Why there are irrational numbers?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I do not quite get it. Why can't we represent all real numbers as a sum of rational numbers? Why do we need irrational numbers?
For example,
- $pi=3.14159265358cdots=3+10^{-1}+4*10^{-2}+10^{-3}+5*10^{-4}+cdots$
- $e=2.71828182846cdots=2+7*10^{-1}+10^{-2}+8*10^{-3}+2*10^{-4}+cdots$
- And so on
irrational-numbers
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I do not quite get it. Why can't we represent all real numbers as a sum of rational numbers? Why do we need irrational numbers?
For example,
- $pi=3.14159265358cdots=3+10^{-1}+4*10^{-2}+10^{-3}+5*10^{-4}+cdots$
- $e=2.71828182846cdots=2+7*10^{-1}+10^{-2}+8*10^{-3}+2*10^{-4}+cdots$
- And so on
irrational-numbers
19
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
9
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
7
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
1
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
3
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I do not quite get it. Why can't we represent all real numbers as a sum of rational numbers? Why do we need irrational numbers?
For example,
- $pi=3.14159265358cdots=3+10^{-1}+4*10^{-2}+10^{-3}+5*10^{-4}+cdots$
- $e=2.71828182846cdots=2+7*10^{-1}+10^{-2}+8*10^{-3}+2*10^{-4}+cdots$
- And so on
irrational-numbers
I do not quite get it. Why can't we represent all real numbers as a sum of rational numbers? Why do we need irrational numbers?
For example,
- $pi=3.14159265358cdots=3+10^{-1}+4*10^{-2}+10^{-3}+5*10^{-4}+cdots$
- $e=2.71828182846cdots=2+7*10^{-1}+10^{-2}+8*10^{-3}+2*10^{-4}+cdots$
- And so on
irrational-numbers
irrational-numbers
edited Jun 24 '14 at 19:23
goblin
36.4k1157188
36.4k1157188
asked Jun 24 '14 at 18:45
Kira
10610
10610
19
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
9
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
7
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
1
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
3
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15
|
show 5 more comments
19
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
9
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
7
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
1
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
3
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15
19
19
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
9
9
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
7
7
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
1
1
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
3
3
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15
|
show 5 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
You can represent any real number as some convergent sequence of rational numbers, as you do above. However, irrational numbers are those numbers that cannot be expressed as any finite such sequence. However long of a finite sequence of rational numbers approaching $pi$ you have, there is a positive real number $varepsilon$ such that the last term in the sequence is at least $varepsilon$ away from $pi$ (In particular, we can take the last term of the sequence, $t$, and take $varepsilon = frac{|pi - t|}{2}$).
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
For a long time people believed that the rational numbers were enough to perform any arithmetic operation we needed. It wasn't until 500 BC that the Pythagoreans started to become aware that the rational numbers were not quite sufficient.
For instance, the Pythagoreans tried to compute something that seemed benign. They wanted to find the length of the diagonal of a square with sides of unit length. We know now (by the Pythagorean theorem) that this should be the number we represent as $sqrt{2}$. The Pythagoreans tried to find a rational number corresponding to this and came to a contradiction. It's said that the Pythagoreans were so upset that they drowned the person who discovered this. I have also heard speculation that this is why Greek mathematics was so focused on geometry, since this is something you can "see" and away from uncomfortable concepts like irrational numbers.
This was the first instance where irrational number started to seem necessary. The next big irrational number to come forward was the number $pi$. This was in 350 BC, and the first to try to approximate this number was Archimedes. This is where the estimate 22/7 came from. He also had a better estimate than that, it escapes me at the moment. The Bible also estimates this as 3, when it describes a fountain in Solomon's temple. I think the proof of the irrationality of $pi$ had to wait for Lambert in the 1700s.
Irrational numbers came about to solve problems that rational numbers were not up to the task to do. Early mathematicians resisted the concept, but they have been well accepted for the past millennium at least.
