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

Is this reasoning correct?

Assume $e=\frac{p}{q}$ where $p$ and $q$ are natural numbers taking natural log on both sides and using the fact that natural $\ln e = 1$. We come up with $1 = \ln\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)$. Taking derivative on both sides $0 = \large\frac{1}{\frac{p}{q}}$ taking $\frac{p}{q}$ to other side results in $0 = 1$ absurdity therefore $e=\frac{p}{q}$ is false and hence $e$ is irrational.

What do you think guys?

share|cite|improve this question
You cannot differentiate, remember $p$ and $q$ are fixed numbers and not variables (it would be like saying $0 = \ln 1$, and by taking derivative you get $0 = \frac1 1 = 1$). – Joel Cohen May 6 '14 at 19:43
Differentiation makes non sense at all in this case. Try to use the series expansion of $e$ to prove $e$'s irrationality. – Samrat Mukhopadhyay May 6 '14 at 19:54
Now what about 3? Following your example, 3 = p/q implies 0 = ln (3) which is absurd, so 3 = p/q is false and hence 3 is irrational. – gnasher729 May 6 '14 at 20:00
thanks guys I got excited by just seeing the result after 5 minutes of labor. I think one can do the differentiation however it would result in 0 = 0 since both sides of the equations are just constants and hence tells nothing about e – user148329 May 6 '14 at 20:04
Remember, differentiation is something you do to functions, not to numbers. It is easy to get sloppy and write 5 when what is meant is the function f(x) that equals 5 for all x. The latter you can differentiate to get "the function f(x) that is equal to zero for all x". The former -- the number 5 -- you cannot differentiate to get the number 0. – Eric Lippert May 6 '14 at 23:03

Is this reasoning correct?

No. The differentiation part makes no sense. Consider doing the same thing with $e = C$ for some constant $C$. We would prove that $e$ in fact is not a number at all. This would mean that a huge number of mathematical papers would have to be revoked, and mathematical research would really take a huge blow.

And we don't want that.

share|cite|improve this answer
Well, we DO want that if it were true, or yielded a useful branch of mathematics for us to research. But if it's wrong, or an extraneous solution, then I completely agree, we don't want to invalidate a few thousand years of research for no good reason. =) – corsiKa May 7 '14 at 4:19

Before differentiating, you actually come up with $1 = \ln e$. So what are you taking the derivative with respect to? $e$? I'm sure you know that differentiating with respect to a constant doesn't make sense. ;-)

share|cite|improve this answer
Or more precisely, "what function are you deriving?". – Jack M May 7 '14 at 0:21

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.