3

I was talking with my friend and he came up with this very short proof

Given $x\in \mathbb{R}$, if $xy \notin \mathbb{Z}$ for any $y\in \mathbb{Z}$, then $x$ is irrational. Since $e = \sum \frac{1}{n!}$, we see that $ey \notin \mathbb{Z}$ for any $y \in \mathbb{Z}$. So $e$ is irrational.

Is his argument correct? If not, why?

3x89g2
  • 7,739
  • Take $y=2$ and $x=1/3$ – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 25 '16 at 18:43
  • 19
    "we see that $ey \notin \mathbb{Z}$ for any $y \in \mathbb{Z}$" How do you "see*" that? – dxiv Nov 25 '16 at 18:44
  • 6
    @dxiv With good glasses. ;-) – mathcounterexamples.net Nov 25 '16 at 18:52
  • @dxiv Well, as I quote, "suppose $e = p/q$, then $eq = p \in \mathbb{Z}$. But it you multiply all the terms in the infinite series, obviously the result is not a rational". Not convinced though – 3x89g2 Nov 25 '16 at 19:02
  • 2
    @Misakov That same argument would prove that $\sum \frac{1}{2^n}$ is irrational, but of course it isn't. – dxiv Nov 25 '16 at 19:04
  • The first sentence is poorly written. Many people (including several of those who responded here) would interpret "if $xy \notin \mathbb{Z}$ for any $y\in \mathbb{Z}$" to mean "if $(\exists y\in \mathbb{Z})(xy \notin \mathbb{Z})$." I think your friend wanted to say "if $(\forall y\in \mathbb{Z})(xy \notin \mathbb{Z})$," which is a very different premise. Slightly less formal ways to say this are, "if for all $y\in \mathbb{Z}$, $xy \notin \mathbb{Z}$" or "if there is no $y\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $xy \in \mathbb{Z}$". – David K Nov 25 '16 at 19:04
  • " if xy∉Z for any y∈Z, then x is irrational." Nonsense. Obviously not true. x is not a i) an integer ii) a rational of the form $\frac nz; n \in \mathbb Z$. But it could has no other restriction and can be any other rational. y = 3 and x = 1/2. Is an obvious counter example. – fleablood Nov 25 '16 at 19:09
  • 1
    @DavidK You are right. That is the correct intention and I think the proof is correct (although one needs to argue why $y\sum \frac 1{n!}$ is never an integer). And so .... dxiv "$y\sum \frac 1{2^a}$ is never an integer" would be an unjustifiable statement. ... Hmm. Actually "we see $y\sum \frac 1{n!}$ is never an integer" is a far far far too simple a statement with no explanation. This is true but it is very hard to justify. It's not "clear". – fleablood Nov 25 '16 at 19:16

4 Answers4

10

The definition is not quite right. For any $x \in \mathbb{R}$, including irrational $x$, there is always some $y \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $xy \in \mathbb{Z}$, namely $y=0$.

However, if instead of $y \in \mathbb{Z}$ we have $y \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}$ the definition is fine.

There's no obvious reason to believe that there is no $y \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}$ such that $$y \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{x^{n}}{n!}$$ is integral.

Perhaps your friend thinks that because it's an infinite sum, the result of the multiplication cannot be integral. This is a mistaken assumption, since, for example,

$$\sum_{n\geq1} \frac{1}{2^n}$$

is an integer.

Eric Wofsey
  • 342,377
  • 2
    I think they refer to something akin to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of $e$, but I agree that it's not something we "see" without further reasoning. – Arthur Nov 25 '16 at 19:01
  • I think the intuition is that: $y\sum \frac 1{n!} = \sum \frac y{n!}$ and as one of the terms when $y = n$ will be $\frac y{y!} = \frac 1{(y-1)!}$ and as that is never an integer the whole sum will never be an integer. Of course when one actually states out what the reason was... one realizes that it was utter nonsense. – fleablood Nov 25 '16 at 20:05
6

When your friend says : we $see \; that$, he has a very keen eye!

The shortest proof I know is the following.

Suppose $e = \frac{p}{q}$ with $p$ and $q$ two strictly positive integers. Now:

\begin{equation*} q!p - \sum_{k=0}^q \frac{qq!}{k!} = q \sum_{k=q+1}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{(q+1)...k} \end{equation*}

the term on the right is strictly positive but strictly inferior to 1. Infact, insofar as, when $k \geq 2 +q$, $(q+1)\cdots k > (q+1)^{k-q}$, the term on the right is strictly inferior to $\frac{q}{q+1} \times \frac{1}{1 - \frac{1}{q+1}}= 1$.

Yet, the term on the left is an integer. We hence derive a contradiction.

Marsan
  • 1,131
3

The simplest proof along these lines that I am familiar with:

$e$ is rational if and only if $e^{-1}$ is rational so assume that $e^{-1}=\frac ab$. we note that $$\frac ab=e^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac {\left( -1\right)^n}{n!}$$ is an alternating series with decreasing terms. Thus the error involved in estimating the sum by a truncated series is bounded by, and has the same sign as, the first omitted term. Assuming, say, that $b$ is odd, we deduce $$1-\frac 1{1!}+\cdots-\frac 1{b!}<\frac ab <1-\frac 1{1!}+\cdots+\frac 1{(b+1)!}$$ multiplying by $b!$ then shows that $$b!-\frac {b!}{1!}+\cdots-\frac {b!}{b!}<b!\times \frac ab <b!-\frac {b!}{1!}+\cdots+\frac {b!}{(b+1)!}$$ Of course, the left hand sum defines an integer and $b!\times \frac ab$ is clearly an integer, and the right hand sum differs from the left by $\frac {b!}{(b+1)!}=\frac 1{b+1}$, a contradiction. The case $b$ even is similar (or just work with $b+1$ in the above.

lulu
  • 76,951
1

Perhaps you can take the fractional part of $n! \times e$ that number is

$$ 0< n! e - \text{whole number } = \frac{1}{n+1} + \frac{1}{(n+1)(n+2)}+\dots <1$$

if $e$ is rational this number has to be integer eventually. However, this error term is strictly between $0$ and $1$ always. So $e \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_e_is_irrational

cactus314
  • 25,084