Prove the irrationality of pi by contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction Pi
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the irrationality of pi through a contradiction method involving integrals. The original poster attempts to analyze an integral defined as $$I_n = \int_0^{\pi} f(x) \sin{x} dx$$ where $$f(x) = \frac{q^n x^n (\pi - x)^n}{n!}$$. Participants explore various approaches to manipulate this integral and derive necessary inequalities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss integration by parts (I.B.P.) as a method to relate different integral forms, questioning the effectiveness of substitutions and series expansions. There are attempts to derive relationships between $$I_n$$ and $$I_{n-1}$$ through repeated applications of I.B.P. Some participants express uncertainty about how to simplify or evaluate the resulting expressions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing hints and suggestions for approaching the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the manipulation of integrals and the potential for deriving inequalities. Multiple interpretations of the integral and its properties are being explored, but there is no explicit consensus on a single approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof requires showing that $$I_n$$ approaches zero as $$n$$ increases while also being an integer, leading to a contradiction if $$\pi$$ were rational. There is mention of constraints related to the problem's setup and the need for careful handling of assumptions regarding the behavior of the integrals involved.

  • #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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Klystron and Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K