6
$\begingroup$

Prove that $\sqrt[3]{2}$ is irrational without using prime factorization.

The standard proof that $\sqrt[3]{2}$ is irrational uses prime factorization in an essential way. So I wondered if there is a proof that does not use it.

This was inspired by the fact that I know two proofs that $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational that do not use prime factorization.

The first uses $$\sqrt{2}=\sqrt{2}\frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{\sqrt{2}-1}=\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}-1} $$ to show that if $\sqrt{2} = \dfrac{a}{b}$ then $$\sqrt{2}=\frac{2-\dfrac{a}{b}}{\dfrac{a}{b}-1}=\frac{2b-a}{a-b} $$ is a rational $\sqrt{2}$ with a smaller denominator.

The second uses $$(x^2-2y^2)^2=(x^2+2y^2)^2-2(2xy)^2 $$ and $3^2-2\cdot 2^2 = 1$ to show that $x^2-2y^2=1$ has arbitrarily large solutions and this contradicts $\sqrt{2}$ being rational.

I have not been able to extend either of these proofs to $\sqrt[3]{2}$. Results that I do not consider "legal" in solving this problem include Fermat's Last Theorem (which definitely uses unique factorization) and the rational root theorem (which uses unique factorization in its proof).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you mind using the fact that even integers have even cubes, and odd integers have odd cubes? $\endgroup$ – G Tony Jacobs May 12 '18 at 17:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How about adapting the classical proof that $\sqrt2$ is irrational? $\endgroup$ – Arthur May 12 '18 at 17:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I'm right it is due that $\sqrt[3]{2}$ has an infinite continued fraction (if I'm right this is the reasoning in Proof 21, from this Cut the Knot). The continued fraction is well-known, you can compute it with Wolfram Alpha. $\endgroup$ – user243301 May 12 '18 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ The continued fraction for $\sqrt[3]{2}$ is, as far as I know, not known. $\endgroup$ – marty cohen May 12 '18 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ I believe that a rigorous proof can be done about the irrationality of $\sqrt[3]{2}$ using continued fractions. If you or some user can clarify what about it or my previous words, I am going to accept it if I am wrong. Many thanks. $\endgroup$ – user243301 May 13 '18 at 9:34
5
$\begingroup$

You can do it using the concept of odds and evens which is sort of a poor mans version of unique prime factorization but surely acceptable. After all the classic proof of the irrationality of $\sqrt 2$ used even and odds without assuming unique prime factorization.

First note: If $b \in \mathbb Z$ is $b = 2m$ is even, then $b^3 = 8m^3$ is even and if $b = 2m + 1$ is odd then $b^3 = 8m^3 + 12m^2 + 6m + 1$ is odd.

So if $\frac ab; b\ne 0$ and $a$ and $b$ in "lowest terms" (have no factors in common, in particular are not both even), and if $(\frac ab)^3 = 2$ then....

$2a^3 = b^3$ and so $b^3$ is even and so $b$ is even and so $b = 2m$ and so $2a^3 = 8m^3$ and so $a^3 = 4m^3$ and so $a^3$ is even and so $a$ is even and so $a$ and $b$ are both even but we said that wasn't the case so that's impossible and nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Which opens the question just what were the assumptions of the original proof. We got that if $(\frac ab)^2 = 2$ then both $a$ and $b$ were divisible by two but that was not assumed to be a problem. It wasn't assumed fractions had lowest terms. But this lead to infinite regress, somehow that was not acceptable. $\endgroup$ – fleablood May 12 '18 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 and the second in mind for "and nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". :-) $\endgroup$ – Przemysław Scherwentke May 12 '18 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ @PrzemysławScherwentke Thank you. The idea being that once the set up was done everything would be exactly as the "classic" proof and we can just rattle it off in a single run on sentence. $\endgroup$ – fleablood May 12 '18 at 17:32
2
$\begingroup$

There is a general theorem known as "rational roots test" which is as follows :

Given integers $a_0,\ldots,a_n$ (with $n\ge 1$) and a rational root $p/q$ of the polynomial $P=a_nX^n+\ldots+a_0$ (with $(p,q)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{N^\star}$ and $gcd(p,q)=1$), we must have $p\mid a_0$ and $q\mid a_n$.

The proof of this theorem requires Gauss theorem and not prime factorization.

