Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 1840, Liouville published a proof of the fact that e 2 is irrational [10] followed by a proof that e 2 is not a root of a second-degree polynomial with rational coefficients. [11] This last fact implies that e 4 is irrational. His proofs are similar to Fourier's proof of the irrationality of e.
It can be proven that the following forms all sum to the same constant: = = + = = = = + = = = where σ 0 (n) = d(n) is the divisor function, a multiplicative function that equals the number of positive divisors of the number n.
One of the widely used types of impossibility proof is proof by contradiction.In this type of proof, it is shown that if a proposition, such as a solution to a particular class of equations, is assumed to hold, then via deduction two mutually contradictory things can be shown to hold, such as a number being both even and odd or both negative and positive.
Since is for r = 1 and =, this can be interpreted as a fact about the number −1 on the complex plane: its distance from the origin is 1, and its angle from the positive x-axis is radians. Additionally, when any complex number z is multiplied by e i θ {\displaystyle e^{i\theta }} , it has the effect of rotating z {\displaystyle z ...
In other words, the n th digit of this number is 1 only if n is one of 1! = 1, 2! = 2, 3! = 6, 4! = 24, etc. Liouville showed that this number belongs to a class of transcendental numbers that can be more closely approximated by rational numbers than can any irrational algebraic number, and this class of numbers is called the Liouville numbers ...
The original proof is based on the Taylor series expansions of the exponential function e z (where z is a complex number) and of sin x and cos x for real numbers x . In fact, the same proof shows that Euler's formula is even valid for all complex numbers x .
because | | is a positive integer and is thus not lower than 1. Thus the accuracy of the approximation is bad relative to irrational numbers (see next sections). It may be remarked that the preceding proof uses a variant of the pigeonhole principle: a non-negative integer that is not 0 is not smaller than 1. This apparently trivial remark is ...
A more recent proof by Wadim Zudilin is more reminiscent of Apéry's original proof, [6] and also has similarities to a fourth proof by Yuri Nesterenko. [7] These later proofs again derive a contradiction from the assumption that ζ ( 3 ) {\displaystyle \zeta (3)} is rational by constructing sequences that tend to zero but are bounded below by ...