3
$\begingroup$

I have found the following alternative proof online. Proof irrationality square root of 2

It looks amazingly elegant but I wonder if it is correct.

I mean: should it not state that $(\sqrt{2}-1)\cdot k \in \mathbb{N}$ to be able to talk about a contradiction?

Doesn anybody know who thought of this proof (who should I credit)? I couldn't find a reference on the web.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Seems like a straightforward question. I don't get why it got downvoted? $\endgroup$ – dietervdf Sep 4 '14 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ It's a bit terse. You should rewrite it but expound on the reasoning. $\endgroup$ – user117644 Sep 4 '14 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ @dietervdf I was wondering that myself... $\endgroup$ – graydad Sep 4 '14 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ Neat proof. I had not seen it before. $\endgroup$ – almagest Sep 4 '14 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/917983/… $\endgroup$ – user117644 Nov 20 '15 at 0:32
2
$\begingroup$

The proof is correct, but you could say it's skipping over a couple of steps: In addition to pointing out that $(\sqrt2-1)k\in\mathbb{N}$ (because $\sqrt2k\in\mathbb{N}$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}$), one might also want to note that $1\lt\sqrt2\lt2$, so that $0\lt\sqrt2-1\lt1$, which gives the contradiction $0\lt(\sqrt2-1)k\lt k$.

As for the source of the proof, you might try looking at the references in an article on the square root of 2 by Martin Gardner, which appeared in Math Horizons in 1997.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Super! I'll look into those references. $\endgroup$ – dietervdf Sep 4 '14 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ But if $k \in \mathbb N$ such that also $\sqrt 2 k \in \mathbb N$, what prevents us to conclude with : $\sqrt 2 \in \mathbb N$ ? $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 4 '14 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting point and true, but it doesn't seem any reason for a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – dietervdf Sep 4 '14 at 20:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $\sqrt 2 \in \mathbb N$ and we note that $1 < \sqrt 2 < 2$, we have a contradiction... Otherwise we have to say that $1 \le \sqrt 2 \le 2$, which implies : $\sqrt 2 = 1$ or $\sqrt 2 = 2$. But $1^2 = 1 \ne 2$ and also $2^2=4 \ne 2$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 4 '14 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ Hey, that also looks cool $\endgroup$ – dietervdf Sep 4 '14 at 20:20
2
$\begingroup$

The proof goes back to at least Dedekind - being a special case of much more general results about conductor ideals. Here is a presentation bringing these concepts to the fore (but using nothing more than high-school algebra).

Theorem $\ $ Let $\;\rm n\in\mathbb N.\;$ Then $\;\rm r = \sqrt{n}\;$ is integral if rational.

Proof $\ $ Consider the set $\rm D$ of all the possible denominators $\rm d$ for $\rm r, \;$ i.e. $\;\rm D = \{\, d\in\mathbb Z \;:\: dr \in \mathbb Z\,\}$. Note $\rm D$ is closed under subtraction: $\rm\, d,e \in D\, \Rightarrow\, dr,\,er\in\mathbb Z \,\Rightarrow\, (d-e)\:r = dr - er \in\mathbb Z.\;$ Further $\rm d\in D \,\Rightarrow\, dr\in D\,$ since $\rm\, (dr)r = dn\in\mathbb Z \;$ by $\;\rm r^2 = n\in\mathbb Z.\;$ Therefore, invoking the Lemma below, with $\rm d $ the least positive element in $\rm D,$ we infer that $\;\rm d\,|\,dr \;$ in $\mathbb Z,\;$ i.e. $\rm\ r = (dr)/d \in\mathbb Z.\quad$ QED

Lemma $\ $ Suppose $\;\rm D\subset\mathbb Z \;$ is closed under subtraction and that $\rm D$ contains a nonzero element.
Then $\rm D \:$ has a positive element and the least positive element of $\rm D$ divides every element of $\rm D\:$.

Proof $\rm\,\ \ 0 \ne d\in D \,\Rightarrow\, d-d = 0\in D\,\Rightarrow\, 0-d = -d\in D.\, $ Hence $\rm D$ contains a positive element. Let $\rm d$ be the least positive element in $\rm D$. Since $\rm\: d\,|\,n \!\iff\! d\,|\,{-}n,\,$ if $\rm\, c\in D$ is not divisible by $\rm d$ then we may assume that $\rm c$ is positive, and the least such element. But $\rm\, c-d\,$ is a positive element of $\rm D$ not divisible by $\rm d$ and smaller than $\rm c$, contra leastness of $\rm c$. So $\rm d$ divides every element of $\rm D.\ $ QED

Remark $ $ The theorem's proof exploits the fact that the denominator ideal $\rm D$ has the special property that it is closed under multiplication by $\rm\: r\:.\ $ The fundamental role that this property plays becomes clearer when one learns about Dedekind's notion of a conductor ideal. Employing such yields a trivial one-line proof of the generalization that a Dedekind domain is integrally closed since conductor ideals are invertible so cancellable. This viewpoint serves to generalize and unify all of the ad-hoc proofs of this class of results - esp. those proofs that proceed essentially by descent on denominators. This conductor-based structural viewpoint is not as well known as it should be - e.g. even some famous number theorists have overlooked this. See my post here for further details.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wow, this looks like heavy stuff :) $\endgroup$ – dietervdf Sep 4 '14 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ @dietervdf $ $ Both proofs can be understood by a bright high-school student. But the generalizations mentioned in the remark require knowledge of basic abstract algebra (esp. ideals). $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Sep 4 '14 at 19:52

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.