Template:Short description Template:E (mathematical constant)

The number e was introduced by Jacob Bernoulli in 1683. More than half a century later, Euler, who had been a student of Jacob's younger brother Johann, proved that e is irrational; that is, that it cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.

Euler's proofEdit

Euler wrote the first proof of the fact that e is irrational in 1737 (but the text was only published seven years later).<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> He computed the representation of e as a simple continued fraction, which is

<math>e = [2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, 1, 1, \ldots, 2n, 1, 1, \ldots]. </math>

Since this continued fraction is infinite and every rational number has a terminating continued fraction, e is irrational. A short proof of the previous equality is known.<ref>A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Since the simple continued fraction of e is not periodic, this also proves that e is not a root of a quadratic polynomial with rational coefficients; in particular, e2 is irrational.

Fourier's proofEdit

The most well-known proof is Joseph Fourier's proof by contradiction,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> which is based upon the equality

<math>e = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}.</math>

Initially e is assumed to be a rational number of the form Template:Sfrac. The idea is to then analyze the scaled-up difference (here denoted x) between the series representation of e and its strictly smaller Template:Nowrap partial sum, which approximates the limiting value e. By choosing the scale factor to be the factorial of b, the fraction Template:Sfrac and the Template:Nowrap partial sum are turned into integers, hence x must be a positive integer. However, the fast convergence of the series representation implies that x is still strictly smaller than 1. From this contradiction we deduce that e is irrational.

Now for the details. If e is a rational number, there exist positive integers a and b such that Template:Nowrap. Define the number

<math>x = b!\left(e - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right).</math>

Use the assumption that e = Template:Sfrac to obtain

<math>x = b!\left (\frac{a}{b} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = a(b - 1)! - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{b!}{n!}.</math>

The first term is an integer, and every fraction in the sum is actually an integer because Template:Nowrap for each term. Therefore, under the assumption that e is rational, x is an integer.

We now prove that Template:Nowrap. First, to prove that x is strictly positive, we insert the above series representation of e into the definition of x and obtain

<math>x = b!\left(\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} - \sum_{n = 0}^{b} \frac{1}{n!}\right) = \sum_{n = b+1}^{\infty} \frac{b!}{n!}>0,</math>

because all the terms are strictly positive.

We now prove that Template:Nowrap. For all terms with Template:Nowrap we have the upper estimate

<math>\frac{b!}{n!} =\frac1{(b + 1)(b + 2) \cdots \big(b + (n - b)\big)} \le \frac1{(b + 1)^{n-b}}.</math>

This inequality is strict for every Template:Nowrap. Changing the index of summation to Template:Nowrap and using the formula for the infinite geometric series, we obtain

<math>x =\sum_{n = b + 1}^\infty \frac{b!}{n!}

< \sum_{n=b+1}^\infty \frac1{(b + 1)^{n-b}} =\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac1{(b + 1)^k} =\frac{1}{b+1} \left (\frac1{1 - \frac1{b + 1}}\right) = \frac{1}{b} \le 1.</math>

And therefore <math>x<1.</math>

Since there is no integer strictly between 0 and 1, we have reached a contradiction, and so e is irrational, Q.E.D.

Alternative proofsEdit

Another proof<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> can be obtained from the previous one by noting that

<math>(b + 1)x =

1 + \frac1{b + 2} + \frac1{(b + 2)(b + 3)} + \cdots < 1 + \frac1{b + 1} + \frac1{(b + 1)(b + 2)} + \cdots = 1 + x,</math>

and this inequality is equivalent to the assertion that bx < 1. This is impossible, of course, since b and x are positive integers.

Still another proof<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Apostol, T. (1974). Mathematical analysis (2nd ed., Addison-Wesley series in mathematics). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.</ref> can be obtained from the fact that

<math>\frac{1}{e} = e^{-1} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n}{n!}.</math>

Define <math>s_n</math> as follows:

<math>s_n = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}.</math>

Then

<math>e^{-1} - s_{2n-1} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!} - \sum_{k=0}^{2n-1} \frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!} < \frac{1}{(2n)!},</math>

which implies

<math>0 < (2n - 1)! \left(e^{-1} - s_{2n-1}\right) < \frac{1}{2n} \le \frac{1}{2}</math>

for any positive integer <math>n</math>.

Note that <math>(2n - 1)!s_{2n-1}</math> is always an integer. Assume that <math>e^{-1}</math> is rational, so <math>e^{-1} = p/q,</math> where <math>p, q</math> are co-prime, and <math>q \neq 0.</math> It is possible to appropriately choose <math>n</math> so that <math>(2n - 1)!e^{-1}</math> is an integer, i.e. <math>n \geq (q + 1)/2.</math> Hence, for this choice, the difference between <math>(2n - 1)!e^{-1}</math> and <math>(2n - 1)!s_{2n-1}</math> would be an integer. But from the above inequality, that is not possible. So, <math>e^{-1}</math> is irrational. This means that <math>e</math> is irrational.

GeneralizationsEdit

In 1840, Liouville published a proof of the fact that e2 is irrational<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> followed by a proof that e2 is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> This last fact implies that e4 is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of e. In 1891, Hurwitz explained how it is possible to prove along the same line of ideas that e is not a root of a third-degree polynomial with rational coefficients, which implies that e3 is irrational.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> More generally, eq is irrational for any non-zero rational q.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Charles Hermite further proved that e is a transcendental number, in 1873, which means that is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, as is Template:Math for any non-zero algebraic α.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

<references/>