Homepage › Solution manuals › Stephen Abbott › Understanding Analysis › Exercise 1.2.1
Exercise 1.2.1
- (a)
- Prove that is irrational. Does a similar similar argument work to show is irrational?
- (b)
- Where does the proof break down if we try to prove is irrational?
Answers
- (a)
-
Suppose for contradiction that
is a fraction in lowest terms, and that
. Then
implying
is a multiple of
since
is not a perfect square. Therefore we can write
as
for some
, substituting we get
and
implying
is also a multiple of
contradicting the assumption that
is in lowest terms.
For the same argument applies, since is not a perfect square. - (b)
- is a perfect square, meaning does not imply that is a multiple of four as could be .
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).richardganaye • 2024-07-03
Proof.
- (a)
-
Suppose for contradiction that
, where
are positive integers and
is reduced in its lowest terms. Then
, where
are relatively prime.
Since is prime, , so for some integer . Then , so . The same reasoning shows that . This is a contradiction, since are relatively prime.
For (where ), we must change slightly the proof, since is not prime. From , we obtain as above that , so for some integer . Then , . From , where , we obtain , where is prime, therefore . Here are even, in contradiction with .
(Alternatively, we can reason with the factor , or note that, using ,
- (b)
- From (where , we deduce . But doesn’t imply , because is not a prime. If we use , we obtain and , 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 for up to , using each time a different argument.
If we want to prove the general theorem “ is irrational if is not a perfect square”, we must use the notion of decomposition of an integer in prime factors, which was not a greek notion.