Applying it to $P=X^3-2$, we are led to a short list of possible rational roots, and none of them is an effective root of $P$. As a conclusion $P$ doesn't have any rational roots. And so, $2^{1/3}$ is irrational.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If $\sqrt[3]2$ we rational, it would be $a/b$ for $a$, $b\in\Bbb N$. Then there is $n\in\Bbb N$ with $n\sqrt[3]2$ and $n\sqrt[3]4$ integers, say $n=b^2$. Let $n$ be the least positive integer with $n\sqrt[3]2$, $n\sqrt[3]4\in\Bbb N$. But $(\sqrt[3]2-1)n$ would be an even smaller one...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you complete this argument? $\endgroup$ – Jack Lam May 15 '18 at 14:07
2
+50
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\sqrt[3]{2} = \dfrac{a}{b} \in \mathbb{Q}$ where $a, b \in \mathbb{N}_+$, $(a, b) = 1$. Now suppose $n \in \mathbb{N}_+$ satisfies$$ (\sqrt[3]{2} - 1)^n < \frac{1}{b}.$$ Note that there exist $c_0, c_1, c_2 \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that$$ (\sqrt[3]{2} - 1)^n = c_2 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_1 \sqrt[3]{2} + c_0, $$ thus\begin{align*} \sqrt[3]{2} &= \frac{\sqrt[3]{2} (\sqrt[3]{2} - 1)^n}{(\sqrt[3]{2} - 1)^n} = \frac{\sqrt[3]{2} (c_2 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_1 \sqrt[3]{2} + c_0)}{c_2 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_1 \sqrt[3]{2} + c_0} = \frac{c_1 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_0 \sqrt[3]{2} + 2c_2}{c_2 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_1 \sqrt[3]{2} + c_0}\\ &= \frac{c_1 \left(\dfrac{a}{b}\right)^2 + c_0 \dfrac{a}{b} + 2c_2}{c_2 \left(\dfrac{a}{b}\right)^2 + c_1 \dfrac{a}{b} + c_0} = \frac{c_1 a^2 + c_0 ab + 2c_2 b^2}{c_2 a^2 + c_1 ab + c_0 b^2}, \end{align*} and$$ c_2 a^2 + c_1 ab + c_0 b^2 = (c_2 (\sqrt[3]{2})^2 + c_1 \sqrt[3]{2} + c_0) b^2\\ \Longrightarrow 0 < c_2 a^2 + c_1 ab + c_0 b^2 = (\sqrt[3]{2} - 1)^n b^2 < b, $$ contradictory to the minimality of $b$. Therefore, $\sqrt[3]{2} \not\in \mathbb{Q}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yest, this this the kind of an answer that I am expecting. +1, but I will wait with a bounty in case of another answers. $\endgroup$ – Przemysław Scherwentke May 15 '18 at 2:40
2
$\begingroup$

Let us use the fact that $a,b$ are coprime, then $a^n, b^n$ are coprime. This is a consequence of $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ being a field.

Now, define $f : \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{N}$ as follows: For irreducible fraction $a/b$, $f(a/b) = ab$. Some properties of $f$:

$$f(r^n) = f(r)^{n}$$ $$f(r) = r \implies r \in \mathbb{Z}$$

Now if $s = \sqrt[3]{2} \in \mathbb{Q}$, then by the first property, $$f(s)^3 = f(s^3) = f(2) = 2$$

Therefore, $f(s) = \sqrt[3]{2} = s$. By the second property,

$$\sqrt[3]{2} \in \mathbb{Z}$$

Absurd! (By extension this shows that $\sqrt[n]{m} \in \mathbb{Z}$ or $\sqrt[n]{m} \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't it be ℚ⇒ℕ? $\endgroup$ – Jack Lam May 15 '18 at 14:05
2
$\begingroup$

let $\sqrt[3]{2}=\frac pq.$

then $2=\frac{p^3}{q^3}$ , $2q^3=p^3$, $ q^3+q^3=p^3.$

But

'Fermat's Last Theorem' (sometimes called Fermat's conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers $a$, $b$, and $c$ satisfy the equation $a^n + b^n = c^n$ for any integer value of $n$ greater than $2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is nice, though I wonder if there is a proof of FLT for exponent $n=3$ that does not use prime factorization... $\endgroup$ – Sil May 17 '18 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for a nice joke. $\endgroup$ – Przemysław Scherwentke May 17 '18 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ This is already known.quora.com/… $\endgroup$ – Takahiro Waki May 18 '18 at 4:17
1
$\begingroup$

Assume that $\sqrt[3]{2}=\dfrac{a}{b}$ with $a,b\in\mathbb{Z^+}$

We will have $\dfrac{a^3}{b^3}=2\Leftrightarrow a^3=2b^3$ $(*)$

The above implies that $a$ must be divisible by $2$ (if $a$ is odd then $a^3$ is odd), let $a=2a_1$ with $a_1\in\mathbb{N}$, then $a^3=2b^3\Leftrightarrow 8a_1^3=2b^3\Leftrightarrow4a_1^3=b^3$

The above implies that $b$ must be divisible by $2$ (if $b$ is odd then $b^3$ is odd), let $b=2b_1$ with $b_1\in\mathbb{N}$, then $4a_1^3=b^3\Leftrightarrow 4a_1^3=(2b_1)^3\Leftrightarrow 4a_1^3=8b_1^3\Leftrightarrow a_1^3=2b_1^3$.

This will continue for an infinite loop, let $n\in\mathbb{Z^+}$ and $a_n=2a_{n+1}$ then

$$a^3=2b^3\Leftrightarrow a_1^3=2b_1^3\Leftrightarrow a_2^3=2b_2^3\Leftrightarrow a_3^3=2b_3^3\Leftrightarrow\cdots\Leftrightarrow a_n^3=2b_n^3\Leftrightarrow a_{n+1}^3=2b_{n+1}^3$$

Because $a_{n+1}\in\mathbb{Z^+}$,

$$2|a_{n},b_{n}\Rightarrow2^2|a_{n-1},b_{n-1}\Rightarrow2^3|a_{n-2},b_{n-2}\Rightarrow\cdots\Rightarrow 2^{n+1}|a,b$$

$a,b$ must be divisible by $2^{n+1}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, this is only possible if $a=b=0$, which makes $\sqrt[3]{2}=\dfrac{a}{b}$ undefined.

By contradicition, $\sqrt[3]{2}$ is irrational.

Alternatively...

If $\sqrt[3]{2}$ is rational then it can be expressed in the form $\sqrt[3]{2}=\dfrac{a}{b}$ with $a,b\in\mathbb{Z^+}$ and $\dfrac{a}{b}$ is an irreducible fraction or $GCD(a,b)=1$.

Because we have proven that both $a$ and $b$ are even numbers, $\dfrac{a}{b}$ now becomes reducible, which also contradicts the condition above. This will be a much quicker conclusion compared to the "infinite loop" method.

$\endgroup$

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.