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Some relevant definitions seem to be in order.
Real number: Any number on the continuous real line from $-infty$ to $infty$.
Integer: A real number which can be expressed without a fractional component.
Rational number: A number which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Note that integers themselves are rational, since we can express any integer $n$ as $frac{n}{1}$.
Irrational number: A number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
Now, in particular, in your question $kcdot10^{-n}$ is $textit{not}$ an integer where $k$ and $n$ are positive integers and $k$ is a digit between $1$ and $9$. These are instead just $textit{rational}$ numbers since $kcdot10^{-n}=dfrac{k}{10^n}$, which is a ratio of integers.
Upsettingly for Pythagoras, irrational numbers do exist. Here is the standard proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because you can not represent them as p/q with both p and q integers. That is why they are called irrational numbers. Not representable as p/q. 0.33333....is 1/3. root 2 can not be written as p/q where p and q are integers.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Numbers that cannot be expressed rationally arise naturally as solutions of equations. The solution of $x^2=2$ & of $x(1-x)=1$, & any of an infinitude of specificable polynomial equations, cannot be expressed rationally. It can be proven directly, by a simple recipe, that no rational number can satisfy either of the two equations I have particularly cited; and the same can be proven similarly for the general case.
Moreover there is a class of numbers yet beyond this: the transcendental numbers, any of which can be shown to be not the solution of any polynomial equation comprising a finite number of terms having integer coefficients.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f846195%2fwhy-there-are-irrational-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
You can represent any real number as some convergent sequence of rational numbers, as you do above. However, irrational numbers are those numbers that cannot be expressed as any finite such sequence. However long of a finite sequence of rational numbers approaching $pi$ you have, there is a positive real number $varepsilon$ such that the last term in the sequence is at least $varepsilon$ away from $pi$ (In particular, we can take the last term of the sequence, $t$, and take $varepsilon = frac{|pi - t|}{2}$).
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
You can represent any real number as some convergent sequence of rational numbers, as you do above. However, irrational numbers are those numbers that cannot be expressed as any finite such sequence. However long of a finite sequence of rational numbers approaching $pi$ you have, there is a positive real number $varepsilon$ such that the last term in the sequence is at least $varepsilon$ away from $pi$ (In particular, we can take the last term of the sequence, $t$, and take $varepsilon = frac{|pi - t|}{2}$).
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
You can represent any real number as some convergent sequence of rational numbers, as you do above. However, irrational numbers are those numbers that cannot be expressed as any finite such sequence. However long of a finite sequence of rational numbers approaching $pi$ you have, there is a positive real number $varepsilon$ such that the last term in the sequence is at least $varepsilon$ away from $pi$ (In particular, we can take the last term of the sequence, $t$, and take $varepsilon = frac{|pi - t|}{2}$).
You can represent any real number as some convergent sequence of rational numbers, as you do above. However, irrational numbers are those numbers that cannot be expressed as any finite such sequence. However long of a finite sequence of rational numbers approaching $pi$ you have, there is a positive real number $varepsilon$ such that the last term in the sequence is at least $varepsilon$ away from $pi$ (In particular, we can take the last term of the sequence, $t$, and take $varepsilon = frac{|pi - t|}{2}$).
answered Jun 24 '14 at 18:50
qaphla
3,492919
3,492919
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
For a long time people believed that the rational numbers were enough to perform any arithmetic operation we needed. It wasn't until 500 BC that the Pythagoreans started to become aware that the rational numbers were not quite sufficient.
For instance, the Pythagoreans tried to compute something that seemed benign. They wanted to find the length of the diagonal of a square with sides of unit length. We know now (by the Pythagorean theorem) that this should be the number we represent as $sqrt{2}$. The Pythagoreans tried to find a rational number corresponding to this and came to a contradiction. It's said that the Pythagoreans were so upset that they drowned the person who discovered this. I have also heard speculation that this is why Greek mathematics was so focused on geometry, since this is something you can "see" and away from uncomfortable concepts like irrational numbers.
