Proof that e is irrational: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Remsense
Changing short description from "Mathematical proof that Euler's number (e) is irrational" to one that is intentionally blank
 
imported>Andromedy
Added every mathematical variable inside of a {{math}} environment, to maintain consistency with other articles on the 'e' constant
 
Line 2: Line 2:
{{E (mathematical constant)}}
{{E (mathematical constant)}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Proof that {{mvar|e}} is irrational}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Proof that {{mvar|e}} is irrational}}
The [[e (mathematical constant)|number ''e'']] was introduced by [[Jacob Bernoulli]] in 1683. More than half a century later, [[Leonhard Euler|Euler]], who had been a student of Jacob's younger brother [[Johann Bernoulli|Johann]], proved that ''e'' is [[Irrational number|irrational]]; that is, that it cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.
The [[e (mathematical constant)|number {{math|''e''}}]] was introduced by [[Jacob Bernoulli]] in 1683. More than half a century later, [[Leonhard Euler|Euler]], who had been a student of Jacob's younger brother [[Johann Bernoulli|Johann]], proved that {{math|''e''}} is [[Irrational number|irrational]]; that is, that it cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.


==Euler's proof==
==Euler's proof==
Euler wrote the first proof of the fact that ''e'' is irrational in 1737 (but the text was only published seven years later).<ref>{{cite journal | last = Euler | first = Leonhard | year = 1744 | title = De fractionibus continuis dissertatio | url = http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/originals/E071.pdf | journal = Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae | volume = 9 | pages = 98–137 |trans-title=A dissertation on continued fractions}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Euler | first = Leonhard | title = An essay on continued fractions | journal = Mathematical Systems Theory | year = 1985 | volume = 18 | pages = 295–398 | url = https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/32133 | publication-date = 1985 | doi=10.1007/bf01699475| hdl = 1811/32133 | s2cid = 126941824 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1 = Sandifer | first1 = C. Edward | title = How Euler did it | chapter = Chapter 32: Who proved ''e'' is irrational? | url=http://eulerarchive.maa.org/hedi/HEDI-2006-02.pdf |publisher = [[Mathematical Association of America]] | pages = 185–190 | year = 2007 | isbn = 978-0-88385-563-8 | lccn = 2007927658}}</ref> He computed the representation of ''e'' as a [[simple continued fraction]], which is
Euler wrote the first proof of the fact that {{math|''e''}} is irrational in 1737 (but the text was only published seven years later).<ref>{{cite journal | last = Euler | first = Leonhard | year = 1744 | title = De fractionibus continuis dissertatio | url = http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/originals/E071.pdf | journal = Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae | volume = 9 | pages = 98–137 |trans-title=A dissertation on continued fractions}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Euler | first = Leonhard | title = An essay on continued fractions | journal = Mathematical Systems Theory | year = 1985 | volume = 18 | pages = 295–398 | url = https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/32133 | publication-date = 1985 | doi=10.1007/bf01699475| hdl = 1811/32133 | s2cid = 126941824 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1 = Sandifer | first1 = C. Edward | title = How Euler did it | chapter = Chapter 32: Who proved ''e'' is irrational? | url=http://eulerarchive.maa.org/hedi/HEDI-2006-02.pdf |publisher = [[Mathematical Association of America]] | pages = 185–190 | year = 2007 | isbn = 978-0-88385-563-8 | lccn = 2007927658}}</ref> He computed the representation of {{math|''e''}} as a [[simple continued fraction]], which is


:<math>e = [2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, 1, 1, \ldots, 2n, 1, 1, \ldots]. </math>
:<math>e = [2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, 1, 1, \ldots, 2n, 1, 1, \ldots]. </math>


