15
$\begingroup$

Let $n$ be a positive integer. I know the traditional proof that $e$ is irrational. How do we show that $e^n$ is irrational in some sort of similar line? I am of course assuming it is but I would be astounded if not. It occurs to me that since $e$ is transcendental, of course $e^n$ is irrational, but I don't want to use that fact.

Googling gives me something for $e^2$, but I could not easily find anything for $e^3$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wikipedia gives a sketch of a proof that $e$ is transcendental $\endgroup$ – Henry Aug 27 '13 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ Edited my question. I don't want to use the fact that $e$ is transcendental, just as we don't need to in order to show that $e$ is irrational. $\endgroup$ – abnry Aug 27 '13 at 1:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And as another note, I'm motivated by this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/476899/…. $\endgroup$ – abnry Aug 27 '13 at 1:12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ There is a proof for $e^r$ with $r\in\mathbb{Q}$ in Proofs From the Book by Martin Aigner and Günter M. Ziegler. You may want to look it up. $\endgroup$ – EuYu Aug 27 '13 at 1:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are some nice notes by Keith Conrad in which in particular it is shown that if $r$ is a non-zero rational then $e^r$ is irrational (that's equivalent to your question). The proof is "elementary" but challenging. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Aug 27 '13 at 1:17
13
$\begingroup$

Niven's polynomials

Let $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ , $\displaystyle f(x)=\frac{x^n(1-x)^n}{n!}$ then

$$f(x)=f(1-x)$$

$$\displaystyle 0\le f(x)<\frac{1}{n!}$$

$$f^{(j)}(0)\;,\;f^{(j)}(1) \in \mathbb{Z} \;,\; j\ge 0$$


Proposition. The number $e^3$ is irrational.

Proof: Suppose that $\displaystyle e^3=\frac{a}{b}$

$$\displaystyle F=3^{2n}f-3^{2n-1}f'+3^{2n-2}f''-\cdots + f^{(2n)}$$

$$\displaystyle F'+3F=3^{2n+1}f$$

$$\displaystyle \mathbb{Z^+} \ni aF(1)-bF(0)=b\Bigl[e^{3x}F(x)\Bigr]_0^1=b\int_0^1 3^{2n+1}e^{3x} f(x)dx \longrightarrow 0^+\;,\;n \longrightarrow\infty $$ Contradiction , analogously $e^h$ is irrational for $h \in \mathbb{Z}^+.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Which book shall I read to learn more on these techniques? $\endgroup$ – High GPA May 29 '17 at 2:37
  • $\begingroup$ In the book by Ivan Niven, Irrational Numbers. $\endgroup$ – felipeuni Jul 2 '17 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused on the step where you go from $b \left[ e^{3x}F(x) \right] ^1_0$ to $b \int _0 ^1 3^{2n+1} e^{3x} f(x) dx$. Could you perhaps explain your reasoning for that part? $\endgroup$ – Tim Hargreaves Aug 29 '17 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\dfrac{d}{dx}[e^{3x}F(x)]=3^{2n+1}e^{3x}f(x)$ using $F'+3F=3^{2n+1}f$. $\endgroup$ – felipeuni Sep 5 '17 at 1:20
3
$\begingroup$

I believe there's a proof of this in the book described here.

I have never personally looked into that, however.

How to show $e^2$ and $e^4$ are irrational is show here.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

In fact, $e^n$ is transcendental for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}-\{0\}$. To see this it is sufficient to show that $e^n$ is transcendental for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. If $e^n$ were to be algebraic, this means that there exists a polynomial $p(x)$ with integer coefficients, such that $p(e^n) = 0$. This means that the polynomial $g(x) = p(x^n)$ has $e$ as its root, contradicting the transcendence of $e$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sure, if you know the very general result that $\alpha$ is transcendental, then, specifically, $\alpha^n$ is not rational for any $n$. But that just shows that you are using a much more powerful result to prove this specific instance. It's like if someone here asked you to prove that $\pi$ was irrational and you said, "since we know $\pi$ is transcendental..." $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Dec 24 '15 at 13:40
2
$\begingroup$

You can find a pretty direct proof of this result here, in proposition 7.

Here is the essence of the argument: for $r(x)$ a polynomial of degree $k$ we can express $$\int_0^1r(x)e^{z-xz}dx=\frac{F(z,0)e^z-F(z,1)}{z^{k+1}}$$

where $F(z,x)$ is a polynomial in $z$ whose coefficients are successive derivatives of $r$ at $x$ (this is proposition 5). In particular, if $e^p=\frac{a}{b}$ is rational and we take $r(x)=x^n(1-x)^n$ for some large $n$ to be specified later, we can use this formula to estimate $aF(p,0)-bF(p,1)\leq ap^{2n+1}$. However, $aF(p,0)-bF(p,1)$ is clearly positive (by looking at the integral), and from the formula for $F(z,x)$ and the fact that many derivatives of $r(x)$ vanish at $0,1$ we can deduce $aF(p,0)-bF(p,1)$ is integer divisible by $n!$. Hence $n!\leq aF(p,0)-bF(p,1)\leq ap^{2n+1}$, so $n!\leq ap^{2n+1}$ which is contradictory for large $n$.

$\endgroup$

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.