Someone help me understand how e is irrational proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock.freak667
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational Proof
rock.freak667
Homework Helper
Messages
6,221
Reaction score
31
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Taylor's theorem.
 
Well I didn't really learn Taylor's theorem in much depth..so I don't really understand how they got the remainder to be less than or equal to that
 
Taylor's theorem states that any function that is n-times differentiable by a Taylor series, plus a remainder term, which with some functions goes to zero as the number of terms of the series increase. We can find a taylor series around a certain value of x, but 0 is the easiest and what is required here.

So, basically the theorem states an n-times differentiable function can be expressed as such:

f(x) = f(0) + f'(0)x + f''(0) \frac{x^2}{2} + f'''(0) \frac{x^3}{6} ... + R_n = \sum_{k=0}^n f^k (0) \frac{x^k}{k!} + R_n

There are several, and actually equivalent ways of expressing the remainder term (for those with watchful eyes, will regard it as a form of the mean value theorem) but for this one, it looks like you'll need the Cauchy form, search "Cauchy Remainder term" in google.

Basically that form states that R_n = \frac{(x - t)^n}{n!} x f^{n+1} (t) where t is some number in the closed interval [0, x]. Note this is for around the point zero again.

Hopefully you can construct an inequality with the Remainder term?

EDIT: O I do forget to state, in this notation f^k denotes the k-th derivative of f, not an exponent. f^0 should be interpreted as f.
 
rock.freak667 said:
http://web01.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/irrat_nm.html

Well there is the proof i am reading and trying to understand...

can someone tell me how they knew that 0<R_n<\frac{3}{(n+1)!}

Hi rockfreak. Remember that in this problem all we're trying to do is to show that b*R_n is between zero and one (for a given positive integer b and for suitably large n) and therefore that b*R_n cannot be an integer. The exact bound we find is not all that important so long as we can make b*R_n less than one. What I'm saying is that the bound doesn't necessarily have to be lowest one we can find and it doesn't even have to be a good approximation to the actual series remainder, it just has to be larger than the series remainder while still being able to make b*R_n less than one.

Sometimes just making a simple comparison with the series under question and another known series is a very easy way to get a bound. In this case R_n is :

R_n = 1/(n+1)! + 1/(n+2)! + 1/(n+3)! + ...

R_n = \frac{1}{(n+1)!}\, \{\, 1 + \frac{1}{(n+2)} + \frac{1}{(n+2)(n+3)} + \frac{1}{(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)} + \, \ldots \}

R_n < \frac{1}{(n+1)!} \, \{\, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + \, \ldots\}

Therefore,

R_n < \frac{2}{(n+1)!}

Can you see how I put put the expression in curley brackets {} in comparision with a simple geometric series to find an appropriate bound.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top