This was the first instance where irrational number started to seem necessary. The next big irrational number to come forward was the number $pi$. This was in 350 BC, and the first to try to approximate this number was Archimedes. This is where the estimate 22/7 came from. He also had a better estimate than that, it escapes me at the moment. The Bible also estimates this as 3, when it describes a fountain in Solomon's temple. I think the proof of the irrationality of $pi$ had to wait for Lambert in the 1700s.
Irrational numbers came about to solve problems that rational numbers were not up to the task to do. Early mathematicians resisted the concept, but they have been well accepted for the past millennium at least.
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
For a long time people believed that the rational numbers were enough to perform any arithmetic operation we needed. It wasn't until 500 BC that the Pythagoreans started to become aware that the rational numbers were not quite sufficient.
For instance, the Pythagoreans tried to compute something that seemed benign. They wanted to find the length of the diagonal of a square with sides of unit length. We know now (by the Pythagorean theorem) that this should be the number we represent as $sqrt{2}$. The Pythagoreans tried to find a rational number corresponding to this and came to a contradiction. It's said that the Pythagoreans were so upset that they drowned the person who discovered this. I have also heard speculation that this is why Greek mathematics was so focused on geometry, since this is something you can "see" and away from uncomfortable concepts like irrational numbers.
This was the first instance where irrational number started to seem necessary. The next big irrational number to come forward was the number $pi$. This was in 350 BC, and the first to try to approximate this number was Archimedes. This is where the estimate 22/7 came from. He also had a better estimate than that, it escapes me at the moment. The Bible also estimates this as 3, when it describes a fountain in Solomon's temple. I think the proof of the irrationality of $pi$ had to wait for Lambert in the 1700s.
Irrational numbers came about to solve problems that rational numbers were not up to the task to do. Early mathematicians resisted the concept, but they have been well accepted for the past millennium at least.
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
For a long time people believed that the rational numbers were enough to perform any arithmetic operation we needed. It wasn't until 500 BC that the Pythagoreans started to become aware that the rational numbers were not quite sufficient.
For instance, the Pythagoreans tried to compute something that seemed benign. They wanted to find the length of the diagonal of a square with sides of unit length. We know now (by the Pythagorean theorem) that this should be the number we represent as $sqrt{2}$. The Pythagoreans tried to find a rational number corresponding to this and came to a contradiction. It's said that the Pythagoreans were so upset that they drowned the person who discovered this. I have also heard speculation that this is why Greek mathematics was so focused on geometry, since this is something you can "see" and away from uncomfortable concepts like irrational numbers.
This was the first instance where irrational number started to seem necessary. The next big irrational number to come forward was the number $pi$. This was in 350 BC, and the first to try to approximate this number was Archimedes. This is where the estimate 22/7 came from. He also had a better estimate than that, it escapes me at the moment. The Bible also estimates this as 3, when it describes a fountain in Solomon's temple. I think the proof of the irrationality of $pi$ had to wait for Lambert in the 1700s.
Irrational numbers came about to solve problems that rational numbers were not up to the task to do. Early mathematicians resisted the concept, but they have been well accepted for the past millennium at least.
For a long time people believed that the rational numbers were enough to perform any arithmetic operation we needed. It wasn't until 500 BC that the Pythagoreans started to become aware that the rational numbers were not quite sufficient.
For instance, the Pythagoreans tried to compute something that seemed benign. They wanted to find the length of the diagonal of a square with sides of unit length. We know now (by the Pythagorean theorem) that this should be the number we represent as $sqrt{2}$. The Pythagoreans tried to find a rational number corresponding to this and came to a contradiction. It's said that the Pythagoreans were so upset that they drowned the person who discovered this. I have also heard speculation that this is why Greek mathematics was so focused on geometry, since this is something you can "see" and away from uncomfortable concepts like irrational numbers.
