العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolIRRATIONAL NUMBER
In mathematics, an 'irrational number' is any real number that is not a rational number — that is, it is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction ''m''/''n'', where ''m'' and ''n'' are integers, with ''n'' non-zero. Almost all real numbers are irrational, in a sense which is defined more precisely below.
When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is irrational, the line segments are also described as being ''incommensurable'', meaning they share no measure in common. A ''measure'' of a line segment ''I'' in this sense is a line segment ''J'' that "measures" ''I'' in the sense that some whole number of copies of ''J'' laid end-to-end occupy the same length as ''I''.
The earliest known use of irrational numbers was in the Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800 and 500 BC. It was known that the diagonal and side of a square are incommensurable with each other[1].
The first proof of the existence of irrational numbers is usually attributed to Hippasus of Metapontum[2], a Pythagorean who probably discovered them while identifying sides of the pentagram[3]. However Pythagoras believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had Hippasus drowned. Theodorus of Cyrene proved the irrationality of the surds of whole numbers up to 17, but stopped there probably because the algebra he used couldn't be applied to the square root of 17[4]. It wasn't until Eudoxus developed a theory of irrational ratios that a strong mathematical foundation of irrational numbers was created[5]. ''Euclid's Elements'' Book 10 is dedicated to classification of irrational magnitudes.
The sixteenth century saw the acceptance of negative, integral and fractional numbers. The seventeenth century saw decimal fractions with the modern notation quite generally used by mathematicians. The next hundred years saw imaginary numbers become a powerful tool in the hands of Abraham de Moivre, and especially of Leonhard Euler. For the nineteenth century it remained to complete the theory of complex numbers, to separate irrationals into algebraic and transcendental, to prove the existence of transcendental numbers, and to make a scientific study of a subject which had remained almost dormant since Euclid, the theory of irrationals. The year 1872 saw the publication of the theories of Karl Weierstrass (by his pupil Kossak), Heine (''Crelle'', 74), Georg Cantor (Annalen, 5), and Richard Dedekind. Méray had taken in 1869 the same point of departure as Heine, but the theory is generally referred to the year 1872. Weierstrass's method has been completely set forth by Salvatore Pincherle in 1880,[6] and Dedekind's has received additional prominence through the author's later work (1888) and the recent endorsement by Paul Tannery (1894). Weierstrass, Cantor, and Heine base their theories on infinite series, while Dedekind founds his on the idea of a cut (Schnitt) in the system of real numbers, separating all rational numbers into two groups having certain characteristic properties. The subject has received later contributions at the hands of Weierstrass, Kronecker (Crelle, 101), and Méray.
Continued fractions, closely related to irrational numbers (and due to Cataldi, 1613), received attention at the hands of Euler, and at the opening of the nineteenth century were brought into prominence through the writings of Lagrange. Dirichlet also added to the general theory, as have numerous contributors to the applications of the subject.
Lambert proved (1761) that π cannot be rational, and that ''e''''n'' is irrational if ''n'' is rational (unless ''n'' = 0)[7]. While Lambert's proof is often said to be incomplete, modern assessments support it as satisfactory, and in fact for its time unusually rigorous. Legendre (1794), after introducing the Bessel-Clifford function, provided a proof to show that π2 is irrational, whence it follows immediately that π is irrational also. The existence of transcendental numbers was first established by Liouville (1844, 1851). Later, Georg Cantor (1873) proved their existence by a different method, that showed that every interval in the reals contains transcendental numbers. Charles Hermite (1873) first proved transcendental, and Ferdinand von Lindemann (1882), starting from Hermite's conclusions, showed the same for π. Lindemann's proof was much simplified by Weierstrass (1885), still further by David Hilbert (1893), and was finally made elementary by Adolf Hurwitz and Paul Albert Gordan.
One proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 is the following reductio ad absurdum. The proposition is proved by assuming the contrary and showing that doing so leads to a contradiction (hence the proposition must be true).
