Square root of 6 proof rationality
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was proving $sqrt 6 notin Bbb Q$, by assuming its negation and stating that: $exists (p,q) in Bbb Z times Bbb Z^*/ gcd(p,q) = 1$, and $sqrt 6 = (p/q)$.
$implies p^2 = 2 times 3q^2 implies exists k in Bbb Z; p = 2k implies 2k^2 = 3q^2$ and found two possible cases, either $q$ is even or odd, if even we get contradiction that $gcd(p, q) neq 1$, if odd we get contradiction that $2k^2 = 3q^2$.
Is it a right path for reasoning it?
rational-numbers
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was proving $sqrt 6 notin Bbb Q$, by assuming its negation and stating that: $exists (p,q) in Bbb Z times Bbb Z^*/ gcd(p,q) = 1$, and $sqrt 6 = (p/q)$.
$implies p^2 = 2 times 3q^2 implies exists k in Bbb Z; p = 2k implies 2k^2 = 3q^2$ and found two possible cases, either $q$ is even or odd, if even we get contradiction that $gcd(p, q) neq 1$, if odd we get contradiction that $2k^2 = 3q^2$.
Is it a right path for reasoning it?
rational-numbers
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was proving $sqrt 6 notin Bbb Q$, by assuming its negation and stating that: $exists (p,q) in Bbb Z times Bbb Z^*/ gcd(p,q) = 1$, and $sqrt 6 = (p/q)$.
$implies p^2 = 2 times 3q^2 implies exists k in Bbb Z; p = 2k implies 2k^2 = 3q^2$ and found two possible cases, either $q$ is even or odd, if even we get contradiction that $gcd(p, q) neq 1$, if odd we get contradiction that $2k^2 = 3q^2$.
Is it a right path for reasoning it?
rational-numbers
I was proving $sqrt 6 notin Bbb Q$, by assuming its negation and stating that: $exists (p,q) in Bbb Z times Bbb Z^*/ gcd(p,q) = 1$, and $sqrt 6 = (p/q)$.
$implies p^2 = 2 times 3q^2 implies exists k in Bbb Z; p = 2k implies 2k^2 = 3q^2$ and found two possible cases, either $q$ is even or odd, if even we get contradiction that $gcd(p, q) neq 1$, if odd we get contradiction that $2k^2 = 3q^2$.
Is it a right path for reasoning it?
rational-numbers
rational-numbers
edited yesterday
Mr. Brooks
24311237
24311237
asked Nov 15 at 1:12
J.Moh
395
395
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51
add a comment |
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Assume $sqrt{6} = {a over b}$ with $a, b in mathbb{Z}$ . This implies
$$2 cdot 3 b^2 = a^2$$
Use the fundamental theorem of algebra to decompose both sides into a unique prime factorization. There are an even number of factors of $2$ on the rhs and an odd number of factors of $2$ on the lhs... a contradition. Same for factors of $3$.
Thus $sqrt{6} neq {a over b}$, i.e., is irrational.
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
How about a proof by descent?
First show that $2^2<6<3^2$. Then if $sqrt{6}$ is to be rational it must have a form $p/q$ where $p,qin mathbb{Z}, q>0, 2q<p<3q$. By simple algebra the square root is also equal to $6q/p$, thus
$p/q=6q/ptext{.....Eq. 1}$.
Now if $a/b=c/d$ then also
$a/b=(ma+nc)/(mb+nd)$
for any coefficients $m,n$ where the denominator is nonzero. In particular, we Eq. 1 implies
$p/q=(3p-6q)/(3q-p)text{.....Eq. 2}$
where we already have $2q<p<3q$ and thus $0<3q-p<q$. So the proposed rational fraction $p/q$ must be equal to an alternative rational fraction with a smaller positive denominator. This causes an infinite descent contradiction forcing the assumption of a rational value to be false.
We can form a similar proof for the square root of any natural number that is not a squared integer. "Not a squared integer" is needed because the square root must be strictly between two adjacent integers to obtain a descent of positive denominators.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'll play more generally
and see what happens.
Suppose
$sqrt{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^2}{v^2}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+2v_i
=2u_i
$,
so
$m_i
=2u_i-2v_i
=2(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^2
$
so $m$ is a perfect square.
Therefore
the square root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a square.
I'll now try to generalize this
to $k$-th roots,
with as much cut-and-paste
as possible.
Suppose
$sqrt[k]{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^k}{v^k}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+kv_i
=ku_i
$,
so
$m_i
=ku_i-kv_i
=k(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{k(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^k
$
so $m$ is a perfect $k$-th power.
