7

A Liouville number is an irrational number $x$ with the property that, for every positive integer $n$, there exist integers $p$ and $q$ with $q > 1$ and such that $0 < \mid x - \frac{p}{q} \mid < \frac{1}{q^n} $.

I'm looking for either hints or a complete proof for the fact that $e$ is not a Liouville number. I can prove that $e$ is irrational and even that it is transcendental, but I'm a bit stuck here.

Here's my research:

The wikipedia article about Liouville numbers states:

[...] not every transcendental number is a Liouville number. The terms in the continued fraction expansion of every Liouville number are unbounded; using a counting argument, one can then show that there must be uncountably many transcendental numbers which are not Liouville. Using the explicit continued fraction expansion of $e$, one can show that e is an example of a transcendental number that is not Liouville.

However, theres clearly more to the argument then the boundedness of the continued fraction of $e$, because the terms of $e$'s continued fraction expansion are unbounded and yet it is not a Liouville number. Also, if possible, i would like to avoid using continued fractions at all.

This book has the following as an exercise:

Prove that $e$ is not a Liouville number. (Hint: Follow the irrationality proof of $e^n$ given in the supplements to Chapter 1.)

Unfortunately, the supplements to Chapter 1 are not publically available in the sample and I do not want to buy that book.

This book states:

Given any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a constant $c(e,\varepsilon) > 0$ such that for all $p/q$ there holds $\frac{c(e,\varepsilon)}{q^{2+\varepsilon}} < \mid e - \frac{p}{q} \mid$. [...] Using [this] inequality, show that $e$ is not a Liouville number.

Which, given the inequality, I managed to do. But I do not have any idea of how one would go about proving that inequality.

I greatly appreciate any help!

Semiclassical
  • 18,592
cdwe
  • 671
  • 1
  • Should "Using [this] inequality, show that $e$ is a Liouville number" be "is not a Liouville number?" 2) The desired inequality by definition means that $e$ has irrationality measure $\mu(e)=2$. Wikipedia notes this in passing, and Mathworld's page on irrationality measure cites Borwein & Borwein to that effect; alas, there's no preview of that book on Google books.
  • – Semiclassical Sep 29 '16 at 14:24
  • Thanks, I corrected that. Thanks for pointing out, that the equality in question essentially means that $e$ has irrationality measure of 2. However this seem to be hard to prove and from a quick search I could not come up with a freely available proof. – cdwe Sep 29 '16 at 14:47