{(2n)}(0)\right)##. But after doing ##2n## derivatives, the ##n!## on the denominator should be canceled since we will have multiplied by all of ##n##, ##(n-1)##, etc.

I don't know if this is right, and it's certainly not a "proof" of any sort, it's just how I pictured it.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #33
etotheipi said:
I believe all the derivatives evaluated at ππ\pi or 000 for which j<nj<nj < n will be zero (since they will still contain a multiplicative xxx or (π−x)(π−x)(\pi - x) term).
No, that's not correct. Try evaluating the second derivative.
 
  • #34
Adesh said:
No, that's not correct. Try evaluating the second derivative.

If we let ##g(x) = x^n (\pi - x)^n##, then

##g'(x) = nx^{n-1}(\pi - x)^n - nx^n(\pi - x)^{n-1}##

##g''(x) = n(n-1)x^{n-2}(\pi - x)^{n} - n^2 x^{n-1}(\pi - x)^{n-1} + nx^n (n-1)(\pi - x)^{n-2} - n^2(\pi - x)^{n-1}x^{n-1}##

So ##g''(0) = g''(\pi) = 0##

And every subsequent derivative down the chain apart from the last one (the constant term) will evaluate to zero.
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh and Delta2
  • #35
I think @etotheipi cleared this out at least for me, I don't know if you @Adesh have any more questions.
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
  • #36
I think I've confused myself too :oldlaugh:, since Wikipedia gives a slightly different rundown of this part of the proof. Ultimately the summation still becomes an integer, but they seem to say there are some more constant terms:

1589288046751.png


I'll need to read over this again, because it's giving me a headache 😁. I don't think we're too far off but there is perhaps a little bit left to this part of the proof.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #37
I tried evaluating the 3rd derivative of ##x^4(\pi - x)^4## at ##x=0## and ##x=\pi## and I get zero on both counts, so I struggle to see what Wikipedia is trying to push here!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
632
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K