Since this continued fraction is infinite and every rational number has a terminating continued fraction, ''e'' is irrational. A short proof of the previous equality is known.<ref>[https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0601660 A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e]</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Cohn | first = Henry | journal = [[American Mathematical Monthly]] | volume = 113 | issue = 1 | pages = 57–62 | year = 2006 | title = A short proof of the simple continued fraction expansion of ''e'' | jstor = 27641837 | doi=10.2307/27641837| arxiv = math/0601660 | bibcode = 2006math......1660C }}</ref> Since the simple continued fraction of ''e'' is not [[Periodic continued fraction|periodic]], this also proves that ''e'' is not a root of a quadratic polynomial with rational coefficients; in particular, ''e''<sup>2</sup> is irrational.
Since this continued fraction is infinite and every rational number has a terminating continued fraction, {{math|''e''}} is irrational. A short proof of the previous equality is known.<ref>[https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0601660 A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e]</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Cohn | first = Henry | journal = [[American Mathematical Monthly]] | volume = 113 | issue = 1 | pages = 57–62 | year = 2006 | title = A short proof of the simple continued fraction expansion of ''e'' | jstor = 27641837 | doi=10.2307/27641837| arxiv = math/0601660 | bibcode = 2006math......1660C }}</ref> Since the simple continued fraction of {{math|''e''}} is not [[Periodic continued fraction|periodic]], this also proves that {{math|''e''}} is not a root of a quadratic polynomial with rational coefficients; in particular, {{math|''e''<sup>2</sup>}} is irrational.


==Fourier's proof==
==Fourier's proof==
Line 16: Line 16:
: <math>e = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}.</math>
: <math>e = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}.</math>


Initially ''e'' is assumed to be a rational number of the form {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}. The idea is to then analyze the scaled-up difference (here denoted ''x'') between the series representation of ''e'' and its strictly smaller {{nowrap|''b''-th}} partial sum, which approximates the limiting value ''e''. By choosing the scale factor to be the [[factorial]] of&nbsp;''b'', the fraction {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}} and the {{nowrap|''b''-th}} partial sum are turned into [[integer]]s, hence ''x'' must be a positive integer. However, the fast convergence of the series representation implies that ''x'' is still strictly smaller than&nbsp;1. From this contradiction we deduce that ''e'' is irrational.
Initially {{math|''e''}} is assumed to be a rational number of the form {{math|{{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}}}. The idea is to then analyze the scaled-up difference (here denoted {{math|''x''}}) between the series representation of {{math|''e''}} and its strictly smaller {{nowrap|{{math|''b''}}-th}} partial sum, which approximates the limiting value {{math|''e''}}. By choosing the scale factor to be the [[factorial]] of&nbsp;{{math|''b''}}, the fraction {{math|{{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}}} and the {{nowrap|{{math|''b''}}-th}} partial sum are turned into [[integer]]s, hence {{math|''x''}} must be a positive integer. However, the fast convergence of the series representation implies that {{math|''x''}} is still strictly smaller than&nbsp;1. From this contradiction we deduce that {{math|''e''}} is irrational.


Now for the details. If ''e'' is a [[rational number]], there exist positive integers ''a'' and ''b'' such that {{nowrap|1=''e'' = {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}}}. Define the number
Now for the details. If {{math|''e''}} is a [[rational number]], there exist positive integers {{math|''a''}} and {{math|''b''}} such that {{math|''e'' {{=}} {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}}}. Define the number


: <math>x = b!\left(e - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right).</math>
: <math>x = b!\left(e - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right).</math>


Use the assumption that ''e'' = {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}} to obtain
Use the assumption that {{math|''e'' {{=}} {{sfrac|''a''|''b''}}}} to obtain


: <math>x = b!\left (\frac{a}{b} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = a(b - 1)! - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{b!}{n!}.</math>
: <math>x = b!\left (\frac{a}{b} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = a(b - 1)! - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{b!}{n!}.</math>


The first term is an integer, and every fraction in the sum is actually an integer because {{nowrap|''n'' ≤ ''b''}} for each term. Therefore, under the assumption that ''e'' is rational, ''x'' is an integer.
The first term is an integer, and every fraction in the sum is actually an integer because {{math|''n'' ≤ ''b''}} for each term. Therefore, under the assumption that {{math|''e''}} is rational, {{math|''x''}} is an integer.


We now prove that {{nowrap|0 < ''x'' < 1}}. First, to prove that ''x'' is strictly positive, we insert the above series representation of ''e'' into the definition of ''x'' and obtain
We now prove that {{math|0 < ''x'' < 1}}. First, to prove that {{math|''x''}} is strictly positive, we insert the above series representation of {{math|''e''}} into the definition of {{math|''x''}} and obtain


: <math>x = b!\left(\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = \sum_{n = b+1}^{\infty} \frac{b!}{n!}>0,</math>
: <math>x = b!\left(\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = \sum_{n = b+1}^{\infty} \frac{b!}{n!}>0,</math>
Line 34: Line 34:
because all the terms are strictly positive.
because all the terms are strictly positive.