# Assume that √2 is a rational number. This assumption implies that there exist integers ''m'' and ''n'' with ''n'' ≠ 0 such that ''m''/''n'' = √2.
# Then √2 can also be written as an irreducible fraction ''m''/''n'' (the fraction is shortened as much as possible). This means that ''m'' and ''n'' are coprime integers, i.e., they have no common factor greater than 1.
# From ''m''/''n'' = √2 it follows that ''m'' = ''n''√2, and so ''m''2 = (''n''√2)2 = 2''n''2.
# So ''m''2 is an even number, because it is equal to 2''n''2, which is even.
# It follows that ''m'' itself is even (since only even numbers have even squares).
# Because ''m'' is even, there exists an integer ''k'' satisfying ''m'' = 2''k''.
# We may therefore substitute 2''k'' for ''m'' in the last equation of (3), thereby obtaining the equation (2''k'')2 = 2''n''2, which is equivalent to 4''k''2 = 2''n''2 and may be simplified to 2''k''2 = ''n''2.
# Because 2''k''2 is even, it now follows that ''n''2 is also even, which means that ''n'' is even (recall that only even numbers have even squares).
# Then, by (5) and (8), ''m'' and ''n'' are both even, which contradicts the property stated in (2) that ''m''/''n'' is irreducible.
Since we have found a contradiction, the initial assumption (1) that √2 is a rational number is false; that is to say, √2 is irrational.
This proof can be generalized to show that any root of any natural number is either a natural number or irrational.
The following reductio ad absurdum argument showing the irrationality of √2 is less well-known. It uses the additional information √2 > 1.
#Assume that √2 is a rational number. This would mean that there exist integers ''m'' and ''n'' with ''n'' ≠ 0 such that ''m''/''n'' = √2.
#Then √2 can also be written as an irreducible fraction ''m''/''n'' with ''positive'' integers, because √2 > 0.
#Then , because .
#Since √2 > 1, it follows that ''m'' > ''n'', which in turn implies that ''m'' > 2''n'' – ''m''.
#So the fraction ''m''/''n'' for √2, which according to (2) is already in lowest terms, is represented by (3) in strictly lower terms. This is a contradiction, so the assumption that √2 is rational must be false.
Similarly, assume an isosceles right triangle whose leg and hypotenuse have respective integer lengths ''n'' and ''m''. By the Pythagorean theorem, the ratio ''m''/''n'' equals √2. It is possible to construct by a classic compass and straightedge construction a smaller isosceles right triangle whose leg and hypotenuse have respective lengths ''m'' − ''n'' and 2''n'' − ''m''. That construction proves the irrationality of √2 by the kind of method that was employed by ancient Greek geometers.
If √10 is a rational, say ''m/n'', then ''m''2 = 10''n''2. However, in decimal notation, every square ends in an even number of zeros. So then ''m''2 and 10''n''2 in decimal must end in respectively an even and odd number of zeros, a contradiction.
More generally, in any radix ''r'' that is not itself a square, every square ends in an even numbers of zeros, whence √10''r'' in radix ''r'' is irrational, that is, √''r'' is irrational. It follows that the only integers with rational square roots are squares. As a case in point, 2 is not a square, and 2 in binary is 102. (Note the convention of subscripting nondecimal numerals with their radix, to avoid ambiguity. As part of that convention the subscripts are understood to be in decimal, not being subscripted themselves.)
When a line segment is divided into two disjoint subsegments in such a way that the ratio of the whole to the longer part equals the ratio of the longer part to the shorter part, then that ratio is the golden ratio, equal to
:
Assume this is a rational number ''n''/''m'' in lowest terms. Take ''n'' to be the length of the whole and ''m'' the length of the longer part. Then ''n'' > ''m'', and the length of the shorter part is ''n'' − ''m''. Then we have
:
However, this puts a fraction already in lowest terms into ''lower terms''—a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption, that the golden ratio is rational, is false.
