Proof that e is irrational

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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".