If this question is too easy for you, leave a hint instead of revealing the entire solution.
A rational number is a number that can be written as \( \frac{a}{b}\), where \(a\) and \(b\) are integers.
An irrational number is a real number that is not rational.
How do we know that irrational numbers exists? Back during Pythagoras' time, they did not believe that there were irrational numbers (they were being irrational!) and you could be drowned for believing something that was true!
Let's show that is irrational:
Proof: We will prove this by contradiction. Suppose that is not irrational. Then it is rational, and hence is of the form . We may make the assumption that the fraction is in the lowest terms, or that and have no common factors.
Squaring the equation, we get that . Since is even, hence is even. Let , where is an integer. Substituting this in, we get , or that . We repeat the above argument. Since is even, thus is even.
But this says that and are both even, and hence are both divisible by 2. This contradicts the original assumption that and have no common factors!
Thus we know that is irrational, and thanks to the advance of mathematics, we do not need to sacrifice our lives.
How do you show that is irrational? What about ?
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
If I may be pedantic, you meant to say, "An irrational number is a REAL number that is not a rational number."
I think a much better proof goes by using much more generality.
Theorem: If p is prime, then p is irrational.
Proof: Suppose, by way of contradiction, that p=ba, where a,b∈Z are coprime. Thus, p=b2a2. Since p∈Z and a2 and b2 are coprime, we must have that b=1, so p=a2. But, since p is prime, we have p=a2 for all a∈Z. Contradiction.
Because 2 is prime, it follows that 2 is irrational.
It's much simpler to consider the polynomial x2−2=0. By the Rational Root Theorem, all rational roots of this polynomial must be either 1, 2, -1, or -2. None of these satisfy the equation, therefore there are no rational solutions to x=2
Log in to reply
Nice proof!
I didn't want to get too 'technical' for the CosinesGroup. I'm not too sure what they know, or are comfortable with.
What's the Rational Root Theorem?
Log in to reply
It states that in a polynomial anxn+an−1xn−1+⋯+a1x+a0, that all possible rational roots qp have p∣a0 and q∣an.
Log in to reply
What about proving the irrationality of e? Obviously the above mentioned trick won't work. I've found a beautiful proof in "Proofs from THE BOOK", it's also featured on Wikipedia. Can anyone elaborate an alternative proof? What about irrationality of π?
Log in to reply
This article contains possibly the most elegant proof of the irrationality of pi that I've seen. You need only know integration by parts.
http://www.m-a.org.uk/resources/tmg/irrational_thoughts.doc
Enjoy.
Log in to reply
Thank you, it's indeed a really beautiful proof.
incase of root 3,let a=3m root 4 is rational
2.5 can be witiitn as 25/10 = 5/2.
0.33333… can be written as 3333.../10000…
mul and divide by 3, we get 9999.../(10000… x 3)
9999.. is close to 10000… and it is infinity so ratio is equal. = 1/3
if we were to write √2 as a ratio,
1414…/1000… and we won't know the last term or any properties of the huge number i.e divisible by 2, 3, or 5 something like that.
hence √2 cannot be expressed as a ratio
Log in to reply
That's an interesting observation, and is where I would like to go next.
The fact that you are trying to get to, is that a decimal number is rational if and only if it terminates, or is eventually repeating.
by contradiction that it is rational
Log in to reply
Can you elaborate? What do you mean?
just take 2p=4q' and 4p'=2q and the divide the make 4 eq compare them u will get the answer
I don't think that we can prove that 4 is irrational . . . For 3, I would think that this could be proven using a 30-60-90 triangle and the Pythagorean Theorem, but I don't have time (I have Fermat's Procrastination Disease). Anyone up to the challenge?
Log in to reply
Can you prove that 4 is rational then?
Hm, a geometric interpretation of a rational number is slightly harder to arrive at, as the concept of rational numbers is a number theoretic concept.
by this method a/b is not a rational number since those two (a and b)are even
here i had a doubt
consider 6/4 where both 6 and 4 are even 6/4=3/2 which is a rational number thus my doubt is about the definition of a rational number any one can explain this?????????????
Note that rational square root of an integer has to be an integer in its reduced form. Because if N=qp with q>1 and q∤p and gcd(p,q)=1, we have N=q2p2. Hence q2∣p2, which is impossible unless q∣p. With the above in view, we just check that 12=1 and 22=4 and hence there is no integer (and hence no rational number) whose square root is 3.
Log in to reply
If this question is too easy for you, leave a hint instead of revealing the entire solution.