Therefore
the $k$-th root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a $k$-th power.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
When you get $2p^2 = 3q^2$ that means that $2|q^2$ so $2|q$ and that $3|p^2$ so $3|p$.
Then if you replace $p = 3p'$ for some integer $p'$ and $q=2q'$ for some integer $q'$ you get
$2(3p')^2 = 3(2q')^2$
$18p'^2 = 12q'^2$
$3p'^3 = 2q'^2$.
Can you finish from there?
This assumes you know Euclid's lemma that 1) prime numbers exist and 2) if $p$ is prime and $p|a*b$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Assume $sqrt{6} = {a over b}$ with $a, b in mathbb{Z}$ . This implies
$$2 cdot 3 b^2 = a^2$$
Use the fundamental theorem of algebra to decompose both sides into a unique prime factorization. There are an even number of factors of $2$ on the rhs and an odd number of factors of $2$ on the lhs... a contradition. Same for factors of $3$.
Thus $sqrt{6} neq {a over b}$, i.e., is irrational.
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
Assume $sqrt{6} = {a over b}$ with $a, b in mathbb{Z}$ . This implies
$$2 cdot 3 b^2 = a^2$$
Use the fundamental theorem of algebra to decompose both sides into a unique prime factorization. There are an even number of factors of $2$ on the rhs and an odd number of factors of $2$ on the lhs... a contradition. Same for factors of $3$.
Thus $sqrt{6} neq {a over b}$, i.e., is irrational.
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Assume $sqrt{6} = {a over b}$ with $a, b in mathbb{Z}$ . This implies
$$2 cdot 3 b^2 = a^2$$
Use the fundamental theorem of algebra to decompose both sides into a unique prime factorization. There are an even number of factors of $2$ on the rhs and an odd number of factors of $2$ on the lhs... a contradition. Same for factors of $3$.
Thus $sqrt{6} neq {a over b}$, i.e., is irrational.
Assume $sqrt{6} = {a over b}$ with $a, b in mathbb{Z}$ . This implies
$$2 cdot 3 b^2 = a^2$$
Use the fundamental theorem of algebra to decompose both sides into a unique prime factorization. There are an even number of factors of $2$ on the rhs and an odd number of factors of $2$ on the lhs... a contradition. Same for factors of $3$.
Thus $sqrt{6} neq {a over b}$, i.e., is irrational.
edited Nov 16 at 5:11
answered Nov 15 at 2:32
David G. Stork
8,90521232
8,90521232
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
|
show 7 more comments
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
Yeah, I tried to reach it without prime factorisation. A second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
You are considering the value of the rhs and lhs of the equation. I am instead looking at the number of prime factors. Frankly, I think that is so much more elegant... but I suppose this is a matter of taste. Mine applies to $sqrt{5/3}$ whereas yours doesn't... at least not as directly.
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:47
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Our professor used the value way, so I am following his steps for this, though, thanks!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:50
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Show him/her the better way! And stand out as a student!
– David G. Stork
Nov 15 at 2:51
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
Well, that doesn t apply in Morocco. Pray for me I win visa lottery so I can join a better faculty in the US :)
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:49
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
How about a proof by descent?
First show that $2^2<6<3^2$. Then if $sqrt{6}$ is to be rational it must have a form $p/q$ where $p,qin mathbb{Z}, q>0, 2q<p<3q$. By simple algebra the square root is also equal to $6q/p$, thus
$p/q=6q/ptext{.....Eq. 1}$.
Now if $a/b=c/d$ then also
$a/b=(ma+nc)/(mb+nd)$
for any coefficients $m,n$ where the denominator is nonzero. In particular, we Eq. 1 implies
$p/q=(3p-6q)/(3q-p)text{.....Eq. 2}$
where we already have $2q<p<3q$ and thus $0<3q-p<q$. So the proposed rational fraction $p/q$ must be equal to an alternative rational fraction with a smaller positive denominator. This causes an infinite descent contradiction forcing the assumption of a rational value to be false.
We can form a similar proof for the square root of any natural number that is not a squared integer. "Not a squared integer" is needed because the square root must be strictly between two adjacent integers to obtain a descent of positive denominators.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
How about a proof by descent?
First show that $2^2<6<3^2$. Then if $sqrt{6}$ is to be rational it must have a form $p/q$ where $p,qin mathbb{Z}, q>0, 2q<p<3q$. By simple algebra the square root is also equal to $6q/p$, thus
$p/q=6q/ptext{.....Eq. 1}$.
