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!

Trancendental number

  1. Feb 26, 2007 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Prove that [tex]e^{\frac{n}{m}}[/tex] is trancendental, where m>0 and n are integers.

    2. Relevant equations

    e is trancendental

    3. The attempt at a solution

    A hint I got said this:
    "Let ln(m\n)=m\n"
    so I did this:
    then[tex] \frac{m}{n} = e^{\frac{m}{n}}[/tex]
    so then [tex](\frac{m}{n})^n=(e^{\frac{m}{n}})^n[/tex]
    and then [tex](\frac{m}{n})^n-e^m=0[/tex]
    this contradicts the trancendence of e, therefore e^n\m is trancendental.

    I'm confused about the hint, and I'm not convinced that this is actually valid. This hint came from one of my classmates and aside from pulling out if the thin air, I don't see how he arrived at this.
    Any input will be appreciated.
    CC
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 26, 2007 #2

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    ln(m/n)=m/n is never true. You probably mean ln(m/n)=p/q, ie, assume ln(m/n) is rational and reach a contradiction.
     
  4. Feb 26, 2007 #3
    Hi,
    So if I change the m\n to p\q and say ln(m\n) is rational, does the argument above hold, or do I need to completely start over?
     
  5. Feb 26, 2007 #4

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Why don't you try it?
     
  6. Feb 26, 2007 #5
    Let ln(m\n)=p\q, where m>0,n,p and q are integers. So then ln(m\n) is rational.

    then[tex] \frac{m}{n} = e^{\frac{p}{q}}[/tex]

    so then [tex](\frac{m}{n})^q=(e^{\frac{p}{q}})^q[/tex]

    and then [tex](\frac{m}{n})^q-e^p=0[/tex]

    this contradicts the trancendence of e, so e^(n\m) must be trancendental.
    Am I closer?
    CC
     
  7. Feb 26, 2007 #6

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    You've reached a contradiction, so you have to reject you assumption, which was that ln(m/n) was rational. This is different from e^n/m. But it shouldn't be hard to modify your proof to get what you want (hint: switch m/n and p/q)

    EDIT: Sorry, I just realized I suggested doing it the wrong way around. Anyway, like I said, it shouldn't be hard to fix.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2007
  8. Feb 26, 2007 #7

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Never mind. I see.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2007
  9. Feb 26, 2007 #8
    I thought that if I got a polynomial with e as a root that I would get a contradiction. That was my idea. I don't know if the little invented equation up there is of any use. This is one of those problems that I have stared at so long I can't think of any other method. Please help me go the right way of you can.
    Thanks,
    CC
     
  10. Feb 26, 2007 #9

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    You're right, I didn't notice that.

    Let's start over. Note that if a satisfies a polynomial f(x), then any nth root of a satisfies the polynomial f(x^n). Thus if a number is algebraic, so are all its nth roots, and so, rearranging things a little, if a number is transcendental, so are all its nth powers (do you see how to get this?). If you can similarly show that the mth power of an algebraic number is algebraic, you'll be done.
     
  11. Feb 26, 2007 #10

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This is a proof that ln(m/n) must be irrational, not that e^(n/m) is transcendental. I think your hint may apply to some other problem. Follow StatusX's suggestion!
     
  12. Feb 27, 2007 #11
    Ok,
    Assume that [tex]e^{\frac{n}{m}}[/tex] is algebraic.
    Then it satisfies a polynomial of the form
    [tex]x^m-e^n=0[/tex] for every value of n and m.
    Now let m=n=1

    then [tex]x-e=0[/tex]

    contradiction
    Is that valid?
    CC
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  13. Feb 27, 2007 #12

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No it's not valid. In fact, the more I read it the less I understand it, sorry. StatusX suggests that you prove the result by first proving that if c^(n/m) is algebraic then c is algebraic. That puts you one step away from a proof by contradiction.
     
  14. Feb 27, 2007 #13
    I'm not sure how to prove that if c^(n\m) is algrbraic then c is algebraic.

    I was considering something like 2^(5/6). It satisfies x^6-2^5=0, and any other algebraic number of that form c^(n\m) satisfies a polynomial of that looks like x^m-c^n=0.

    Is it an inductive type proof that if c^(n\m) is algebraic then c is algebraic? I'm not really sure where to start. I can see why that's true, but I don't know where to start with a proof. Any input will be appreciated.
    CC
     
  15. Feb 27, 2007 #14

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ok. The easy case is c^n algebraic implies c is algebraic. Can you do that one? The 'harder' case is c^(1/m) algebraic implies c is algebraic. Don't try to construct an explicit polynomial in this case. Have you proved that algebraic numbers are closed under multiplication?
     
  16. Feb 27, 2007 #15
    Yes, we have that proof in the book.Ok. I'm going to work on the c^n thing and try out the c^1\m. Then I just invoke algebraic times algebraic is algebraic?
     
  17. Feb 27, 2007 #16

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If you already know closure, then the c^(1/m) is the easy case. c=c^(1/m)*c^(1/m)*...*c^(1/m) (m times). So if c^(1/m) is algebraic, c is ???. Now try the other case. Then put them together to prove c^(n/m) algebraic implies c algebraic.
     
  18. Feb 27, 2007 #17

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    One can give a direct proof

    Hypothesis

    e is transcendental, i.e.

    [tex] a_{1} e^{k} +a_{2}e^{k-1}+...+a_{k}e+a_{k+1}=0 \rightarrow \left\{a_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{i=k+1}=0 \ , \ \forall a_{i}\in\mathbb{Z} \ , \forall k\in\mathbb{N}} [/tex]

    Conclusion

    [tex] a_{1} e^{\left(\frac{m}{n}\right)k} +a_{2}e^{\left(\frac{m}{n}\right)(k-1)}+...+a_{k}e^{\frac{m}{n}}+a_{k+1}=0 \rightarrow \left\{a_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{i=k+1}=0 \ , \ \forall a_{i}\in\mathbb{Z} \ , \forall k\in\mathbb{N} [/tex]

    Proof: Pick k=n p, p arbitrary in [itex] \mathbb{N} [/itex] Rename mp=k' still in [itex] \mathbb{N} [/itex] Endproof.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  19. Feb 27, 2007 #18

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Sorry. I don't really buy the proof of your conclusion. To show e^(n/m) transcendental, you have to show the implication holds for ALL k, not selected ones.
     
  20. Feb 27, 2007 #19

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    "k" is arbitrary, it's n/m times an arbitrary natural number. When k' generates N, k generates N, since m,n are natural numbers (coprime if you prefer).
     
  21. Feb 27, 2007 #20

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Then what is the k=n*p restriction? Furthermore, this still doesn't reduce all of the exponents to integers. Isn't that what you are trying to do?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Trancendental number
  1. Reynolds Number (Replies: 2)

Loading...