Proving the Rationality or Irrationality of Numbers with Non-Natural Bases

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eljose
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods for proving whether a given real number is rational or irrational, particularly in the context of non-natural bases. Participants explore various definitions, examples, and theoretical implications related to rationality in different numerical representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that numbers like 1 or 1/2 are clearly rational, while others provide examples of irrational numbers, such as the sum of a series.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of "standard form" for real numbers, with some suggesting that any number expressed as a fraction or with a terminating/repeating decimal is rational.
  • One participant questions the ease of determining the rationality of numbers like e^e, suggesting that it is not straightforward.
  • Another participant emphasizes that any number with a terminating or non-terminating periodic representation in any base is rational, while irrational numbers are characterized as aperiodic.
  • A participant raises the question of how to handle non-natural bases, specifically mentioning a system for rational non-natural bases and providing examples of expressing rational numbers in such bases.
  • There is a mention of the limitations of checking only a finite number of decimals to determine rationality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and methods for determining rationality, with no consensus reached on the treatment of non-natural bases or the implications of various representations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the definitions and methods discussed may depend on specific interpretations of "standard form" and the nature of the bases used, which remain unresolved.

eljose
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
How can you prove in general that given a real number "a" this is rational or irrational?..:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It's not always easy.

Obviously numbers like 1 or [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex] are rational

Similiarly, it's pretty easy to see that
[tex]\sum_{n=1}{\intfty}\frac{1}{10^{n^2}}[/tex]
is irrational.

For algebraic numbers, like [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] the usual method is to assume that [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] is rational, so it can be expressed as a fraction [itex]\frac{a}{b}[/itex] and then show that [itex]2b^2=a^2[/itex] cannot be solved in the integers.
 
Well, if I'm given a number - that is, any real number in its standard form (not a series or infinitely continued fraction, etc.) then it should be pretty easy.

If the number is a fraction, or can be rewritten as a fraction (of integers) then it is rational. If its decimal expansion terminates or repeats a pattern of digits, then it is rational. There is no need to prove this, it simply meets the definition of a rational number.

If, however, the decimal expansion does not terminate nor repeat (such as for pi or e) the number is irrational. If the number is a root, then it is irrational anytime it is not a perfect root. So, the square root of 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, etc. are all irrational as are the cube roots of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 etc.
 
BSMSMSTMSPHD said:
Well, if I'm given a number - that is, any real number in its standard form (not a series or infinitely continued fraction, etc.) then it should be pretty easy.

What is the "standard form" for a real number?

Consider, for example [itex]e^e[/itex]. It's relatively straightforward to calcuate the first few thousand digits, but determining whether it's irrational isn't exactly easy.
 
NateTG said:
What is the "standard form" for a real number?

I was thinking of numbers written in decimal or fraction form, using only the 10 digits and no symbols (such as pi or e). I realize that it was an elementary way of looking at things, and perhaps I didn't add much to the discussion. You're certainly right about e^e.
 
BSMSMSTMSPHD said:
I was thinking of numbers written in decimal or fraction form, using only the 10 digits and no symbols (such as pi or e). I realize that it was an elementary way of looking at things, and perhaps I didn't add much to the discussion. You're certainly right about e^e.

Any number that has either a terminating or a nonterminating periodic representation (in any base, including 10 of course) is rational. Irrational numbers are aperiodic in any base.
 
If you can only "check" a finite number of decimals of a given number, then you can't decide whether it is rational or not.
 
Curious3141 said:
Any number that has either a terminating or a nonterminating periodic representation (in any base, including 10 of course) is rational. Irrational numbers are aperiodic in any base.

What about base pi?
 
Office_Shredder said:
What about base pi?

Generally, only natural numbers greater than one are used as bases.
 
  • #10
Curious3141 said:
Generally, only natural numbers greater than one are used as bases.
True; though, I have made a simple system for rational non-natural bases (greater than one of course!) that comply with the rules (coefficient selection included) for natural bases.
Though, I do not think this is the standard way of dealing with non-natural rational bases:

Given a positive rational base expressed as p/q (where p & q are naturals and p>q), I can express any rational number r/q (where r is natural) using powers of p/q with all coefficients being elements of {0,1/q, 2/q, ... , (p-1)/q}.

Canceling the q's in the denominator of 'r' and each coefficient, this can be reduced to stating:
[tex]\forall p,q,r \in \mathbb{N}\;{\text{where }}p > q,\;\exists \left( {x_0 , x_1 , \ldots ,x_n } \right) \in \left\{ {0,1, \ldots ,p - 1} \right\}^{n + 1} : r = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^n {x_k \left( {\frac{p}{q}} \right)^k }[/tex]
~For example,

1) (Base 7/4) p=7, q=4, r=39. Thus, (x0, x1, ... , xn) is (4,6,1,4), as
[tex]4 + 6\left( {\frac{7}{4}} \right) + 1\left( {\frac{7}{4}} \right)^2 + 4\left( {\frac{7}{4}} \right)^3 = 39[/tex]

2) (Base 13/10) p=13, q=10, r=29. Thus, (x0, x1, ... , xn) is (3,7,10), as
[tex]3 + 7\left( {\frac{{13}}{{10}}} \right) + 10\left( {\frac{{13}}<br /> {{10}}} \right)^2 = 29[/tex]

3) (Base 17/11) p=17, q=11, r=94. Thus, the (x0, x1, ... , xn) is (9,4,16,11), as
[tex]9 + 4\left( {\frac{{17}}{{11}}} \right) + 16\left( {\frac{{17}}{{11}}} \right)^2 + 11\left( {\frac{{17}}{{11}}} \right)^3 = 94[/tex]

~For the special (also trivial) case q=1, (x0, x1, ... , xn) is just the base 'p' representation of 'r' //
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K