Someone help me understand how e is irrational proof

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rock.freak667
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof of the irrationality of the number e, specifically focusing on the remainder term in Taylor's theorem and its implications for bounding this remainder in the context of the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references a proof and seeks clarification on how the bound \(0 < R_n < \frac{3}{(n+1)!}\) is established.
  • Another participant mentions Taylor's theorem as relevant to the discussion.
  • A participant expresses a lack of depth in their understanding of Taylor's theorem and the remainder term.
  • Further explanation of Taylor's theorem is provided, detailing how a function can be expressed with a remainder term and suggesting the Cauchy form for the remainder.
  • Another participant reiterates the importance of showing that \(b \cdot R_n\) is between zero and one, arguing that the exact bound is less critical than ensuring it is less than one.
  • This participant also discusses a method for bounding \(R_n\) using comparisons with known series, suggesting that \(R_n\) can be bounded by \(\frac{2}{(n+1)!}\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding Taylor's theorem and the remainder term. There is no consensus on the specific bounds or methods for establishing them, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention different forms of the remainder term and the implications of bounding it, but there are no resolutions to the mathematical steps or assumptions involved in the proof.

rock.freak667
Homework Helper
Messages
6,221
Reaction score
31
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics 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:

[tex]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[/tex]

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 [tex]R_n = \frac{(x - t)^n}{n!} x f^{n+1} (t)[/tex] 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 [itex]0<R_n<\frac{3}{(n+1)!}[/itex]

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 :

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

[tex]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 \}[/tex]

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

Therefore,

[tex]R_n < \frac{2}{(n+1)!}[/tex]

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K