We now prove that {{nowrap|''x'' < 1}}. For all terms with {{nowrap|''n'' ≥ ''b'' + 1}} we have the upper estimate
We now prove that {{math|''x'' < 1}}. For all terms with {{math|''n'' ≥ ''b'' + 1}} we have the upper estimate


: <math>\frac{b!}{n!} =\frac1{(b + 1)(b + 2) \cdots \big(b + (n - b)\big)} \le \frac1{(b + 1)^{n-b}}.</math>
: <math>\frac{b!}{n!} =\frac1{(b + 1)(b + 2) \cdots \big(b + (n - b)\big)} \le \frac1{(b + 1)^{n-b}}.</math>


This inequality is strict for every {{nowrap|''n'' ≥ ''b'' + 2}}. Changing the index of summation to {{nowrap|1=''k'' = ''n'' – ''b''}} and using the formula for the [[Geometric series|infinite geometric series]], we obtain
This inequality is strict for every {{math|''n'' ≥ ''b'' + 2}}. Changing the index of summation to {{math|''k'' {{=}} ''n'' – ''b''}} and using the formula for the [[Geometric series|infinite geometric series]], we obtain


:<math>x =\sum_{n = b + 1}^\infty \frac{b!}{n!}
:<math>x =\sum_{n = b + 1}^\infty \frac{b!}{n!}
Line 48: Line 48:
And therefore <math>x<1.</math>
And therefore <math>x<1.</math>


Since there is no integer strictly between 0 and 1, we have reached a contradiction, and so ''e'' is irrational, [[Q.E.D.]]
Since there is no integer strictly between 0 and 1, we have reached a contradiction, and so {{math|''e''}} is irrational, [[Q.E.D.]]


==Alternative proofs==
==Alternative proofs==
Line 58: Line 58:
1 + x,</math>
1 + x,</math>


and this inequality is equivalent to the assertion that ''bx''&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. This is impossible, of course, since ''b'' and ''x'' are positive integers.
and this inequality is equivalent to the assertion that {{math|''bx''&nbsp;<&nbsp;1}}. This is impossible, of course, since {{math|''b''}} and {{math|''x''}} are positive integers.


Still another proof<ref>{{cite journal | last = Penesi | first = L. L. | year = 1953 | title = Elementary proof that ''e'' is irrational | journal = [[American Mathematical Monthly]] | publisher = [[Mathematical Association of America]] | volume = 60 | issue = 7 | pages = 474 | jstor = 2308411 | doi = 10.2307/2308411 }}</ref><ref>Apostol, T. (1974). Mathematical analysis (2nd ed., Addison-Wesley series in mathematics). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.</ref> can be obtained from the fact that
Still another proof<ref>{{cite journal | last = Penesi | first = L. L. | year = 1953 | title = Elementary proof that ''e'' is irrational | journal = [[American Mathematical Monthly]] | publisher = [[Mathematical Association of America]] | volume = 60 | issue = 7 | pages = 474 | jstor = 2308411 | doi = 10.2307/2308411 }}</ref><ref>Apostol, T. (1974). Mathematical analysis (2nd ed., Addison-Wesley series in mathematics). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.</ref> can be obtained from the fact that
Line 81: Line 81:


==Generalizations==
==Generalizations==
In 1840, [[Joseph Liouville|Liouville]] published a proof of the fact that ''e''<sup>2</sup> is irrational<ref>{{cite journal | last = Liouville | first = Joseph | journal = [[Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées]] | title = Sur l'irrationalité du nombre ''e'' = 2,718… | series = 1 | volume = 5 | pages = 192 | year = 1840 | language = fr}}</ref> followed by a proof that ''e''<sup>2</sup> is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Liouville | first = Joseph | journal = [[Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées]] | title = Addition à la note sur l'irrationnalité du nombre ''e'' | series = 1 | volume = 5 | pages = 193–194 | year = 1840 | language = fr}}</ref> This last fact implies that ''e''<sup>4</sup> is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of ''e''. In 1891, [[Adolf Hurwitz|Hurwitz]] explained how it is possible to prove along the same line of ideas that ''e'' is not a root of a third-degree polynomial with rational coefficients, which implies that ''e''<sup>3</sup> is irrational.<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Hurwitz | first1 = Adolf | year = 1933 | orig-year = 1891 | title = Mathematische Werke | volume = 2 | language = de | chapter = Über die Kettenbruchentwicklung der Zahl ''e'' | publisher = [[Birkhäuser]] | location = Basel | pages = 129–133}}</ref> More generally, ''e''<sup>''q''</sup> is irrational for any non-zero rational ''q''.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Aigner | first1=Martin | author1-link = Martin Aigner | last2=Ziegler | first2=Günter M. | author2-link=Günter M. Ziegler | title=[[Proofs from THE BOOK]] | publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] | location=Berlin, New York | year=1998 |pages=27–36 |isbn=978-3-642-00855-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-00856-6 |edition=4th}}</ref>
In 1840, [[Joseph Liouville|Liouville]] published a proof of the fact that {{math|''e''<sup>2</sup>}} is irrational<ref>{{cite journal | last = Liouville | first = Joseph | journal = [[Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées]] | title = Sur l'irrationalité du nombre ''e'' = 2,718… | series = 1 | volume = 5 | pages = 192 | year = 1840 | language = fr}}</ref> followed by a proof that {{math|''e''<sup>2</sup>}} is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Liouville | first = Joseph | journal = [[Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées]] | title = Addition à la note sur l'irrationnalité du nombre ''e'' | series = 1 | volume = 5 | pages = 193–194 | year = 1840 | language = fr}}</ref> This last fact implies that {{math|''e''<sup>4</sup>}} is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of {{math|''e''}}. In 1891, [[Adolf Hurwitz|Hurwitz]] explained how it is possible to prove along the same line of ideas that {{math|''e''}} is not a root of a third-degree polynomial with rational coefficients, which implies that {{math|''e''<sup>3</sup>}} is irrational.<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Hurwitz | first1 = Adolf | year = 1933 | orig-year = 1891 | title = Mathematische Werke | volume = 2 | language = de | chapter = Über die Kettenbruchentwicklung der Zahl ''e'' | publisher = [[Birkhäuser]] | location = Basel | pages = 129–133}}</ref> More generally, {{math|''e''<sup>''q''</sup>}} is irrational for any non-zero rational {{math|''q''}}.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Aigner | first1=Martin | author1-link = Martin Aigner | last2=Ziegler | first2=Günter M. | author2-link=Günter M. Ziegler | title=[[Proofs from THE BOOK]] | publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] | location=Berlin, New York | year=1998 |pages=27–36 |isbn=978-3-642-00855-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-00856-6 |edition=4th}}</ref>


[[Charles Hermite]] further proved that ''e'' is a [[transcendental number]], in 1873, which means that is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, as is {{math|''e''<sup>''&alpha;''</sup>}} for any non-zero [[algebraic number|algebraic]] ''&alpha;''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hermite |first=C. |author-link=Charles Hermite |year=1873 |title=Sur la fonction exponentielle |lang=fr |journal=Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris |volume=77 |pages=18–24}}</ref>
[[Charles Hermite]] further proved that {{math|''e''}} is a [[transcendental number]], in 1873, which means that is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, as is {{math|''e''<sup>''&alpha;''</sup>}} for any non-zero [[algebraic number|algebraic]] {{math|''&alpha;''}}.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hermite |first=C. |author-link=Charles Hermite |year=1873 |title=Sur la fonction exponentielle |lang=fr |journal=Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris |volume=77 |pages=18–24}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Characterizations of the exponential function]]
* [[Characterizations of the exponential function]]
* [[Transcendental number]], including a [[Transcendental number#A proof that e is transcendental|proof that ''e'' is transcendental]]
* [[Transcendental number]], including a [[Transcendental number#A proof that e is transcendental|proof that {{math|''e''}} is transcendental]]
* [[Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem]]
* [[Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem]]
* [[Proof that π is irrational]]
* [[Proof that π is irrational|Proof that {{math|&pi;}} is irrational]]


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 13:13, 27 June 2025

Template:Short description Template:E (mathematical constant)

The [[e (mathematical constant)|number Template:Math]] was introduced by Jacob Bernoulli in 1683. More than half a century later, Euler, who had been a student of Jacob's younger brother Johann, proved that Template:Math is irrational; that is, that it cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.

Euler's proof

Euler wrote the first proof of the fact that Template:Math is irrational in 1737 (but the text was only published seven years later).[1][2][3] He computed the representation of Template:Math as a simple continued fraction, which is

e=[2;1,2,1,1,4,1,1,6,1,1,8,1,1,,2n,1,1,].

