Rational Numbers That Are Hard To Prove?

Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,702
Reaction score
1,587
There are lots of examples of numbers where "is it a rational number" has been an open question for a while before being proved as not being rational. Pi and e being famous examples. Some of them are still open, like pi+e, or the Euler-Mascharoni constant, but I think the general consensus is that constants like these almost surely are going to be irrational. So I was wondering are there any examples of numbers whose rationality was unknown for an extended period of time (Beyond the first time the question was raised would be interesting, but something on the order of decades would be really nice) before it was discovered that the number is rational?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is rather unlikely. The problem comes with the question itself: you have to describe the number somehow. And this description is either within rationals or so complex, that it is almost certainly irrational, if not transcendent. I thought of something like the matrix exponent, the lower bound for the complexity of matrix multiplication, but it is unknown. And so are probably all interesting examples.
 
Legendre's constant was introduced 1808. It was shown to be exactly 1 (and therefore rational) in 1899.

This problem lead to the question what the lower limit on c is (Erdős, 1940). The answer is 0 (shown 2005).

There is some other more famous constant where I don't find the name now that is suspected to be exactly zero.
 
mfb said:
Legendre's constant was introduced 1808. It was shown to be exactly 1 (and therefore rational) in 1899.

This problem lead to the question what the lower limit on c is (Erdős, 1940). The answer is 0 (shown 2005).

There is some other more famous constant where I don't find the name now that is suspected to be exactly zero.
1798 (Legendre) 1849 (Chebyshev)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top