This was the first instance where irrational number started to seem necessary. The next big irrational number to come forward was the number $pi$. This was in 350 BC, and the first to try to approximate this number was Archimedes. This is where the estimate 22/7 came from. He also had a better estimate than that, it escapes me at the moment. The Bible also estimates this as 3, when it describes a fountain in Solomon's temple. I think the proof of the irrationality of $pi$ had to wait for Lambert in the 1700s.
Irrational numbers came about to solve problems that rational numbers were not up to the task to do. Early mathematicians resisted the concept, but they have been well accepted for the past millennium at least.
edited Jul 1 '14 at 5:20
David
67.4k663126
67.4k663126
answered Jun 25 '14 at 14:40
Joel
14.2k12240
14.2k12240
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
add a comment |
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
1
1
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
Here is Archimedes' method of calculating the value of $pi$.
– Yashbhatt
Jun 30 '14 at 15:56
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
@David thanks for the edit! Can't believe I missed that.
– Joel
Jul 1 '14 at 13:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Some relevant definitions seem to be in order.
Real number: Any number on the continuous real line from $-infty$ to $infty$.
Integer: A real number which can be expressed without a fractional component.
Rational number: A number which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Note that integers themselves are rational, since we can express any integer $n$ as $frac{n}{1}$.
Irrational number: A number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
Now, in particular, in your question $kcdot10^{-n}$ is $textit{not}$ an integer where $k$ and $n$ are positive integers and $k$ is a digit between $1$ and $9$. These are instead just $textit{rational}$ numbers since $kcdot10^{-n}=dfrac{k}{10^n}$, which is a ratio of integers.
Upsettingly for Pythagoras, irrational numbers do exist. Here is the standard proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Some relevant definitions seem to be in order.
Real number: Any number on the continuous real line from $-infty$ to $infty$.
Integer: A real number which can be expressed without a fractional component.
Rational number: A number which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Note that integers themselves are rational, since we can express any integer $n$ as $frac{n}{1}$.
Irrational number: A number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
Now, in particular, in your question $kcdot10^{-n}$ is $textit{not}$ an integer where $k$ and $n$ are positive integers and $k$ is a digit between $1$ and $9$. These are instead just $textit{rational}$ numbers since $kcdot10^{-n}=dfrac{k}{10^n}$, which is a ratio of integers.
Upsettingly for Pythagoras, irrational numbers do exist. Here is the standard proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Some relevant definitions seem to be in order.
Real number: Any number on the continuous real line from $-infty$ to $infty$.
Integer: A real number which can be expressed without a fractional component.
Rational number: A number which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Note that integers themselves are rational, since we can express any integer $n$ as $frac{n}{1}$.
Irrational number: A number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
Now, in particular, in your question $kcdot10^{-n}$ is $textit{not}$ an integer where $k$ and $n$ are positive integers and $k$ is a digit between $1$ and $9$. These are instead just $textit{rational}$ numbers since $kcdot10^{-n}=dfrac{k}{10^n}$, which is a ratio of integers.
Upsettingly for Pythagoras, irrational numbers do exist. Here is the standard proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational.
Some relevant definitions seem to be in order.
Real number: Any number on the continuous real line from $-infty$ to $infty$.
Integer: A real number which can be expressed without a fractional component.
Rational number: A number which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Note that integers themselves are rational, since we can express any integer $n$ as $frac{n}{1}$.
Irrational number: A number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
Now, in particular, in your question $kcdot10^{-n}$ is $textit{not}$ an integer where $k$ and $n$ are positive integers and $k$ is a digit between $1$ and $9$. These are instead just $textit{rational}$ numbers since $kcdot10^{-n}=dfrac{k}{10^n}$, which is a ratio of integers.
