Can you give some example of an irrational number that can be proved to be irrational with this theorem?

Theorem. Given $a\in \mathbb{R}$, if there exists a sequence of integers $u_n,v_n \rightarrow \infty$ such that:

  • $a$ is not equal to any $u_n/v_n$.
  • The quotien sequences aproximates $a$ in this sense: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}v_na-u_n=0 $$

then the number $a$ is irrational.

The proof is in: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/898420

  • $\begingroup$ see Belgi's answer in that link. It can be very useful $\endgroup$ – Chinnapparaj R Oct 7 '18 at 14:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Think of a number between 0 and 1 whose decimal expansion only has 0s and 1s, with the distance between consecutive 1s growing very very fast. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 7 '18 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ There is no proof of that theorem at the link. There are counter examples by Darth Geek and Belgi. $\endgroup$ – Steve B Oct 7 '18 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @SteveB: yes there is it: "the proof is very simple: if $a=p/q$ and $a\neq u_n/v_n$ then $v_na-u_n$ is a non-zero rational with denominator at most $q$. Therefore it is at least $1/q$ in absolute value, and can't go to 0" $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 7 '18 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ Related questions: math.stackexchange.com/questions/787382/… $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 7 '18 at 15:45

First, there are some nice examples like $$ e=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac1{n!} $$ or Liouville-like numbers, mentioned in the answers by Wilem2, that can be easily proved to be irrational using the theorem, but for which typically there are simpler irrationality proofs: For $e$, we quickly get that $$0<n!\bigl(e-\sum_{k\le n}\frac1{k!}\bigr)<1$$ for all large enough $n$, so $e$ cannot be rational, because otherwise for $n$ large enough the number in between 0 and 1 would be an integer. For Liouville-like numbers, the many 0s in between consecutive 1s readily imply the number does not have a periodic decimal expansion, so it should be irrational.

Now, one can prove that given any irrational $r\in\mathbb R$ there is a sequence as in the theorem converging to $r$. This is not quite obvious. Instead, I'll refer you to the theory of continued fractions. The two points to make are that if $|r-p/q|<1/q^2$ then $|qr-p|<1/q$ (so, if $q\to\infty$, then $|qr-p|\to0$) and that for any two consecutive convergents to $r$, in fact one satisfies $0<r-p/q<1/q^2$. The convergents to $r$ are the rational numbers that are obtained by iterating the following recursive procedure:

Start with $r$ irrational, let $r_0=\lfloor r\rfloor$. Note that $0<r-r_0<1$, so it is $1/x$ for some $x>1$, and we can repeat the same procedure with $x$ instead of $r$ and to obtain $r_1\in\mathbb N$ and $y>1$ such that $x=r_1+1/y$. For instance, if $r=\sqrt2$, you get $r=1+(\sqrt2-1)=1+\frac1x$, where $x=\frac1{\sqrt2-1}=\sqrt2+1=2+\frac1x$, so $$ \sqrt2=1+\frac1{2+\frac1{2+\frac1\ddots}}, $$ and the convergents to $\sqrt2$ are the rationals that appear along the way, by stopping the procedure after finitely many times, that is, the sequence $$ 1, 1+\frac12=\frac32,1+\frac1{2+\frac12}=\frac75,1+\frac1{2+\frac1{2+\frac12}}=\frac{17}{12},\dots$$

In general, if $p_0/q_0,p_1/q_1,\dots$ are the convergents to $r$, we have that $(p_n,q_n)=1$ for all $n$ and $$ p_0/q_0<p_2/q_2<\dots<r<\dots<p_3/q_3<p_1/q_1, $$ so $p_0/q_0,p_2/q_2,\dots$ provides a sequence as desired (one can easily check just from the inequalities that $q_n\to\infty$).

That said, it is perhaps a bit unsatisfactory to use continued fractions to illustrate the theorem, because of course if $r$ has an infinite sequence of convergents, then it is irrational (by the Euclidean algorithm!), so we already know $r$ is irrational before we even exhibit the relevant sequence. That said, in certain cases, there are nice recursive relations that allow us to find $p_{n+2},q_{n+2}$ in terms of $p_n,p_{n+1},q_n,q_{n+1}$, so we can easily exhibit sequences as in the theorem, thus witnessing the irrationality of many $r$. (Of course, for some $r$, there is no nice recursive way of obtaining such sequences unless we have access to $r$ to begin with.)

Indeed, for instance for $\sqrt2$, we have $p_0=1=q_0$, $p_1=3,q_1=2$ and, in general $p_{n+2}=2p_{n+1}+p_n$ and $q_{n+2}=2q_{n+1}+q_n$.

