Exercise 1.2

Exercise 2: Prove that there is no rational number whose square is 12 .

Answers

We will assume without proof that has unique prime factorizations. (This follows from being a primary ideal domain, and is covered in an abstract algebra course.) This implies that p is a prime iff p ab p a or p b .

Assume there are m , n coprime such that ( m n ) 2 = 12 . This implies that 12 n 2 = m 2 . Consequently, 3 m 2 , and since 3 is prime, 3 m . This means that there is a p such that m = 3 p , so that 12 n 2 = 9 p 2 , and consequently 4 n 2 = 3 p 2 . Using the primality of 3 , we can conclude that since 3 4 , 3 n 2 , and therefore 3 n . This contradicts the coprimality of m and n . Therefore there cannot be any such m , n .

User profile picture
2023-08-07 00:00
Comments

(This is the same without assuming any algebra)
If r is a rational number whose square is 12, then ( r 2 ) 2 = 3 , so this is equivalent to showing there is no rational number whose square is 3. So suppose ( m n ) 2 = 3 where m , n are integers with no common factors. Then m 2 = 3 n 2 . Either m = 3 p , or m = 3 p ± 1 , and since ( 3 p ± 1 ) 2 = 3 ( 3 p 2 ± 2 p ) + 1 , m must be a multiple of 3. But then we have ( 3 p ) 2 = 3 n 2 , or 3 p 2 = n 2 . Hence n is also a multiple of 3, contradicting the assumption that m and n have no common factors.

User profile picture
2023-08-08 09:31
Comments
  • This is a good proof, and reducing it to the existence of a square root of 3 is great. It is debatable if the solution does not assume any algebra. The main fact that was needed above is one which is assumed here, namely that if $3p^2 = n^2$, then $n$ is a multiple of $3$. To understand why that is not a a priori given, take the ring $\mathbb Z[\sqrt 5]$, consisting of numbers of the form $ a + \sqrt 5 b$, where $a$ and $b$ are integers, and the operations ordinary addition and multiplication. Then $3$ divides $(1+\sqrt 5)(1 - \sqrt 5)$, but $3$ neither divides $1 + \sqrt 5$ or $1 - \sqrt 5$. The assumption that the irreducibility of $3$ allows us to conclude that $3$ divides at least one of the factors in a product in which it occurs is an algebraic result that is called upon in this proof as well. Of course, it is a well known result, and it is implicitly assumed by Rudin, but it is always good to be aware of which presuppositions we are relying on.
    ghostofgarborg2023-08-08

Proof. Assume 12 . Then, 12 = a b for a , b , by the definition of rationals, where a , b are not both divisible by 3. So, 12 = a 2 b 2 , and a 2 = 12 b 2 . Since 12 | a 2 , 6 | a , and so 3 | a . So let a = 6 a . Then, 12 b 2 = 36 a 2 , and b 2 = 3 a 2 . Since 3 | b 2 , 3 | b . This is a contradiction since a , b are not both divisible by 3. □

User profile picture
2023-09-01 19:07
Comments