My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By romsek
  • 1 Post By skipjack
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
April 7th, 2017, 09:40 AM   #1
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Used to be Earth

Posts: 64
Thanks: 14

Is This a Correct Proof?

Hello,

Is the below proof attempt correct?

--

Let m, n and q be natural numbers, but q is not a perfect square, and m and n have no common divisors.

Let's assume m/n=√q. Then, m²/n²=q.

So, m² is divisible by n², which implies m is divisible by n. But this is impossible since m and n have no common divisors.

Therefore, m/n≠√q,

which shows that the √ of an integer is either another integer or irrational.

--

Regards
sKebess is offline  
 
April 7th, 2017, 04:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
romsek's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Southern California, USA

Posts: 1,497
Thanks: 755

looks basically like the standard proof that $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational so it should be fine.
Thanks from sKebess
romsek is online now  
April 7th, 2017, 11:58 PM   #3
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 18,053
Thanks: 1395

Quote:
Originally Posted by sKebess View Post
m² is divisible by n², which implies m is divisible by n.
Do you know why?
Thanks from sKebess
skipjack is online now  
April 8th, 2017, 11:55 AM   #4
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Used to be Earth

Posts: 64
Thanks: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
Do you know why?
Let $\displaystyle m=p_1p_2...p_n$, where $\displaystyle p_i$ is a prime factor of m. Then $\displaystyle m^2=p_1^2p_2^2...p_n^2$.

The same argument holds for $\displaystyle n$.

If m² is divisible by n² then they must share at least one squared prime factors, since we would then have m²=qn², where q is an integer.

The $\displaystyle \sqrt{ }$ of this(these) squared common prime factor(s) must also be shared by m and n, because of the first argument.

etc...

Last edited by sKebess; April 8th, 2017 at 11:58 AM.
sKebess is offline  
April 8th, 2017, 12:17 PM   #5
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Used to be Earth

Posts: 64
Thanks: 14

Just realized there's a simpler way to show this.

$\displaystyle m=q\times p_1p_2...p_n$ $\displaystyle \leftrightarrow$ $\displaystyle m^2=q^2\times p_1^2p_2^2...p_n^2$

where $\displaystyle p_i$ is a prime factor of $\displaystyle m$, and $\displaystyle q$ an integer.

$\displaystyle n=p_1p_2...p_n$ $\displaystyle \leftrightarrow$ $\displaystyle n^2=p_1^2p_2^2...p_n^2$.

So

$\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{n^2}=\frac{q^2\times p_1^2p_2^2...p_n^2}{p_1^2p_2^2...p_n^2}=q^2$ $\displaystyle \leftrightarrow$ $\displaystyle \frac{m}{n}=\frac{q\times p_1p_2...p_n}{p_1p_2...p_n}=q$

Last edited by sKebess; April 8th, 2017 at 12:24 PM.
sKebess is offline  
April 8th, 2017, 12:34 PM   #6
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Used to be Earth

Posts: 64
Thanks: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by romsek View Post
looks basically like the standard proof that $\displaystyle \sqrt2$ is irrational so it should be fine.
Yes, what I found strange is the proof for $\displaystyle \sqrt2$ given in my textbook is 2, 3 times longer than this.
I was then asked to prove $\displaystyle \sqrt5$ was irrational, but what's the point really if the general proof is so simple...? which is why I wasn't sure whether I missed something or not.

Last edited by sKebess; April 8th, 2017 at 12:41 PM.
sKebess is offline  
April 8th, 2017, 01:13 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
romsek's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Southern California, USA

Posts: 1,497
Thanks: 755

Quote:
Originally Posted by sKebess View Post
but what's the point really if the general proof is so simple...? which is why I wasn't sure whether I missed something or not.
historical reasons, that's all

most likely $\sqrt{2}$ being the hypotenuse of the simplest isosceles right triangle was the first irrational number the ancients came across and so was of particular interest.
romsek is online now  
April 8th, 2017, 01:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 803
Thanks: 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by romsek View Post
historical reasons, that's all

most likely $\sqrt{2}$ being the hypotenuse of the simplest isosceles right triangle was the first irrational number the ancients came across and so was of particular interest.
This is exactly correct.

Greek geometry was initially based upon the premise that there existed some unit of length that made every linear measurement in a rectilinear figure a whole number of units. Discovering that something as simple as a right isosceles triangle disproved that premise represented a logical crisis.

Furthermore, I suspect the proof that the square root of 2 was irrational was older than the proof that the factorization of a number into powers of primes is unique. You do not need any theorem about unique factorization to show irrationality.
JeffM1 is offline  
April 9th, 2017, 12:39 AM   #9
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 18,053
Thanks: 1395

Although the general result is true, its proof ultimately relies on the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which was established by C. F. Gauss by 1801, but √2 was proved to be irrational a long time before that.
skipjack is online now  
April 9th, 2017, 08:27 AM   #10
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Used to be Earth

Posts: 64
Thanks: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
Although the general result is true, its proof ultimately relies on the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which was established by C. F. Gauss by 1801, but √2 was proved to be irrational a long time before that.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't we arrive at the same conclusion with the following:

If m is divisible by n, then we have
m/n=k (by the definition of divisibility) <=> m²/n²=k²

So, m² is also divisible by n², since k² is an integer.

Since each step was equivalent to the previous one doesn't this show that m² is divisible by n² iff m is divisible n?

The fundamental theorem of arithmetic was not needed here, only the definition of divisibility was needed. I'd think even Pythagoras knew of this.

What did I miss?
sKebess is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
correct, proof



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multivariable Chain rule proof : is it correct? Magnitude Calculus 3 February 16th, 2017 10:28 AM
Is my proof correct? 123qwerty Calculus 4 May 10th, 2016 08:00 AM
correct? nappysnake Calculus 7 December 3rd, 2011 03:45 PM
Pick the correct number from the correct group balste Advanced Statistics 2 September 3rd, 2009 11:20 AM
Is my proof correct? Gunuu Applied Math 5 September 21st, 2008 07:17 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.