True or False?
Given any six irrational numbers, there always exist three such that the sum of any two of them is still irrational.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Is the "distinct" condition needed?
Log in to reply
You are right! It is not compulsory, I corrected it.
Log in to reply
Indeed.
Note that out of 6 points in 2 colors, there must be at least 2 chromatic triangles. Can you find the case where we have exactly 2 chromatic triangles?
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Yes, that happens for sets of the form { α , α + r 1 , α + r 2 , − α + r 3 , − α + r 4 , − α + r 5 } , where α is an irrational and r i are all rationals.
Ok. So this has little to do with rational numbers. It is true of any two mutually exclusive options for classifying 6 or more objects.
Log in to reply
For this problem you also have to show that one of the two mutually exclusive options is actually not possible; so it is specialized for rational numbers
Actually the closure of rational numbers is an essential part. Here we specifically need a blue triangle and not just any monochromatic triangle.
This is a beautiful proof
It looks like a stronger claim can be made: 5 irrational numbers are enough to give that property.
Log in to reply
Can you prove that claim?
Log in to reply
I'll try to prove it by showing that we reach a contradiction if we try to construct 5 number such that, taken any 3 of those, at least one of their pairwise sums gives a rational result.
This is based on the property that 3 irrational numbers can't have all 3 pairwise sums result in rationals.
Let's call the 5 numbers A, B, C, D, E. If we pick 3 of those (ex A,B,C) at least a couple will have a rational sum (else the statement would already be verified); we can say it was A+B. We apply the same reasoning to the 3 left numbers and without a loss of generality we can now say that C+D is rational. Now let's consider the triplet A,C,E: either A+C is rational, or it's one of A or C plus E; in that second case we can now consider B+D+E...
What matters is that now we have constructed a chain of at least 3 rational sums, let's say it was A+B, B+C and C+D. That means that A+D must also be rational, since A+D = (A+B) + (C+D) - B+C. Now that we have the four numbers on a "square" relation, we can compare the fifth (in this case E) with the 2 numbers on opposite sides of a diagonal. E must have a rational sum with either A or C, or else A,B,C would all have rational sums, which is impossible for irrational numbers. Same reasoning goes for E with B and C.. but now we see that A has a rational sum with one of (A or C) and one of (B or D), which again creates an impossible triangle of rational sums. QED.
Log in to reply
@Marco Coden – Very nicely done. The argument could be cleaned up slightly, but you have a correct approach.
Let the six irrational numbers be a i for i = 1 , … , 6 . First, observe that if a i + a j and a i + a k are both rational, then their sum 2 a i + a j + a k is rational as well; hence, a j + a k is irrational (for otherwise 2 a i and thus a i would be rational too). Consequently, there do not exist triples all of whose pairwise sums are rational. We call this property T .
Consider the five sums a 1 + a i for i = 2 , … , 6 . Either at least three of these are rational or at least three are irrational. If three are rational, then those three a i have pairwise irrational sums (otherwise T would be violated). If three are irrational, then because of T not all pairwise sums of the three a i can be rational. Suppose a i + a j is irrational. Then a 1 , a i , a j have pairwise irrational sums.
Let assume that the statement is f a l s e .
So, there always exist three such that the sum of any two of them is rational.
Let the six irrational numbers are A , B , C , D , E and F .
Here the three numbers are A , B , C , the sum of any two of these numbers is rational.
So,
A+B=p \tag{1}
B+C=q \tag2
C+A=r \tag{3}
Here , p , q , r are rational.
( 1 ) − ( 2 ) + ( 3 ) → p − q + r = 2 a
2 a is irrational but p − q + r is rational .
So, p − q + r = 2 a Therefore , it is proved that , the statement is true.
It looks like you don't need 6 numbers at all, three will suffice, no?
Log in to reply
No, there was a mistake in the proof: "there always exist three such that the sum of any two of them is rational" is not the logical negation of the initial statement. (the correct negation is: at least one instance of six irrational numbers exists such that, whichever three you choose, the sum of at least two of them is rational)
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let the six numbers be six points, called: A , B , C , D , E and F . If two numebr's amount is rational, then we link them with a red line segment, if the amount is irrational, then we link with a blue line segmnent. Since there should be a triangle which sides are colored the same ( Ramsey-theorem ), we will show that there will be a blue triangle. Suppose there is a red triangle, let the numbers be x , y and z . Then x + y , x + z , y + z would be rational numbers, so the sum of them is rational too: 2 x + 2 y + 2 z . From that x + y + z would has to be rational, but since y + z is rational, x + y + z − ( y + z ) = x would have to be rational, but x is irrational. So there can't be a red triangle, and there must be a blue triangle.