Upsettingly for Pythagoras, irrational numbers do exist. Here is the standard proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational.
answered Jun 24 '14 at 19:15
Peter Woolfitt
18.5k54478
18.5k54478
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because you can not represent them as p/q with both p and q integers. That is why they are called irrational numbers. Not representable as p/q. 0.33333....is 1/3. root 2 can not be written as p/q where p and q are integers.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because you can not represent them as p/q with both p and q integers. That is why they are called irrational numbers. Not representable as p/q. 0.33333....is 1/3. root 2 can not be written as p/q where p and q are integers.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Because you can not represent them as p/q with both p and q integers. That is why they are called irrational numbers. Not representable as p/q. 0.33333....is 1/3. root 2 can not be written as p/q where p and q are integers.
Because you can not represent them as p/q with both p and q integers. That is why they are called irrational numbers. Not representable as p/q. 0.33333....is 1/3. root 2 can not be written as p/q where p and q are integers.
edited Jun 30 '14 at 15:41
Yashbhatt
1238
1238
answered Jun 24 '14 at 18:52
Seetha Rama Raju Sanapala
8319
8319
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Numbers that cannot be expressed rationally arise naturally as solutions of equations. The solution of $x^2=2$ & of $x(1-x)=1$, & any of an infinitude of specificable polynomial equations, cannot be expressed rationally. It can be proven directly, by a simple recipe, that no rational number can satisfy either of the two equations I have particularly cited; and the same can be proven similarly for the general case.
Moreover there is a class of numbers yet beyond this: the transcendental numbers, any of which can be shown to be not the solution of any polynomial equation comprising a finite number of terms having integer coefficients.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Numbers that cannot be expressed rationally arise naturally as solutions of equations. The solution of $x^2=2$ & of $x(1-x)=1$, & any of an infinitude of specificable polynomial equations, cannot be expressed rationally. It can be proven directly, by a simple recipe, that no rational number can satisfy either of the two equations I have particularly cited; and the same can be proven similarly for the general case.
Moreover there is a class of numbers yet beyond this: the transcendental numbers, any of which can be shown to be not the solution of any polynomial equation comprising a finite number of terms having integer coefficients.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Numbers that cannot be expressed rationally arise naturally as solutions of equations. The solution of $x^2=2$ & of $x(1-x)=1$, & any of an infinitude of specificable polynomial equations, cannot be expressed rationally. It can be proven directly, by a simple recipe, that no rational number can satisfy either of the two equations I have particularly cited; and the same can be proven similarly for the general case.
Moreover there is a class of numbers yet beyond this: the transcendental numbers, any of which can be shown to be not the solution of any polynomial equation comprising a finite number of terms having integer coefficients.
Numbers that cannot be expressed rationally arise naturally as solutions of equations. The solution of $x^2=2$ & of $x(1-x)=1$, & any of an infinitude of specificable polynomial equations, cannot be expressed rationally. It can be proven directly, by a simple recipe, that no rational number can satisfy either of the two equations I have particularly cited; and the same can be proven similarly for the general case.
Moreover there is a class of numbers yet beyond this: the transcendental numbers, any of which can be shown to be not the solution of any polynomial equation comprising a finite number of terms having integer coefficients.
answered Nov 22 at 5:05
AmbretteOrrisey
49110
49110
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f846195%2fwhy-there-are-irrational-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
19
For completeness ;)
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:46
9
Those aren't sums, those are limits of sequences.
– Git Gud
Jun 24 '14 at 18:47
7
$frac12$ is not a sum of integers, no matter how hard you try.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jun 24 '14 at 18:49
1
What is the last rational number in one of your sums?
– J. W. Perry
Jun 24 '14 at 20:11
3
That is much more clear. The answer to your question is: any finite sum of rationals is a rational, but that is not the case for the limit of an infinite sum. More generally, get into your head now that a property shared by every member of a set and a property of the limit of that set need not be the same. Every one of your finite sums is rational, but the limit need not be. Accidentally treating set elements and limits as the same thing is the cause of a great many mathematical mistakes.
– Eric Lippert
Jun 24 '14 at 22:15