Perhaps the numbers most easily proved to be irrational are certain logarithms. Here is a proof by reductio ad absurdum that log23 is irrational:
★ Assume log23 is rational. For some positive integers ''m'' and ''n'', we have log23 = ''m''/''n''.
★ It follows that 2''m''/''n'' = 3.
★ Raise each side to the ''n'' power, find 2''m'' = 3''n''.
★ But 2 to any integer power greater than 0 is even (because at least one of its prime factors is 2) and 3 to any integer power greater than 0 is odd (because none of its prime factors is 2), so the original assumption is false.
Cases such as log102 can be treated similarly.
Almost all irrational numbers are transcendental and all transcendental numbers are irrational: the article on transcendental numbers lists several examples. ''e''''r'' and π''r'' are irrational if ''r'' ≠ 0 is rational; ''e''π is also irrational.
Another way to construct irrational numbers is as irrational algebraic numbers, i.e. as zeros of polynomials with integer coefficients: start with a polynomial equation
:''p''(''x'') = ''an xn'' + ''a''''n''-1 ''x''''n''−1 + ... + ''a''1 ''x'' + ''a''0 = 0
where the coefficients ''a''''i'' are integers. Suppose you know that there exists some real number ''x'' with ''p''(''x'') = 0 (for instance if ''n'' is odd and ''a''''n'' is non-zero, then because of the intermediate value theorem). The only possible rational roots of this polynomial equation are of the form ''r''/''s'' where ''r'' is a divisor of ''a''0 and ''s'' is a divisor of ''a''''n''; there are only finitely many such candidates which you can all check by hand. If neither of them is a root of ''p'', then ''x'' must be irrational. For example, this technique can be used to show that ''x'' = (21/2 + 1)1/3 is irrational: we have (''x''3 − 1)2 = 2 and hence ''x''6 − 2''x''3 − 1 = 0, and this latter polynomial does not have any rational roots (the only candidates to check are ±1).
Because the algebraic numbers form a field, many irrational numbers can be constructed by combining transcendental and algebraic numbers. For example 3π+2, π + √2 and ''e''√3 are irrational (and even transcendental).
The decimal expansion of an irrational number never repeats or terminates, unlike a rational number.
To show this, suppose we divide integers ''n'' by ''m'' (where ''m'' is nonzero). When long division is applied to the division of ''n'' by ''m'', only ''m'' remainders are possible. If 0 appears as a remainder, the decimal expansion terminates. If 0 never occurs, then the algorithm can run at most ''m'' − 1 steps without using any remainder more than once. After that, a remainder must recur, and then the decimal expansion repeats!
Conversely, suppose we are faced with a recurring decimal, we can prove that it is a fraction of two integers. For example:
:
Here the length of the repitend is 3. We multiply by 103:
:
Note that since we multiplied by 10 to the power of the length of the repeating part, we shifted the digits to the left of the decimal point by exactly that many positions. Therefore, the tail end of 1000A matches the tail end of A exactly. Here, both 1000A and A have repeating ''162'' at the end.
Therefore, when we subtract A from both sides, the tail end of 1000A cancels out of the tail end of A:
:
Then
:
which is a quotient of integers and therefore a rational number.
It is not known whether π + ''e'' or π − ''e'' is irrational or not. In fact, there is no pair of non-zero integers ''m'' and ''n'' for which it is known whether ''m''π + ''ne'' is irrational or not. Moreover, it is not known whether the set {π, ''e''} is algebraically independent over 'Q'.
It is not known whether 2''e'', π''e'', π√2, Catalan's constant, or the Euler-Mascheroni gamma constant γ are irrational.
Since the reals form an uncountable
set of which the rationals are a countable subset, the complementary set of
irrationals is uncountable.