Since this continued fraction is infinite and every rational number has a terminating continued fraction, Template:Math is irrational. A short proof of the previous equality is known.[4][5] Since the simple continued fraction of Template:Math is not periodic, this also proves that Template:Math is not a root of a quadratic polynomial with rational coefficients; in particular, Template:Math is irrational.

Fourier's proof

The most well-known proof is Joseph Fourier's proof by contradiction,[6] which is based upon the equality

e=n=01n!.

Initially Template:Math is assumed to be a rational number of the form Template:Math. The idea is to then analyze the scaled-up difference (here denoted Template:Math) between the series representation of Template:Math and its strictly smaller Template:Math-th partial sum, which approximates the limiting value Template:Math. By choosing the scale factor to be the factorial of Template:Math, the fraction Template:Math and the Template:Math-th partial sum are turned into integers, hence Template:Math must be a positive integer. However, the fast convergence of the series representation implies that Template:Math is still strictly smaller than 1. From this contradiction we deduce that Template:Math is irrational.

Now for the details. If Template:Math is a rational number, there exist positive integers Template:Math and Template:Math such that Template:Math. Define the number

x=b!(en=0b1n!).

Use the assumption that Template:Math to obtain

x=b!(abn=0b1n!)=a(b1)!n=0bb!n!.

The first term is an integer, and every fraction in the sum is actually an integer because Template:Math for each term. Therefore, under the assumption that Template:Math is rational, Template:Math is an integer.

We now prove that Template:Math. First, to prove that Template:Math is strictly positive, we insert the above series representation of Template:Math into the definition of Template:Math and obtain

x=b!(n=01n!n=0b1n!)=n=b+1b!n!>0,

because all the terms are strictly positive.

We now prove that Template:Math. For all terms with Template:Math we have the upper estimate

b!n!=1(b+1)(b+2)(b+(nb))1(b+1)nb.

This inequality is strict for every Template:Math. Changing the index of summation to Template:Math and using the formula for the infinite geometric series, we obtain

x=n=b+1b!n!<n=b+11(b+1)nb=k=11(b+1)k=1b+1(111b+1)=1b1.

And therefore x<1.

Since there is no integer strictly between 0 and 1, we have reached a contradiction, and so Template:Math is irrational, Q.E.D.

Alternative proofs

Another proof[7] can be obtained from the previous one by noting that

(b+1)x=1+1b+2+1(b+2)(b+3)+<1+1b+1+1(b+1)(b+2)+=1+x,

and this inequality is equivalent to the assertion that Template:Math. This is impossible, of course, since Template:Math and Template:Math are positive integers.

Still another proof[8][9] can be obtained from the fact that

1e=e1=n=0(1)nn!.

Define sn as follows:

sn=k=0n(1)kk!.

Then

e1s2n1=k=0(1)kk!k=02n1(1)kk!<1(2n)!,

which implies

0<(2n1)!(e1s2n1)<12n12

for any positive integer n.

Note that (2n1)!s2n1 is always an integer. Assume that e1 is rational, so e1=p/q, where p,q are co-prime, and q0. It is possible to appropriately choose n so that (2n1)!e1 is an integer, i.e. n(q+1)/2. Hence, for this choice, the difference between (2n1)!e1 and (2n1)!s2n1 would be an integer. But from the above inequality, that is not possible. So, e1 is irrational. This means that e is irrational.

Generalizations

In 1840, Liouville published a proof of the fact that Template:Math is irrational[10] followed by a proof that Template:Math is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients.[11] This last fact implies that Template:Math is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of Template:Math. In 1891, Hurwitz explained how it is possible to prove along the same line of ideas that Template:Math is not a root of a third-degree polynomial with rational coefficients, which implies that Template:Math is irrational.[12] More generally, Template:Math is irrational for any non-zero rational Template:Math.[13]

Charles Hermite further proved that Template:Math is a transcendental number, in 1873, which means that is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, as is Template:Math for any non-zero algebraic Template:Math.[14]

See also

References

  1. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  2. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  3. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  4. A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e
  5. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  6. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  8. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  9. Apostol, T. (1974). Mathematical analysis (2nd ed., Addison-Wesley series in mathematics). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
  10. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  11. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  12. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  14. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".