In general, for a given $r$, rather than always using $2$, we use $r_{n+2}$, where the integers $r_0,r_1,r_2,\dots$ are the integer parts obtained through the procedure as described above. For many irrationals $r$ there does not seem to be a nice formula for these numbers $r_n$. But there are nice formulas for $e$ and for any quadratic irrational.
(It is actually an interesting open problem whether there are nice patterns for, say $\root3\of2$ or $\pi$.)

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! It only reminds to check that $|r-p/q|<1/q^2$ for the sequence given by the continued fraction $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 8 '18 at 21:59

With the idea of @AndrésE.Caicedo, I will try to proof the irrationality of the Liouville Constant:


With $v_n=10^{n!}$ and $u_n=10^{n!}\sum_{i=1}^{n}10^{-i!}$.

Clearly, $v_n$ is an integer that tends to infinity.

For $u_n$, note that $u_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n}10^{n!-i!}$ and the power $n!-i!$ is an integers satisfying $n!-i!\geq 0$ for $i\leq n$, so each term of the serie is an integer and also, $u_n$ tends to infinity caused by the leading term $10^{n!-1}\rightarrow \infty$.

To check the hypothesis:

  • $L \neq\frac{u_n}{v_n}$ because $L$ have more terms in the serie: $L=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}10^{-i!}\neq \sum_{i=1}^{n}10^{-i!}=\frac{u_n}{v_n}$
  • $x_n=v_nL-u_n=...=\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}10^{n!-i!}$. It can't be difficult to proof that this last serie is $$\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}10^{n!-i!} <2\cdot 10^{n!-(n+1)!}=2\cdot 10^{-n\cdot n!}\rightarrow 0$$ But because I don't have the argument, here is another:

For $i>n$ one have $n!-i!\leq (i-1)!-i!\,=\, -(i-1)\cdot(i-1)! \leq -(i-1)$

So $n!-i! \leq -(i-1)$ and hence: $$x_n=\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}10^{n!-i!}\leq \sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}10^{-(i-1)}=\frac{1}{10^n}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}10^{-i}=\frac{1}{10^n}\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{10}}=\frac{1}{10^n}\frac{10}{9}\longrightarrow_{n \rightarrow\infty} 0$$

By the theorem, L is irrational.

  • $\begingroup$ The idea inside is that, as @AndrésE.Caicedo pointed, the term $x_n=10^nL-u_n$ have its first non-zero digit in its decimal expansion too far (more than $n$-far) from the unit digit, so as $n$ grows, $x_n$ tends to zero. $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 7 '18 at 21:54

Let's proof that $e=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}$ is irrational with this method:

Define $v_n=n!$ and $u_n=n!\left( 1+\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{1}{3!}+...+\frac{1}{n!} \right) $

It's direct to see that $u_n$ is an integer, because expanding the product, each term is an integer:

$$u_n=\left( n!+\frac{n!}{1!}+\frac{n!}{2!}+\frac{n!}{3!}+...+\frac{n!}{n!} \right)$$

And also, $u_n$ tends to infinity cause each term is positive and the leading term is $n!$

Let's proof the satements of the theorem:

Clearly, $e\neq\frac{u_n}{v_n}$ because $\left( 1+\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{1}{3!}+...+\frac{1}{n!}+... \right) \neq\left( 1+\frac{1}{1!}+\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{1}{3!}+...+\frac{1}{n!} \right) $

And for the second statement:

$$x_n=v_ne-u_n=n!\left( \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{i!}} \right) -n!\left( \sum_{i=0}^n{\frac{1}{i!}} \right) =n!\left( \sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{i!}} \right) =\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}{\frac{n!}{i!}}>0 $$

Now, each term of the last serie is limited by


and so $x_n=\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}{\frac{n!}{i!}}\leq \sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{\left( n+1 \right) ^{i-n}}}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{\left( n+1 \right) ^k}}=\frac{1}{n+1}\left( \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{n+1}} \right) =\frac{1}{n}\rightarrow 0 $

So we can apply the theorem to conclude that $e$ is irrational.

  • $\begingroup$ The theorem is an overkill in this case, though. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 7 '18 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo: You are totally right, it's a recycled proof. This is why I won't put this as an answer of the question... $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 7 '18 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $v_n$ = 1, 2, 6, 24, ... $u_n$ = 1, 3, 10, 41, ... That makes $x_n$ = 1.7183, 2.4366, 6.3097, 24.239. $x_n$ does not converge to 0. $\endgroup$ – Steve B Oct 7 '18 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ @SteveB : Corrected, thanks $\endgroup$ – Wilem2 Oct 7 '18 at 18:35

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.