Exercise 1.2.1

(a)
Prove that 3 is irrational. Does a similar similar argument work to show 6 is irrational?
(b)
Where does the proof break down if we try to prove 4 is irrational?

Answers

(a)
Suppose for contradiction that p q is a fraction in lowest terms, and that ( p q ) 2 = 3 . Then p 2 = 3 q 2 implying p is a multiple of 3 since 3 is not a perfect square. Therefore we can write p as 3 r for some r , substituting we get ( 3 r ) 2 = 3 q 2 and 3 r 2 = q 2 implying q is also a multiple of 3 contradicting the assumption that p q is in lowest terms.
For 6 the same argument applies, since 6 is not a perfect square.
(b)
4 is a perfect square, meaning p 2 = 4 q 2 does not imply that p is a multiple of four as p could be 2 .
User profile picture
2022-01-27 00:00
Comments
  • We must justify $3 \mid p^2 \Rightarrow 3 \mid p$, but ``3 is not a perfect square'' is not a good reason. To give a counterexample, $12$ is not a perfect square, but $$12 = 2^2 \times 3 \mid 6^2 = 2^2 \times 3^2,$$ but $12 \nmid 6$. The good reason is that $3$ is prime, so that $3 \mid ab \Rightarrow 3 \mid a \text{ or } 3 \mid b$, thus $3 \mid a^2 \Rightarrow 3 \mid a$ (but $6$ is not prime).
    richardganaye2024-07-03

Proof.

(a)
Suppose for contradiction that 3 = p q , where p , q are positive integers and p q is reduced in its lowest terms. Then p 2 = 3 q 2 , where p , q are relatively prime.

Since 3 is prime, 3 p 2 3 p , so p = 3 r for some integer r . Then 9 p 2 = 3 q 2 , so 3 p 2 = q 2 . The same reasoning shows that 3 q . This is a contradiction, since p , q are relatively prime.

For p 2 = 6 q 2 (where gcd ( p , q ) = 1 ), we must change slightly the proof, since 6 is not prime. From 2 6 q 2 = p 2 , we obtain as above that 2 p , so p = 2 r for some integer r . Then 4 r 2 = 6 q 2 , 2 r 2 = 3 q 2 . From 2 3 q 2 , where gcd ( 2 , 3 ) = 1 , we obtain 2 q 2 , where 2 is prime, therefore 2 q . Here p , q are even, in contradiction with gcd ( p , q ) = 1 .

(Alternatively, we can reason with the factor 3 , or note that, using gcd ( 2 , 3 ) = 1 ,

6 p 2 ( 2 p 2 , 3 p 2 ) ( 2 p , 3 p ) 6 p . )

(b)
From p 2 = 4 q 2 (where gcd ( p , q ) = 1 , we deduce 4 p 2 . But 4 p 2 doesn’t imply 4 p , because 4 is not a prime. If we use 2 p , we obtain p = 2 r and r 2 = q 2 , which gives no contradiction.

Note: Platon, in Theaetetus, tells that Socrates meats the young Theaetetus, which relates that in the morning, they prove with their teacher the irrationality of n for n = 2 , 3 , 5 , up to 17 , using each time a different argument.

If we want to prove the general theorem “ n is irrational if n is not a perfect square”, we must use the notion of decomposition of an integer in prime factors, which was not a greek notion.

User profile picture
2024-07-03 10:06
Comments