Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2024 May 30

Mathematics desk
< May 29 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 31 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


May 30

edit

A proof attempt for the transcendence of ℼ

edit

The proposition "if   is rational then   is algebraic" is comprehensively true,
and is equivalent to "if   is inalgebraic then   is irrational" (contrapositive).

My question is this:
The proofs for the transcendence of   are of course by contradiction.
Now, do you think it is possible to prove somehow the proposition "if   is algebraic then   is rational", reaching a contradiction?
Meaning, by assuming   is algebraic and using some of its properties, can we conclude that it must be algebraic of degree 1 (rational) – contradicting its irrationality?

I know the proposition "if   is algebraic then   is rational" is not comprehensively true (  is a counterexample),
but I am basically asking if there exist special cases   such that it does hold for them. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are real-valued expressions   such that the statement "if   is algebraic,   is rational" is provable, but this does not by itself establish transcendence. For example, substitute   for   Given the irrationality of   proving the implication for   would give yet another proof of the transcendence of  . I see no plausible approach to proving this implication without proving transcendence on the way, but I also see no a priori reason why such a proof could not exist.  --Lambiam 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for a while now I am looking to prove the transcendence of   by trying to generalize Bourbaki's/Niven's proof that π is irrational for the  th-degree polynomial:
 
Unfortunately, I failed to show that   is a non-zero integer (aiming for a contradiction).
Am I even on the right track, or is my plan simply doomed to fail and I am wasting my time?
Could the general Leibniz rule help here? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that you mean to define   where the   are integers, and hope to derive a contradiction from the assumption   For that, doesnt'it suffice to show that the value of the integral is non-zero?
I'm afraid I'm not the right person to judge whether this approach offers a glimmer of hope.  --Lambiam 15:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]