3
$\begingroup$

Let $\alpha,\beta$ be transcendental numbers. Which of the followings are true?

1)$\alpha\beta\ \text{ is transcendental}$.

2)$\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)\ \text{is isomorphic to }\mathbb{Q}(\beta)$

3)$\alpha^\beta\ \text{is transcendental }$

4)$\alpha^2\ \text{is transcendental}$

I know option 4 is true. And I feel option 1 is also true, but I don't know the exact reason. While I have no idea for the remaining two.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What about $\pi$ and $1/\pi$? (Or replace $\pi$ with any number you know is transcendental.) $\endgroup$ – David Feb 10 '16 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ For 3), $e$ and $\ln 2$ are transcendental (the latter by Lindemann-Weierstrass), but $e^{\ln 2}$ is not. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Feb 10 '16 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ 1) isn't true because we can get $\alpha\beta = a$ (a algebraic) by simply setting $\beta = a/\alpha$. 4) is true because if $\alpha^2$ solves $P(x)$ than $\alpha$ solves $P(x)^2$. 2) is true because... 3) isn't true because for any algebraic $a$ and any transendental $b$ $a= b^{\log_b a}$ and $\log_b a$ is trans. (can replace $b$ with $e$ if you want.) $\endgroup$ – fleablood Feb 10 '16 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding 2): In general, you can think of any algebraic dependencies that $\alpha$ has over a ground field $K$ as obstructions to $K(\alpha) \simeq K(X)$, where $X$ is an indeterminate. $\endgroup$ – mad_algebraist Feb 10 '16 at 6:57
4
$\begingroup$
  1. Let $\alpha$ be any transcendental. Then $\beta := \frac{1}{\alpha}$ is transcendental and $\alpha\cdot \beta =1$. Thus 1. is false.
  2. Consider $f \colon \mathbb Q(\alpha) \to \mathbb Q(\beta), \frac{x_0 + x_1 \alpha + \ldots + x_n \alpha^n}{y_0 + y_1 \alpha + \ldots + y_m \alpha^m} \mapsto \frac{x_0 + x_1 \beta + \ldots + x_n \beta^n}{y_0 + y_1 \beta + \ldots + y_m \beta^m}$, where the $x_i,y_j$ are rationals. Verify that $f$ is indeed an isomorphism.
  3. Notice that $e$ and $\ln 2$ are transcendental, but $e^{\ln 2} = 2$. So this is false.
  4. If $\alpha$ is transcendental, then $\alpha^n$ is transcendental for every $n \in \mathbb N$ (if there were a nontrivial polynomial $p(x) \in \mathbb Z[x]$ with $p(\alpha^n) = 0$, then let $q(x)$ be the polynomial obtained from $p(x)$ by replacing every $x^k$ in $p(x)$ with $x^{n\cdot k}$. Then $q(x)$ is nontrivial and $q(\alpha) = p(\alpha^n) = 0$, so $\alpha$ is algebraic - Contradiction!)
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\ln 2$ is transcendental by the Hermite-Lindemann Transcendence Theorem, which is difficult. There do exist trans. numbers $a,b$ with $a^b$ trans., because the algebraic numbers form a countable set, whereas the set of reals is uncountable. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Feb 10 '16 at 6:57
  • $\begingroup$ @user254665 I never claimed that $\alpha^\beta$ couldn't be transcendental for transcendental $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Instead I provided an example for transcendentals $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $\alpha^\beta$ is algebraic (or in my case - an integer). $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Feb 10 '16 at 7:01
  • $\begingroup$ .No of course you didn't. I was adding something else. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Feb 10 '16 at 13:01
2
$\begingroup$

Here is a proof that point 3 is false that doesn't use any difficult theorems.

As $\gamma$ ranges through all transcendental numbers, the number $2^\gamma$ takes on uncountably many values. Since only countably many of these values can be algebraic, there must exist a transcendental $\gamma$ for which $2^{\gamma}$ is also transcendental.

Now let $\alpha = 2^{\gamma}$ and $\beta = 1/\gamma$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is probably what @user254665 had in mind. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Feb 10 '16 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Stefan Possibly, although I wasn't able to tell precisely what proof user254665 was referring to. $\endgroup$ – David Feb 10 '16 at 7:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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