7
$\begingroup$

I was reading this expository paper by Yves André in which he states a nice result: every transcendental number is the root of a power series over $\mathbb Q$. He accredits this theorem to Hurwitz in paragraph 2.3, but doesn't give a reference for it. I haven't been able to find the relevant paper (or another exposition of te proof) myself, so I'm hoping someone here knows where to look!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David C. Ullrich has already answered, so I'll do the usual (for me) and give some references. I posted some references in this 18 December 2006 sci.math post archived at Math Forum. The 1890/1891 Hurwitz paper was probably not online at the time (maybe it was, but I suspect I would have given a link if it had been), but you can now find it here. $\endgroup$ – Dave L. Renfro Dec 26 '18 at 21:37
8
$\begingroup$

Edit: There's a straightforward proof below for the result exactly as mentioned in the OP. However, the paper linked to cites a stronger result, specifying that the power series should define an entire function of exponential growth. I don't see how the argument below gives that; see Comments at the bottom.

Say $\alpha\in\Bbb C$, $\alpha\ne0$.

First, if $\alpha$ is real it's trivial that it's a zero of some power series with rational coefficients: If $r_0,\dots,r_n\in\Bbb Q$ have been chosen, there exists $r_{n+1}\in\Bbb Q$ with $$|r_0+\dots+r_{n+1}\alpha^{n+1}|<1/n;$$hence $$r_0+r_1\alpha+\dots=0.$$

Now say $\alpha=\rho e^{it}$, $\rho>0$, $t\in\Bbb R$. If $t/\pi$ is rational then there exists a positive integer $N$ so that $\beta=\alpha^N\in\Bbb R$; so $\beta$ is a root of some rational power series, hence so is $\alpha$.

Finally, suppose $t/\pi$ is irrational. Then $\{e^{ikt}:k=1,2\dots\}$ is dense in the unit circle. Hence for every $n$ the set $\{r\alpha^k:r\in\Bbb Q, k=n+1,n+2,\dots\}$ is dense in $\Bbb C$ (to approximate $z$ by $r\alpha^k$, first choose $k$ so as to get the argument approximately right, then choose $r$ to fix up the modulus). So as above we can recursively construct a sequence $r_j$ of rationals and a strictly increasing sequence $n_j$ of positive integers so that $$\sum r_j\alpha^{n_j}=0.$$

Comments. Now what about getting an entire function of exponential growth?

If $\alpha$ is real this is no problem: Say wlog $\alpha>1$ to keep the inequalities clean and replace the main inequality above by $$|r_0+\dots+r_{n+1}\alpha^{n+1}|<1/(n+2)!;$$it follows that $r_n=O(1/n!)$, hence the power series is an entire function of exponential growth.

And so we're done if $\alpha^N$ is real. But the case $t/\pi$ irrational is not so simple, as far as I can see. We can make $\left|\sum_{j=0}^k r_j\alpha^{n_j}\right|$ as small as we want as a function of $k$, but the doesn't help; saying for example $$\left|\sum_{j=0}^k r_j\alpha^{n_j}\right|\le1/k!!!$$ says nothing about the radius of convergence. The problem is that in order to make $\left|\sum_{j=0}^k r_j\alpha^{n_j}\right|$ small, by the trivial argument above, we may be forced to take $n_k$ large, so we don't get anything analogous to$$\left|\sum_{j=0}^k r_j\alpha^{n_j}\right|\le1/(n_k)!,$$which is what we need.

Well, the paper cited in the OP calls this an elementary result, so it can't be that hard. Probably there's a simple proof that's nothing like what above; the argument above is after all a simple brute-force sort of thing, surely one can do something more subtle?

Perhaps one can fix the argument above, showing that you don't need to take $n_k$ too large to make $\left|\sum_{j=0}^k r_j\alpha^{n_j}\right|$ small.

Or something I just thought of. The proof that the sum of two algebraic numbers is algebraic is fairly simple if you look at it right, but it's not a priori obvious. Maybe some extension of that argument shows that if $\alpha=x+iy$ then the existence of suitable power series for $x$ and for $y$, proved above, implies the same for $\alpha$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice! I was hoping there was some way to distill some kind of "representative" power series for a transcendental number out of the proof, similar to how the minimal polynomial of an algebraic number $a$ is a "representative" for all polynomials vanishing at $a$, but this seems a rather hopeless task. Thank you anyway for the insight! $\endgroup$ – user Dec 20 '18 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @user See edit - it may that I've given you what you asked for, but not what you meant to ask for. $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Dec 21 '18 at 14:39

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.