Under the usual (Euclidean) distance function ''d''(''x'', ''y'') = |''x'' − ''y''|, the real numbers are a metric space and hence also a topological space. Restricting the Euclidean distance function gives the irrationals the structure of a metric space. Since the subspace of irrationals is not closed,
the induced metric is not complete. However, being a G-delta set -- i.e., a countable intersection of open subsets -- in a complete metric space, the space of irrationals is topologically complete: that is, there is a metric on the irrationals inducing the same topology as the restriction of the Euclidean metric, but with respect to which the irrationals are complete. One can see this without knowing the aforementioned fact about G-delta sets: the continued fraction expansion of an irrational number defines a homeomorphism from the space of irrationals to the space of all sequences of positive integers, which is easily seen to be completely metrizable.
★ Dedekind cut
★ Proof that e is irrational
★ ''n''th root
★ Square root of 3
★
★ Square root of 2 is irrational
1. Zeno and Nāgārjuna on Motion, Mark Siderits, J. Dervin O'Brien, , , Philosophy East and West, 1976
2. The Discovery of Incommensurability by Hippasus of Metapontum, Kurt Von Fritz, , , The Annals of Mathematics, 1945
3. The Pentagram and the Discovery of an Irrational Number, James R. Choike, , , The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, 1980
4. Theodorus' Irrationality Proofs, Robert L. McCabe, , , Mathematics Magazine, 1976
5. The historical development of the calculus, Charles H. Edwards, , , Springer, 1982,
6. Saggio di una introduzione alla teorica delle funzioni analitiche secondo i principi del prof. Weierstrass, Salvatore Pincherle, , , Giornale di Matematiche, 1880
7. Mémoire sur quelques propriétés remarquables des quantités transcendentes circulaires et logarithmiques, J. H. Lambert, , , Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et des Belles-Lettres der Berlin, 1761
★ Adrien-Marie Legendre, ''Éléments de Géometrie'', Note IV, (1802), Paris
★ Rolf Wallisser, "On Lambert's proof of the irrationality of π", in ''Algebraic Number Theory and Diophantine Analysis'', Franz Halter-Koch and Robert F. Tichy, (2000), Walter de Gruyer
When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is irrational, the line segments are also described as being ''incommensurable'', meaning they share no measure in common. A ''measure'' of a line segment ''I'' in this sense is a line segment ''J'' that "measures" ''I'' in the sense that some whole number of copies of ''J'' laid end-to-end occupy the same length as ''I''.
History
The earliest known use of irrational numbers was in the Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800 and 500 BC. It was known that the diagonal and side of a square are incommensurable with each other[1].
The first proof of the existence of irrational numbers is usually attributed to Hippasus of Metapontum[2], a Pythagorean who probably discovered them while identifying sides of the pentagram[3]. However Pythagoras believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had Hippasus drowned. Theodorus of Cyrene proved the irrationality of the surds of whole numbers up to 17, but stopped there probably because the algebra he used couldn't be applied to the square root of 17[4]. It wasn't until Eudoxus developed a theory of irrational ratios that a strong mathematical foundation of irrational numbers was created[5]. ''Euclid's Elements'' Book 10 is dedicated to classification of irrational magnitudes.
The sixteenth century saw the acceptance of negative, integral and fractional numbers. The seventeenth century saw decimal fractions with the modern notation quite generally used by mathematicians. The next hundred years saw imaginary numbers become a powerful tool in the hands of Abraham de Moivre, and especially of Leonhard Euler. For the nineteenth century it remained to complete the theory of complex numbers, to separate irrationals into algebraic and transcendental, to prove the existence of transcendental numbers, and to make a scientific study of a subject which had remained almost dormant since Euclid, the theory of irrationals. The year 1872 saw the publication of the theories of Karl Weierstrass (by his pupil Kossak), Heine (''Crelle'', 74), Georg Cantor (Annalen, 5), and Richard Dedekind. Méray had taken in 1869 the same point of departure as Heine, but the theory is generally referred to the year 1872. Weierstrass's method has been completely set forth by Salvatore Pincherle in 1880,[6] and Dedekind's has received additional prominence through the author's later work (1888) and the recent endorsement by Paul Tannery (1894). Weierstrass, Cantor, and Heine base their theories on infinite series, while Dedekind founds his on the idea of a cut (Schnitt) in the system of real numbers, separating all rational numbers into two groups having certain characteristic properties. The subject has received later contributions at the hands of Weierstrass, Kronecker (Crelle, 101), and Méray.
