True or False? If a and b are positive irrational numbers, then a b must be irrational as well.
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.
Thank you for indulging me in this silly little problem!
I like your second proof better, since we can all prove with ease (as Plato could) that 2 is irrational. I must confess that I would be hard pressed to prove that ln 2 is irrational without knowing that e is transcendental (which I would also be hard pressed to prove without refreshing my memory).
I'm surprised that you call the second proof "constructive"... I would have termed it an existence proof.
Log in to reply
Although the proofs of the irrationality of e and ln ( 2 ) are indeed less "familiar" than those for 2 , my counterexample was too compact not to mention. :)
And yes, you're right, my second proof is more an "existence" than "constructive" proof, so I'll make that edit. The proof doesn't actually tell us whether or not 2 2 is rational, just that one way or the other there exists a counterexample to the given statement. I suppose that, given the definition , the second proof is not of the pure existence variety since I have constructed a "method" to provide an example, although not in the truest sense.
Another counterexample: a = 2 , b = lo g 2 9 .
Log in to reply
Very nice! Here it's easy to see that both a and b are irrational! Thanks!
Log in to reply
CHALLENGE MASTER NOTE: For algebraic numbers a , b with a = 0 , 1 and b irrational, find the value(s) of a and b such that a b is rational.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – That is not going to happen, by Gelfond-Schneider
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Oh, I thought I can trick you =C
@Otto Bretscher – Cool. That's definitely my new theorem for the day. :)
If a = 7 , b = 2 , then how could we prove that a b is rational
Log in to reply
What makes you think that it's rational?
Log in to reply
This shows that the statement in the question is sometimes true as well.
Log in to reply
@Vighnesh Raut – You misinterpreted the question. It didn't say that all irrational a , b produces irrational a b . It's like asking: True/False: "If, c , d are prime numbers, then c + d MUST be an even number".
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – What if c = 2 and d is some other odd prime number, then c + d is odd as well :D It isn't necessary that a b is always rational for irrational a and b . So, according to me , answer should be "CANNOT BE DECIDED" because it depends on what a and b we choose. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Log in to reply
@Vighnesh Raut – You still misinterpreted it. The question asked can be rephrased as such: "Is it always true that no matter what irrational numbers I choose, say a and b , the resultant number a b will ALWAYS be an irrational number?"
Same goes with my other question. "Is it always true that no matter what two prime numbers I choose, their sum will ALWAYS be an even number?"
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Oh...thanks.... I interpreted must be as may be which was wrong. Thanks for helping me out.
@Vighnesh Raut – With a statement that says something is a l w a y s the case, it is sufficient to provide a counterexample, (either direct or existential), to prove that the statement is false.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The answer is "False".
Proof by counterexample: Both e and ln ( 2 ) , are positive and irrational, (transcendental, in fact), but e ln ( 2 ) = 2 is rational.
Existence proof: 2 is irrational. Now 2 2 can be either rational or irrational. If it is rational then we are done. If it is irrational, we then have that
( 2 2 ) 2 = 2 2 = 2 ,
i.e., an irrational raised to an irrational yielding a rational number.