Now if $a/b=c/d$ then also
$a/b=(ma+nc)/(mb+nd)$
for any coefficients $m,n$ where the denominator is nonzero. In particular, we Eq. 1 implies
$p/q=(3p-6q)/(3q-p)text{.....Eq. 2}$
where we already have $2q<p<3q$ and thus $0<3q-p<q$. So the proposed rational fraction $p/q$ must be equal to an alternative rational fraction with a smaller positive denominator. This causes an infinite descent contradiction forcing the assumption of a rational value to be false.
We can form a similar proof for the square root of any natural number that is not a squared integer. "Not a squared integer" is needed because the square root must be strictly between two adjacent integers to obtain a descent of positive denominators.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
How about a proof by descent?
First show that $2^2<6<3^2$. Then if $sqrt{6}$ is to be rational it must have a form $p/q$ where $p,qin mathbb{Z}, q>0, 2q<p<3q$. By simple algebra the square root is also equal to $6q/p$, thus
$p/q=6q/ptext{.....Eq. 1}$.
Now if $a/b=c/d$ then also
$a/b=(ma+nc)/(mb+nd)$
for any coefficients $m,n$ where the denominator is nonzero. In particular, we Eq. 1 implies
$p/q=(3p-6q)/(3q-p)text{.....Eq. 2}$
where we already have $2q<p<3q$ and thus $0<3q-p<q$. So the proposed rational fraction $p/q$ must be equal to an alternative rational fraction with a smaller positive denominator. This causes an infinite descent contradiction forcing the assumption of a rational value to be false.
We can form a similar proof for the square root of any natural number that is not a squared integer. "Not a squared integer" is needed because the square root must be strictly between two adjacent integers to obtain a descent of positive denominators.
How about a proof by descent?
First show that $2^2<6<3^2$. Then if $sqrt{6}$ is to be rational it must have a form $p/q$ where $p,qin mathbb{Z}, q>0, 2q<p<3q$. By simple algebra the square root is also equal to $6q/p$, thus
$p/q=6q/ptext{.....Eq. 1}$.
Now if $a/b=c/d$ then also
$a/b=(ma+nc)/(mb+nd)$
for any coefficients $m,n$ where the denominator is nonzero. In particular, we Eq. 1 implies
$p/q=(3p-6q)/(3q-p)text{.....Eq. 2}$
where we already have $2q<p<3q$ and thus $0<3q-p<q$. So the proposed rational fraction $p/q$ must be equal to an alternative rational fraction with a smaller positive denominator. This causes an infinite descent contradiction forcing the assumption of a rational value to be false.
We can form a similar proof for the square root of any natural number that is not a squared integer. "Not a squared integer" is needed because the square root must be strictly between two adjacent integers to obtain a descent of positive denominators.
edited 18 hours ago
answered yesterday
Oscar Lanzi
11.6k11935
11.6k11935
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'll play more generally
and see what happens.
Suppose
$sqrt{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^2}{v^2}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+2v_i
=2u_i
$,
so
$m_i
=2u_i-2v_i
=2(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^2
$
so $m$ is a perfect square.
Therefore
the square root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a square.
I'll now try to generalize this
to $k$-th roots,
with as much cut-and-paste
as possible.
Suppose
$sqrt[k]{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^k}{v^k}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+kv_i
=ku_i
$,
so
$m_i
=ku_i-kv_i
=k(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{k(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^k
$
so $m$ is a perfect $k$-th power.
Therefore
the $k$-th root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a $k$-th power.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'll play more generally
and see what happens.
Suppose
$sqrt{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^2}{v^2}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+2v_i
=2u_i
$,
so
$m_i
=2u_i-2v_i
=2(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^2
$
so $m$ is a perfect square.
Therefore
the square root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a square.
I'll now try to generalize this
to $k$-th roots,
with as much cut-and-paste
as possible.
Suppose
$sqrt[k]{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^k}{v^k}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+kv_i
=ku_i
$,
so
$m_i
=ku_i-kv_i
=k(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{k(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^k
$
so $m$ is a perfect $k$-th power.
Therefore
the $k$-th root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a $k$-th power.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I'll play more generally
and see what happens.
Suppose
$sqrt{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^2}{v^2}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+2v_i
=2u_i
$,
so
$m_i
=2u_i-2v_i
=2(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^2
$
so $m$ is a perfect square.
Therefore
the square root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a square.
I'll now try to generalize this
to $k$-th roots,
with as much cut-and-paste
as possible.