Continued fractions, closely related to irrational numbers (and due to Cataldi, 1613), received attention at the hands of Euler, and at the opening of the nineteenth century were brought into prominence through the writings of Lagrange. Dirichlet also added to the general theory, as have numerous contributors to the applications of the subject.
Lambert proved (1761) that π cannot be rational, and that ''e''''n'' is irrational if ''n'' is rational (unless ''n'' = 0)[7]. While Lambert's proof is often said to be incomplete, modern assessments support it as satisfactory, and in fact for its time unusually rigorous. Legendre (1794), after introducing the Bessel-Clifford function, provided a proof to show that π2 is irrational, whence it follows immediately that π is irrational also. The existence of transcendental numbers was first established by Liouville (1844, 1851). Later, Georg Cantor (1873) proved their existence by a different method, that showed that every interval in the reals contains transcendental numbers. Charles Hermite (1873) first proved transcendental, and Ferdinand von Lindemann (1882), starting from Hermite's conclusions, showed the same for π. Lindemann's proof was much simplified by Weierstrass (1885), still further by David Hilbert (1893), and was finally made elementary by Adolf Hurwitz and Paul Albert Gordan.
Example proofs
The square root of 2
One proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 is the following reductio ad absurdum. The proposition is proved by assuming the contrary and showing that doing so leads to a contradiction (hence the proposition must be true).
# Assume that √2 is a rational number. This assumption implies that there exist integers ''m'' and ''n'' with ''n'' ≠ 0 such that ''m''/''n'' = √2.
# Then √2 can also be written as an irreducible fraction ''m''/''n'' (the fraction is shortened as much as possible). This means that ''m'' and ''n'' are coprime integers, i.e., they have no common factor greater than 1.
# From ''m''/''n'' = √2 it follows that ''m'' = ''n''√2, and so ''m''2 = (''n''√2)2 = 2''n''2.
# So ''m''2 is an even number, because it is equal to 2''n''2, which is even.
# It follows that ''m'' itself is even (since only even numbers have even squares).
# Because ''m'' is even, there exists an integer ''k'' satisfying ''m'' = 2''k''.
# We may therefore substitute 2''k'' for ''m'' in the last equation of (3), thereby obtaining the equation (2''k'')2 = 2''n''2, which is equivalent to 4''k''2 = 2''n''2 and may be simplified to 2''k''2 = ''n''2.
# Because 2''k''2 is even, it now follows that ''n''2 is also even, which means that ''n'' is even (recall that only even numbers have even squares).
# Then, by (5) and (8), ''m'' and ''n'' are both even, which contradicts the property stated in (2) that ''m''/''n'' is irreducible.
Since we have found a contradiction, the initial assumption (1) that √2 is a rational number is false; that is to say, √2 is irrational.
This proof can be generalized to show that any root of any natural number is either a natural number or irrational.
Another proof
The following reductio ad absurdum argument showing the irrationality of √2 is less well-known. It uses the additional information √2 > 1.
#Assume that √2 is a rational number. This would mean that there exist integers ''m'' and ''n'' with ''n'' ≠ 0 such that ''m''/''n'' = √2.
#Then √2 can also be written as an irreducible fraction ''m''/''n'' with ''positive'' integers, because √2 > 0.
#Then , because .
#Since √2 > 1, it follows that ''m'' > ''n'', which in turn implies that ''m'' > 2''n'' – ''m''.
#So the fraction ''m''/''n'' for √2, which according to (2) is already in lowest terms, is represented by (3) in strictly lower terms. This is a contradiction, so the assumption that √2 is rational must be false.
