We know e (exponential) is a irrational number

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The number e, known as Euler's number, is definitively proven to be irrational through various mathematical approaches discussed in the forum. One method utilizes Taylor's series expansion, specifically e = 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + ..., demonstrating that the sum of this infinite series cannot yield a rational number. Another approach involves a theorem regarding continuous functions, which confirms that if ln(e) is rational, then e must be irrational. The discussion highlights multiple proofs, including the use of inequalities to show that e cannot be expressed as a fraction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series, specifically e = 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + ...
  • Familiarity with the concept of irrational numbers and their properties.
  • Knowledge of logarithmic functions, particularly natural logarithms.
  • Basic principles of mathematical proofs and inequalities.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Taylor series and their convergence.
  • Learn about the proof techniques for irrational numbers, focusing on the proof of sqrt(2) and pi.
  • Explore the implications of the theorem regarding continuous functions and their derivatives.
  • Investigate further into the properties of exponential functions and their applications in mathematics.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students studying advanced calculus, and anyone interested in the properties of irrational numbers and mathematical proofs.

newton1
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
we know e (exponential) is a irrational number...
how can we prove it??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The way we calculate e can be similar to Pi.
One way yields an infinite series of non-repeating rational numbers. The sum is therefore irrational.

Try proving the sqrt(5) is irrational.
 
Emu, do you know of any way of proving directly that the digits in the decimal expansion of e are NOT repeating? I'm not saying it can't be done, only that I think it's easier to prove e cannot be written as a fraction.

One standard method is to use the Taylor's series (which may be what emu meant): e= 1+ 1/2 + 1/6+ ...+ 1/n!+ ...
If j is any positve integer then e*j!= integer+ 1/(q+1)+ 1/(q+1)(q+2)+ ... which is not an integer so e cannot be written as a fraction with denominator j for any j.

A theorem I saw years ago was this: If c> 0, and there exist a function f(x), continuous on [0,c], positive on (0,c) and such that f(x) and its iterated anti-derivatives can be taken to be integer valued at both 0 and c, the c is irrational!

Taking f(x)= sin(x) in this theorem shows that pi is irrational.

It can also be used to prove: If c is a positive number other than 1 and ln(c) is rational, then c is irrational.

Since e is a positive number, not equal to 1, and ln(e)= 1 is rational, it follows that e is irrational.
 
While e cannot be written as a fraction, e to its first 2 million decimal places can. I'm just not going to.
 
e*j!= integer+ 1/(q+1)+ 1/(q+1)(q+2)+ ... which is not an integer

That's not obvious... I don't see why the infinite sequence there cannot add up to an integral value.

Hurkyl
 
Let An=1+1/2!+...+1/n!;
It's quite simple to prove that 1/(n+1)!<e-An<1/(n!*n);
Let's suppose e is rational, so it's equal to p/q, where p and q are integers.
1/(n+1)!<e-(1+1/2!+...+1/n!)<1/(n!*n); | *n!;
1/(n+1)<n!*p/q-n!*(1+1/2!+...+1/n!)<1/n;
But between 1/(n+1) and 1/n is no integer...
n!*p/q must be an integer because for n big enough n! is a multiple of q;
So e is not rational...
QED
 
that's kind of a neat prove, thanks for posting it. I don't think I would've caught that last part about for n big enough...
 
thank you...:)
 
  • #10
e-An<1/(n!*n)

That bit isn't obvious either... but the ordinary taylor remainder formula gives e/(n+1)! for that term which is sufficient for the proof. Don't tell me how to get that end of the inequality, it'd be a good exercise to figure it out myself!

Hurkyl
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K