The number e was introduced by Jacob Bernoulli in 1683. More than half a century later, Euler, who had been a student of Jacob's younger brother Johann, proved that e is irrational; that is, that it cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.
Euler's proof
editEuler wrote the first proof of the fact that e is irrational in 1737 (but the text was only published seven years later).[1][2][3] He computed the representation of e as a simple continued fraction, which is
Since this continued fraction is infinite and every rational number has a terminating continued fraction, e is irrational. A short proof of the previous equality is known.[4][5] Since the simple continued fraction of e is not periodic, this also proves that e is not a root of a quadratic polynomial with rational coefficients; in particular, e2 is irrational.
Fourier's proof
editThe most well-known proof is Joseph Fourier's proof by contradiction,[6] which is based upon the equality
Initially e is assumed to be a rational number of the form a/b. The idea is to then analyze the scaled-up difference (here denoted x) between the series representation of e and its strictly smaller b-th partial sum, which approximates the limiting value e. By choosing the scale factor to be the factorial of b, the fraction a/b and the b-th partial sum are turned into integers, hence x must be a positive integer. However, the fast convergence of the series representation implies that x is still strictly smaller than 1. From this contradiction we deduce that e is irrational.
Now for the details. If e is a rational number, there exist positive integers a and b such that e = a/b. Define the number
Use the assumption that e = a/b to obtain
The first term is an integer, and every fraction in the sum is actually an integer because n ≤ b for each term. Therefore, under the assumption that e is rational, x is an integer.
We now prove that 0 < x < 1. First, to prove that x is strictly positive, we insert the above series representation of e into the definition of x and obtain
because all the terms are strictly positive.
We now prove that x < 1. For all terms with n ≥ b + 1 we have the upper estimate
This inequality is strict for every n ≥ b + 2. Changing the index of summation to k = n – b and using the formula for the infinite geometric series, we obtain
And therefore
Since there is no integer strictly between 0 and 1, we have reached a contradiction, and so e is irrational, Q.E.D.
Alternate proofs
editAnother proof[7] can be obtained from the previous one by noting that
and this inequality is equivalent to the assertion that bx < 1. This is impossible, of course, since b and x are positive integers.
Still another proof[8][9] can be obtained from the fact that
Define as follows:
Then
which implies
for any positive integer .
Note that is always an integer. Assume that is rational, so where are co-prime, and It is possible to appropriately choose so that is an integer, i.e. Hence, for this choice, the difference between and would be an integer. But from the above inequality, that is not possible. So, is irrational. This means that is irrational.
Generalizations
editIn 1840, Liouville published a proof of the fact that e2 is irrational[10] followed by a proof that e2 is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients.[11] This last fact implies that e4 is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of e. In 1891, Hurwitz explained how it is possible to prove along the same line of ideas that e is not a root of a third-degree polynomial with rational coefficients, which implies that e3 is irrational.[12] More generally, eq is irrational for any non-zero rational q.[13]
Charles Hermite further proved that e is a transcendental number, in 1873, which means that is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, as is eα for any non-zero algebraic α.[14]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Euler, Leonhard (1744). "De fractionibus continuis dissertatio" [A dissertation on continued fractions] (PDF). Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. 9: 98–137.
- ^ Euler, Leonhard (1985). "An essay on continued fractions". Mathematical Systems Theory. 18: 295–398. doi:10.1007/bf01699475. hdl:1811/32133. S2CID 126941824.
- ^ Sandifer, C. Edward (2007). "Chapter 32: Who proved e is irrational?". How Euler did it (PDF). Mathematical Association of America. pp. 185–190. ISBN 978-0-88385-563-8. LCCN 2007927658.
- ^ A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e
- ^ Cohn, Henry (2006). "A short proof of the simple continued fraction expansion of e". American Mathematical Monthly. 113 (1): 57–62. arXiv:math/0601660. Bibcode:2006math......1660C. doi:10.2307/27641837. JSTOR 27641837.
- ^ de Stainville, Janot (1815). Mélanges d'Analyse Algébrique et de Géométrie [A mixture of Algebraic Analysis and Geometry]. Veuve Courcier. pp. 340–341.
- ^ MacDivitt, A. R. G.; Yanagisawa, Yukio (1987). "An elementary proof that e is irrational". The Mathematical Gazette. 71 (457). London: Mathematical Association: 217. doi:10.2307/3616765. JSTOR 3616765. S2CID 125352483.
- ^ Penesi, L. L. (1953). "Elementary proof that e is irrational". American Mathematical Monthly. 60 (7). Mathematical Association of America: 474. doi:10.2307/2308411. JSTOR 2308411.
- ^ Apostol, T. (1974). Mathematical analysis (2nd ed., Addison-Wesley series in mathematics). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
- ^ Liouville, Joseph (1840). "Sur l'irrationalité du nombre e = 2,718…". Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. 1 (in French). 5: 192.
- ^ Liouville, Joseph (1840). "Addition à la note sur l'irrationnalité du nombre e". Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. 1 (in French). 5: 193–194.
- ^ Hurwitz, Adolf (1933) [1891]. "Über die Kettenbruchentwicklung der Zahl e". Mathematische Werke (in German). Vol. 2. Basel: Birkhäuser. pp. 129–133.
- ^ Aigner, Martin; Ziegler, Günter M. (1998). Proofs from THE BOOK (4th ed.). Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 27–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00856-6. ISBN 978-3-642-00855-9.
- ^ Hermite, C. (1873). "Sur la fonction exponentielle". Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris (in French). 77: 18–24.