Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How does one prove that $\zeta(3)$ is irrational ?

I would like to know how Apery did it. In particular how a recursion gives rise to irrationality !?

share|improve this question
4  
You might want to review The Irrationality of $\zeta(3)$. Apery's Proof is on the Wiki for comparison to the other link. Here is another source for Apery's proof. Regards. –  Amzoti Jan 18 '13 at 23:49
    
I don't know which recursion you mean but recursion can indeed give rise to irrationality. A classic example is $x_{n+1}=(x_n+2/x_n)/2$, which converges to $\sqrt 2$ for any $x_0>0$. –  lhf Jan 19 '13 at 0:42
    
I meant the recursion Apery used (which is more complicated imho). –  mick Jan 21 '13 at 16:27
    
For an overview see this answer to the question Apéry's constant (ζ(3)) value. –  Américo Tavares Jan 21 '14 at 1:31

1 Answer 1

The point is that if $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}^+$ and $C>2$, there is at most a finite number of rational numbers $\frac{p}{q}$ such that: $$ \left|\alpha-\frac{p}{q}\right|\leq\frac{1}{q^C}. \tag{1}$$ So, if $\left\{\frac{p_n}{q_n}\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of rational approximations of $\zeta(3)$ such that $(1)$ holds for every element of the sequence, $\zeta(3)\not\in\mathbb{Q}$. The problem boils down to finding "good" approximations for $\zeta(3)$. This can be done, more or less, by considering a sequence of integrals: $$ I_n = \int_{-1}^{1} P_n(x)\,f(x)\,dx = \zeta(3)-\frac{p_n}{q_n} \tag{2} $$ where $P_n$ is a Legendre polynomial. To estimate the size of the LHS is not a difficult task, but in order to estimate the size of $q_n$, too, it really useful to know that $q_1,q_2,\ldots$ satisfy some recursive formula. Given the formula, we may compute the magnitude of $q_n$ and hope that $(1)$ holds for some $C>2$ and for an infinite number of $n\in\mathbb{N}$, proving irrationality.

This is far from being an algorithmic approach: there are many well-known cases in which something goes wrong: the Euler-Mascheroni constant $\gamma$, the next interesting value of the $\zeta$ function, $\zeta(5)$, and so on.

Apery was very fond of his proof, and we may figure why: it is almost a miracle.

share|improve this answer
3  
In other words, if you can be approximated too well, you are irrational. –  marty cohen Aug 26 at 17:29

Your Answer

 
discard

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.