1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Someone help me understand how e is irrational proof

  1. Nov 25, 2007 #1


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper


    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]
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Taylor's theorem.
  4. Nov 25, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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
  5. Nov 26, 2007 #4

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
  6. Nov 26, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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]


    [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: Nov 26, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?