Someone help me understand how e is irrational proof

In summary, the conversation is discussing Taylor's theorem and finding a remainder term for a function that is n-times differentiable. The theorem states that a function can be expressed as a Taylor series plus a remainder term. The Cauchy form of the remainder term is used in this problem and a simpler series is compared to find an appropriate bound for the remainder term.
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Taylor's theorem.
 
  • #3
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
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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:

1. What is the definition of an irrational number?

An irrational number is a real number that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, it is a number that cannot be written as a fraction or terminating decimal.

2. How do we know that e is irrational?

The proof that e is irrational was first shown by Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler in the 18th century. It involves showing that e cannot be written as a ratio of two integers, which is known as the "Euclidean proof".

3. Can you provide a simplified explanation of the Euclidean proof for e being irrational?

The Euclidean proof for e being irrational involves assuming that e can be written as a ratio of two integers (p/q), and then using algebraic manipulations to arrive at a contradiction. This contradiction proves that e cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers, and therefore is irrational.

4. Are there any other proofs for e being irrational?

Yes, there are other proofs for e being irrational, including the "Continued Fraction proof" and the "Limit proof". These proofs use different mathematical techniques to show that e cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

5. Why is it important to know that e is irrational?

Knowing that e is irrational is important in mathematics because it helps us understand the properties of real numbers and their relationships. It also has many practical applications in fields such as physics, engineering, and finance.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top