I Why are "irrational" and "transcendental" so commonly used to describe numbers

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter rumborak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The terms "irrational" and "transcendental" are used to classify numbers based on their properties related to polynomial equations. Rational numbers can be expressed as ratios and have exact values, while irrational numbers, like the square root of 2, cannot be expressed this way and have non-repeating decimal expansions. Transcendental numbers, such as pi and e, are even more complex as they cannot be solutions to any polynomial equation with integer coefficients. The distinction between these classifications is not hierarchical but rather reflects fundamental properties of the numbers. Understanding these classifications has historical significance, particularly in addressing classical problems like squaring the circle.
rumborak
Messages
706
Reaction score
154
(sorry, the thread title got mangled. It should be "why are irrational and transcendental so commonly used to describe numbers")

Is this simply out of the most common ways of how one would try to describe a number? (e.g. first try ratios, then polynomials) Or is there a deeper reason for this hierarchy of classifications?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If a number is rational, then you can store its exact value (or a way to compute its exact value to desired precision). For example 1/2, you can store a 1 and 2 then just divide them and get a nice 0.5 decimal. Even repeating decimals such as 1/11 or 1/7 can be divided and you will get a decimal which goes forever, but can be handled.

Irrational numbers, such as square root of 2, cannot be calculated this way. The digits never repeat. But square root of 2 can be a solution to a polynomial with integer coefficients. It is a solution to x2 - 2 = 0. Even the golden ratio is (1/2) + sqrt(5)/2, and is a solution of a polynomial. Transendental numbers like e and pi cannot be solutions to a polynomial such as this. You may find this video helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159
It is no hierarchy, it is a property. Numbers which fulfill a polynomial equation are called algebraic, and numbers which do not fulfill such an equation as e.g. ##\pi## over ##\mathbb{Q}## are called transcendental. It is not obvious whether a number is transcendental or not. It could simply be the case that we haven't found an appropriate equation yet and for many numbers, it is still not clear whether they are algebraic or transcendental. The proof that ##\pi## is transcendental dates back to 1882 (F. v. Lindemann). This is not that long ago considered since when we deal with ##\pi##.

Irrational simply refers to numbers which are not elements of ##\mathbb{Q}## - not rational. So ##\pi## as well as ##\sqrt{7}## are irrational. But while ##\pi## is transcendental with respect to ##\mathbb{Q}##, ##\sqrt{7}## is algebraic with respect to ##\mathbb{Q}##. The fact that indeed ##\pi \notin \mathbb{Q}## is known since 1767. So even this "obvious" result took its time before it could have been considered certain.
 
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
Added note: Algebraic numbers are countable, implying most numbers are transcendental.
 
  • Like
Likes mathwonk
fresh_42 said:
...
The fact that indeed ##\pi \notin \mathbb{Q}## is known since 1767. So even this "obvious" result took its time before it could have been considered certain.
For many years I used to think that the value 22/7 was actually an exact one. Though perhaps, just on surface, one might have considered it a little odd based on circumference of a circle being increasingly approximated through square roots (but still, I guess one can't be sure unless one has ruled out a rational number as a limiting value of a sequence involving square roots).
But probably, when I first heard about someone remembering "digits" of pi, it occurred to me that it wouldn't make much sense if it was a rational number (specifically 22/7).
 
SSequence said:
But probably, when I first heard about someone remembering "digits" of pi, it occurred to me that it wouldn't make much sense if it was a rational number (specifically 22/7).
Digits are always merely a certain representation. The question why it was interesting to know, whether ##\pi ## is rational or in this case transcendental was another. It is one of the three classical problems, namely whether a circle could be squared, such that they both have the same area and only compass and ruler were allowed to use. The fact that ##\pi ## is transcendent answers this question (negatively). So people where interested in this question for centuries and long before we started to use digits.
 
  • Like
Likes mathwonk
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top