Similarly, assume an isosceles right triangle whose leg and hypotenuse have respective integer lengths ''n'' and ''m''. By the Pythagorean theorem, the ratio ''m''/''n'' equals √2. It is possible to construct by a classic compass and straightedge construction a smaller isosceles right triangle whose leg and hypotenuse have respective lengths ''m'' − ''n'' and 2''n'' − ''m''. That construction proves the irrationality of √2 by the kind of method that was employed by ancient Greek geometers.
The square root of 10
If √10 is a rational, say ''m/n'', then ''m''2 = 10''n''2. However, in decimal notation, every square ends in an even number of zeros. So then ''m''2 and 10''n''2 in decimal must end in respectively an even and odd number of zeros, a contradiction.
More generally, in any radix ''r'' that is not itself a square, every square ends in an even numbers of zeros, whence √10''r'' in radix ''r'' is irrational, that is, √''r'' is irrational. It follows that the only integers with rational square roots are squares. As a case in point, 2 is not a square, and 2 in binary is 102. (Note the convention of subscripting nondecimal numerals with their radix, to avoid ambiguity. As part of that convention the subscripts are understood to be in decimal, not being subscripted themselves.)
The golden ratio
When a line segment is divided into two disjoint subsegments in such a way that the ratio of the whole to the longer part equals the ratio of the longer part to the shorter part, then that ratio is the golden ratio, equal to
:
Assume this is a rational number ''n''/''m'' in lowest terms. Take ''n'' to be the length of the whole and ''m'' the length of the longer part. Then ''n'' > ''m'', and the length of the shorter part is ''n'' − ''m''. Then we have
:
However, this puts a fraction already in lowest terms into ''lower terms''—a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption, that the golden ratio is rational, is false.
Logarithms
Perhaps the numbers most easily proved to be irrational are certain logarithms. Here is a proof by reductio ad absurdum that log23 is irrational:
★ Assume log23 is rational. For some positive integers ''m'' and ''n'', we have log23 = ''m''/''n''.
★ It follows that 2''m''/''n'' = 3.
★ Raise each side to the ''n'' power, find 2''m'' = 3''n''.
★ But 2 to any integer power greater than 0 is even (because at least one of its prime factors is 2) and 3 to any integer power greater than 0 is odd (because none of its prime factors is 2), so the original assumption is false.
Cases such as log102 can be treated similarly.
Transcendental and algebraic irrationals
Almost all irrational numbers are transcendental and all transcendental numbers are irrational: the article on transcendental numbers lists several examples. ''e''''r'' and π''r'' are irrational if ''r'' ≠ 0 is rational; ''e''π is also irrational.
Another way to construct irrational numbers is as irrational algebraic numbers, i.e. as zeros of polynomials with integer coefficients: start with a polynomial equation
:''p''(''x'') = ''an xn'' + ''a''''n''-1 ''x''''n''−1 + ... + ''a''1 ''x'' + ''a''0 = 0
where the coefficients ''a''''i'' are integers. Suppose you know that there exists some real number ''x'' with ''p''(''x'') = 0 (for instance if ''n'' is odd and ''a''''n'' is non-zero, then because of the intermediate value theorem). The only possible rational roots of this polynomial equation are of the form ''r''/''s'' where ''r'' is a divisor of ''a''0 and ''s'' is a divisor of ''a''''n''; there are only finitely many such candidates which you can all check by hand. If neither of them is a root of ''p'', then ''x'' must be irrational. For example, this technique can be used to show that ''x'' = (21/2 + 1)1/3 is irrational: we have (''x''3 − 1)2 = 2 and hence ''x''6 − 2''x''3 − 1 = 0, and this latter polynomial does not have any rational roots (the only candidates to check are ±1).
Because the algebraic numbers form a field, many irrational numbers can be constructed by combining transcendental and algebraic numbers. For example 3π+2, π + √2 and ''e''√3 are irrational (and even transcendental).
