Go back
Someone other than RC do this ;)

Someone other than RC do this ;)

Posers and Puzzles

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Prove the existence of transcendental numbers (ie, numbers which are not roots of polynomials with integer coefficients).

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

42

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Fine then 😛. I'll try to post an erroneous proof later and make you all find the problem with it...

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Pi is transcendental, but the proof for it is hard 🙂

EDIT:

A non-transcedental number, eg algebraic number, is the root of a polynomial of finite order with integer (positive and negative whole numbers) coefficients, right?

If that is so then;

given a certain order O, there is a countable number of polynomials of that order with integer coefficients (integers are countable, and for a polynomial of order O you require O+1 integers).

The order is an element of the natural numbers (positive integers) so there is only a countable set of polynomials of finite order with integer coefficients.

This means there is only a countable set of algebraic numbers.

The reals form an over-countable set of numbers, and therefore some reals must be transcedental.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

e is also included! WHOOO! No way in hell I am provin' it though! 😀

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by TheMaster37
Pi is transcendental, but the proof for it is hard 🙂

EDIT:

A non-transcedental number, eg algebraic number, is the root of a polynomial of finite order with integer (positive and negative whole numbers) coefficients, right?

If that is so then;

given a certain order O, there is a countable number of polynomials of that order with integer co ...[text shortened]... The reals form an over-countable set of numbers, and therefore some reals must be transcedental.
That works. However, can you prove it without showing or assuming that R is uncountable?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Acolyte
That works. However, can you prove it without showing or assuming that R is uncountable?
Why don't you issue a formal challenge, from the Cult of Maths to those mathematical usurpers, the RUNning Pawn clan, asking them to show e is transcendental? We could taunt them mercilessly 😉.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
Why don't you issue a formal challenge, from the Cult of Maths to those mathematical usurpers, the RUNning Pawn clan, asking them to show e is transcendental? We could taunt them mercilessly 😉.
You're on

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

RUNning Pawn wins. I can't show it myself, but look for the transcendence of e and pi here:

http://www.math.sc.edu/~filaseta/gradcourses/Math785/Math785Notes6.pdf

Signed: Pi-derman

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by piderman
RUNning Pawn wins. I can't show it myself, but look for the transcendence of e and pi here:

http://www.math.sc.edu/~filaseta/gradcourses/Math785/Math785Notes6.pdf

Signed: Pi-derman
Hah! The ''e'' bit of that proof is almost the same as mine.

However, since the RUNning Pawn clan is very skilled, I challenge them to solve the following:

Let h(n) be defined as 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 +...+1/n

Now prove that lim(n->oo) [h(n) - log n] is transcendental.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
Hah! The ''e'' bit of that proof is almost the same as mine.

However, since the RUNning Pawn clan is very skilled, I challenge them to solve the following:

Let h(n) be defined as 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 +...+1/n

Now prove that lim(n->oo) [h(n) - log n] is transcendental.
Hmm, I've never learned anything about trancendentals, only their definition, but I'll work on it.

Have you allready thought about Q(sqrt(6))?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.