Prove the Irrationality of the Golden Ratio & Phi

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter at3rg0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational Phi
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The golden ratio, denoted as phi (φ), is established as an irrational number through various proofs discussed in the forum. Key arguments include its definition as a root of the polynomial equation x² - x - 1, where the discriminant is √5, confirming its irrationality. Additionally, the discussion highlights the relationship between Fibonacci numbers and phi, demonstrating that assuming phi as a rational number leads to contradictions. The proofs leverage properties of algebraic integers and the concept of greatest common divisors (gcd).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of algebraic integers and their properties
  • Familiarity with the Fibonacci sequence and its relation to the golden ratio
  • Knowledge of polynomial equations and discriminants
  • Basic concepts of rational and irrational numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of algebraic integers in depth
  • Explore the relationship between Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio
  • Learn about polynomial equations and their roots, focusing on discriminants
  • Investigate further proofs of irrationality for other algebraic numbers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, and students interested in number theory, particularly those exploring the properties of irrational numbers and algebraic integers.

at3rg0
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
The golden ratio is irrational. Do you know any clever proofs for this fact? I put this here, because it's not homework--only more of a discussion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Clever? Does the fact that it is an algebraic number that is not an integer count as clever?
 
Once you show that sqrt(5) is irrational it's pretty easy. You can use the standard proof for that -- suppose a/b = sqrt(5) with a/b in lowest terms, then consider a^2=5b^2 mod 25.

matt grime said:
Clever? Does the fact that it is an algebraic number that is not an integer count as clever?

The root of 4x-3=0 is algebraic but rational.
 
Yeah, but phi is the root of a *monic* polynomial. Matt meant to say it is an algebraic integer which is not an integer.
 
at3rg0 said:
The golden ratio is irrational. Do you know any clever proofs for this fact? I put this here, because it's not homework--only more of a discussion.

How about

\frac{F_{2n}}{F_{2n-1}} < Phi < \frac{F_{2n+1}}{F_{2n}}

If you assume phi = a/b then the above inequality conflicts with that.
 
Last edited:
Nice proof, ramsey2879.
 
I don't get it. There has to be a gazillion rationals between those two fractions, no matter how big n is or how close to the limit you are.
 
Not a gazillion, Dodo. Infinitely many in fact.
 
Dodo said:
I don't get it. There has to be a gazillion rationals between those two fractions, no matter how big n is or how close to the limit you are.
your right
But phi^{n} = F_{n-1} + F_{n}phi

Then

1+phi = phi^2

so we have phi is a root of x^2- x -1 but the discriminate is \sqrt{5} so phi is irrational.
 
  • #10
supose sqrt(5) = p/q in lowest terms ==> p,q integer such that gcd(p,q)=1 ==>

==> 5 = p^2/q^2 ==> 5q^2 = p^2

if gcd(5,p) \neq 1 ==> q^2 = 5x^2 ==> q = sqrt(5)x ==> contradiction

if gcd(5,q) \neq 1 ==> 125y^2 = p^2 ==> 25y = p ==> gcd(5,p) \neq 1 ==> contradiction

** the two contradictions shows up because gcd(p,q)=1

so gcd(5,p) = gcd(5,q) = 1 ==> gcd(p,q) \neq 1 ==> contradiction

sqrt(5) is irrational
 
  • #11
could someone prove that irrational OP integer = irrational, OP = operations +, -, / and *
 
  • #12
al-mahed said:
could someone prove that irrational OP integer = irrational, OP = operations +, -, / and *

Let z be an integer, n be a positive integer, and x be an irrational number.

x + z is irrational (else a/b - z = (a-bz)/b which is rational)

x - z is irrational by the above.

x * n is irrational (else a/b / n = a/(bn) which is rational)

x / n is irrational (else a/b * n = (an)/b which is rational)

x * 0 is rational

x / 0 is undefined
 
  • #13
ramsey2879 said:
How about

\frac{F_{2n}}{F_{2n-1}} < Phi < \frac{F_{2n+1}}{F_{2n}}

If you assume phi = a/b then the above inequality conflicts with that.

Dodo said:
I don't get it. There has to be a gazillion rationals between those two fractions, no matter how big n is or how close to the limit you are.
Those are "two fractions". Those are two sequences of fraction. Phi is between every pair of corresponding numbers in those sequences.
 
  • #14
ramsey2879 said:
so we have phi is a root of x^2- x -1 but the discriminate is \sqrt{5} so phi is irrational.

That seems to be the most common definition for phi.
 
  • #15
How about the continued fraction form for phi?
 
  • #16
Thank you, really very simple.

Another simple proof: proves that if the nth-root of a positive whole number will not be a positive whole number**, also will not be a rational number.

This should generalize our results.

consider gcd(p,q) = 1 (p/q in lowest terms)

k^1/n = p/q ==> kq^n = p^n ==> k | p ==> kq^n = (k^n)*(x^n) ==>

==> q^n = k^(n-1)*x^n ==> k | q ==> k | p and q ==> contradiction

** note that if k^1/n is a whole number ==> p/q will not be in lowest terms

CRGreathouse said:
Let z be an integer, n be a positive integer, and x be an irrational number.

x + z is irrational (else a/b - z = (a-bz)/b which is rational)

x - z is irrational by the above.

x * n is irrational (else a/b / n = a/(bn) which is rational)

x / n is irrational (else a/b * n = (an)/b which is rational)

x * 0 is rational

x / 0 is undefined
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
985
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
13K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K