Decimal expansions
The decimal expansion of an irrational number never repeats or terminates, unlike a rational number.
To show this, suppose we divide integers ''n'' by ''m'' (where ''m'' is nonzero). When long division is applied to the division of ''n'' by ''m'', only ''m'' remainders are possible. If 0 appears as a remainder, the decimal expansion terminates. If 0 never occurs, then the algorithm can run at most ''m'' − 1 steps without using any remainder more than once. After that, a remainder must recur, and then the decimal expansion repeats!
Conversely, suppose we are faced with a recurring decimal, we can prove that it is a fraction of two integers. For example:
:
Here the length of the repitend is 3. We multiply by 103:
:
Note that since we multiplied by 10 to the power of the length of the repeating part, we shifted the digits to the left of the decimal point by exactly that many positions. Therefore, the tail end of 1000A matches the tail end of A exactly. Here, both 1000A and A have repeating ''162'' at the end.
Therefore, when we subtract A from both sides, the tail end of 1000A cancels out of the tail end of A:
:
Then
:
which is a quotient of integers and therefore a rational number.
Open questions
It is not known whether π + ''e'' or π − ''e'' is irrational or not. In fact, there is no pair of non-zero integers ''m'' and ''n'' for which it is known whether ''m''π + ''ne'' is irrational or not. Moreover, it is not known whether the set {π, ''e''} is algebraically independent over 'Q'.
It is not known whether 2''e'', π''e'', π√2, Catalan's constant, or the Euler-Mascheroni gamma constant γ are irrational.
The set of all irrationals
Since the reals form an uncountable
set of which the rationals are a countable subset, the complementary set of
irrationals is uncountable.
Under the usual (Euclidean) distance function ''d''(''x'', ''y'') = |''x'' − ''y''|, the real numbers are a metric space and hence also a topological space. Restricting the Euclidean distance function gives the irrationals the structure of a metric space. Since the subspace of irrationals is not closed,
the induced metric is not complete. However, being a G-delta set -- i.e., a countable intersection of open subsets -- in a complete metric space, the space of irrationals is topologically complete: that is, there is a metric on the irrationals inducing the same topology as the restriction of the Euclidean metric, but with respect to which the irrationals are complete. One can see this without knowing the aforementioned fact about G-delta sets: the continued fraction expansion of an irrational number defines a homeomorphism from the space of irrationals to the space of all sequences of positive integers, which is easily seen to be completely metrizable.
See also
★ Dedekind cut
★ Proof that e is irrational
★ ''n''th root
★ Square root of 3
External links
★
★ Square root of 2 is irrational
References
1. Zeno and Nāgārjuna on Motion, Mark Siderits, J. Dervin O'Brien, , , Philosophy East and West, 1976
2. The Discovery of Incommensurability by Hippasus of Metapontum, Kurt Von Fritz, , , The Annals of Mathematics, 1945
3. The Pentagram and the Discovery of an Irrational Number, James R. Choike, , , The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, 1980
4. Theodorus' Irrationality Proofs, Robert L. McCabe, , , Mathematics Magazine, 1976
5. The historical development of the calculus, Charles H. Edwards, , , Springer, 1982,
6. Saggio di una introduzione alla teorica delle funzioni analitiche secondo i principi del prof. Weierstrass, Salvatore Pincherle, , , Giornale di Matematiche, 1880
7. Mémoire sur quelques propriétés remarquables des quantités transcendentes circulaires et logarithmiques, J. H. Lambert, , , Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et des Belles-Lettres der Berlin, 1761
★ Adrien-Marie Legendre, ''Éléments de Géometrie'', Note IV, (1802), Paris
★ Rolf Wallisser, "On Lambert's proof of the irrationality of π", in ''Algebraic Number Theory and Diophantine Analysis'', Franz Halter-Koch and Robert F. Tichy, (2000), Walter de Gruyer
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
Featured Companies
| Vacation By V | |
| Golf Holidays International |
Newest Companies
Irrational number Travel Deals
