Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Weierstrass proved the result [Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem] that if $a_1, \cdots, a_n$ are reals linearly independent over the rationals, then $e^{a_1}, \cdots, e^{a_n}$ are algebraically independent.

I would like to know if the result holds for infinitely many numbers. Explicitely, if $\{a_1, a_2, \cdots \}$ is an infinite family of real numbers such that every finite subset is linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$, then is it true that every finite subset of $\{ e^{a_1}, e^{a_2}, \cdots \}$ is algebraically independent over $\mathbb Q$?

I'd be happy to know any other result in that spirit.

Edit: Can one explicitly write an infinite family of real numbers linearly independent over the rationals?

(Sorry, this was the question I had originally in mind. Thanks anon for pointing that out).

share|cite|improve this question
Yes it is true, and it requires no more than LW itself and an understanding of logical implication. Doesn't look to me like the title relates to the actual question. – anon Mar 29 '12 at 3:21
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $\Gamma$ is a finite subset of $\{e^{a_1},e^{a_2}\cdots\}$, then $\Lambda=\{\log\gamma : \gamma\in\Gamma\}$ is a finite subset of $\{a_1,a_2,\cdots\}$. The former is thus linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$ by hypothesis, and by the LW theorem you cite this implies that $\{e^{\lambda}:\lambda\in\Lambda\}=\Gamma$ is algebraically independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. Does this answer your question?

Update in response to OPs edit: Yes, one can explicitly construct an example. Via Dubuque:

$$\rm \Lambda=\{\, \log p: ~ p ~~ prime \,\} $$

is an example of an infinite set linearly independent over the rationals. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is key to understanding why this is independent. However, the $\Gamma$ associated to this $\Lambda$ (defined as before), i.e. the primes, are not even linearly independent, let alone algebraically, over the rationals. Is your question actually for an explicit $\mathbb{Q}$-lin. ind. $\Lambda$ with $\mathbb{Q}$-alg. ind. $\Gamma$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Sorry, I didn't frame the question correctly. Edited the question now. – Abhishek Parab Mar 29 '12 at 3:40
@Abhishek: I've updated my answer. – anon Mar 29 '12 at 3:52
yes I want to see explicitly transcendental numbers. But again the question seems ill-posed. I will ask another question and choose your answer. Thanks. – Abhishek Parab Mar 29 '12 at 4:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.