$\{a_n\}$ is a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}}{ a_n}=+\infty$$ Can one conclude that $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{a_n}$ is an irrational number? a transcendental number?

A special case is $a_n=n!$, $e$ is a transcendental number.

Another special example is Liouville number $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\dfrac1{10^{n!}}$ is a transcendental number, too.

so the question, if true, may be difficult.

The question is a generalization of If $(a_n)$ is increasing and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_1\dotsb a_n}=+\infty$ then $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{a_n}$ is irrational

  • $\begingroup$ I have heard about specific classes of sequences that converge faster than a geometric series and always have irrational limits, but I cannot remember the exact hypothesis. Also, if we allow the $a_n$ to be non-integers, it's clearly not true. $\endgroup$ – Arthur May 13 '14 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ᛥᛥᛥ Whoops, I missed that! $\endgroup$ – Fly by Night May 13 '14 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ In the case or $e$, you have $a_n\mid a_{n+1}$ for every $n$. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 13 '14 at 16:05

The answer is NO.

Consider the Sylvester's sequence (OEIS A000058):

$$(s_0, s_1, \ldots ) = ( 2, 3, 7, 43, 1807, 3263443, 10650056950807, \ldots)$$ defined recursively by the relation

$$s_n = \begin{cases} 2,& n = 0,\\ s_{n-1}(s_{n-1}-1)+1,& n > 0 \end{cases}$$

It is known that its reciprocals give an infinite Egyptian fraction representation of number one:

$$1 = \frac12 + \frac13 + \frac17 + \frac{1}{43} + \frac{1}{1807} + \cdots$$

It is also easy to check $\displaystyle\;\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{s_{k+1}}{s_k} = \infty\;$. If you set $a_n = s_{n-1}$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$, you get a counterexample of what you want to show. i.e $\displaystyle\;\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{a_n}\;$ need not be irrational.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ To me it seems clearer to state the definition by saying $s_{n+1} = 1 + \prod_{k=1}^n s_n$. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 13 '14 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy that might be true. However, I start from constructing the infinite Egyptian fraction myself, come up the recursion relation I wrote down before I locate the name and other properties of this sequence. $\endgroup$ – achille hui May 13 '14 at 16:26

The conjecture is false.

Take $S_0 = 0$, and for $n=1,2,\cdots$ define $a_n$ to be the least integer such that $S_{n-1}+1/a_n < 1$. Then $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/a_n = 1$ but $a_{n+1}/a_n$ grows very fast... $$ a_1 = 2\\ a_2 = 3\\ a_3 = 7\\ a_4 = 43\\ a_5 = 1807\\ a_6 = 3263443\\ a_7 = 10650056950807\\ a_8 = 113423713055421844361000443\\ a_9 = 12864938683278671740537145998360961546653259485195807 $$

| cite | improve this answer | |

edAssume the sum is rational $p/q$.

Then $$p = \sum_{n=1}^{m}\frac{q}{a_n} + \sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}\frac{q}{a_n}$$


$$qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a_n} < qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}r^{-n}$$

$$pa_1\ldots a_m - \sum_{n=1}^{m}qa_1\ldots a_{n-1}a_{n+1}\ldots a_m = qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a_n} \tag{*}$$

From the limit we know for $n$ sufficiently large, ${1/a_n}$ is dominated by the terms of a convergent goemetric series so

$$qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a_n} < qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}r^{-n}$$

and $$qa_1\ldots a_m\sum_{n=m+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a_n} < qa_1\ldots a_m\frac{r^m}{1-r}$$

We can choose $r$ sufficiently small and and $m$ sufficiently large so the RHS of (*) is less than $1$ and the LHS is an integer, a contradiction

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof is wrong, because first, you fix $r>0$, and $r$ depends on $m$. Intuitively, the smaller is $r$, the greater must be $m$. You cannot guarantee that $qa_1\ldots a_m\frac{r^m}{1-r}$ is less than $1$, because it is involved a product of $m$ integers, and by the way, no smaller integers at all... $\endgroup$ – ajotatxe May 13 '14 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ "I threw this together in a hurry as everyone jumped on this problem" This must be one of the most absurd motives to "throw something together in a hurry" on a maths site. $\endgroup$ – Did May 15 '14 at 17:48

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.