Suppose
$sqrt[k]{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^k}{v^k}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+kv_i
=ku_i
$,
so
$m_i
=ku_i-kv_i
=k(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{k(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^k
$
so $m$ is a perfect $k$-th power.
Therefore
the $k$-th root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a $k$-th power.
I'll play more generally
and see what happens.
Suppose
$sqrt{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^2}{v^2}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+2v_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2u_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+2v_i
=2u_i
$,
so
$m_i
=2u_i-2v_i
=2(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{2(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^2
$
so $m$ is a perfect square.
Therefore
the square root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a square.
I'll now try to generalize this
to $k$-th roots,
with as much cut-and-paste
as possible.
Suppose
$sqrt[k]{m}
=dfrac{u}{v}
$
where
$m = prod_{p in P} p^{m_i},
u = prod_{p in P} p^{u_i},
v = prod_{p in P} p^{v_i}
$.
Then
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=dfrac{u^k}{v^k}
=dfrac{ prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}}{prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}}
$
so
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}prod_{p in P} p^{kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$
or
$prod_{p in P} p^{m_i+kv_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{ku_i}
$.
By unique factorization,
$m_i+kv_i
=ku_i
$,
so
$m_i
=ku_i-kv_i
=k(u_i-v_i)
$.
Therefore
$m
=prod_{p in P} p^{m_i}
=prod_{p in P} p^{k(u_i-v_i)}
=left(prod_{p in P} p^{u_i-v_i}right)^k
$
so $m$ is a perfect $k$-th power.
Therefore
the $k$-th root of an integer
is rational
only if
it is a $k$-th power.
answered Nov 15 at 1:37
marty cohen
71.3k546123
71.3k546123
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
When you get $2p^2 = 3q^2$ that means that $2|q^2$ so $2|q$ and that $3|p^2$ so $3|p$.
Then if you replace $p = 3p'$ for some integer $p'$ and $q=2q'$ for some integer $q'$ you get
$2(3p')^2 = 3(2q')^2$
$18p'^2 = 12q'^2$
$3p'^3 = 2q'^2$.
Can you finish from there?
This assumes you know Euclid's lemma that 1) prime numbers exist and 2) if $p$ is prime and $p|a*b$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
When you get $2p^2 = 3q^2$ that means that $2|q^2$ so $2|q$ and that $3|p^2$ so $3|p$.
Then if you replace $p = 3p'$ for some integer $p'$ and $q=2q'$ for some integer $q'$ you get
$2(3p')^2 = 3(2q')^2$
$18p'^2 = 12q'^2$
$3p'^3 = 2q'^2$.
Can you finish from there?
This assumes you know Euclid's lemma that 1) prime numbers exist and 2) if $p$ is prime and $p|a*b$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
When you get $2p^2 = 3q^2$ that means that $2|q^2$ so $2|q$ and that $3|p^2$ so $3|p$.
Then if you replace $p = 3p'$ for some integer $p'$ and $q=2q'$ for some integer $q'$ you get
$2(3p')^2 = 3(2q')^2$
$18p'^2 = 12q'^2$
$3p'^3 = 2q'^2$.
Can you finish from there?
This assumes you know Euclid's lemma that 1) prime numbers exist and 2) if $p$ is prime and $p|a*b$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).
When you get $2p^2 = 3q^2$ that means that $2|q^2$ so $2|q$ and that $3|p^2$ so $3|p$.
Then if you replace $p = 3p'$ for some integer $p'$ and $q=2q'$ for some integer $q'$ you get
$2(3p')^2 = 3(2q')^2$
$18p'^2 = 12q'^2$
$3p'^3 = 2q'^2$.
Can you finish from there?
This assumes you know Euclid's lemma that 1) prime numbers exist and 2) if $p$ is prime and $p|a*b$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).
answered Nov 15 at 2:28
fleablood
65.3k22682
65.3k22682
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
add a comment |
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
I tried to reach it without prime factorisation, can you have a second look?
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 2:42
add a comment |
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%2f2999044%2fsquare-root-of-6-proof-rationality%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
Is the $k$ a typo? What is $p, k$ and $q$? Why is $q$ being even a condradiction with $gcd(p,q) = 1$? And why is $2k^2 = 3q^2$ a contradiction? You just said $2k^2 = 3q^2$ so that isn't a contradiction? You are on the right track but you haven't explained any of your arguments.
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:13
Why is $q$ even a contradiction? What if $k$ or $p$ (whats the difference) is odd?
– fleablood
Nov 15 at 2:20
I rearranged it!
– J.Moh
Nov 15 at 3:51