Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 e 3 is irrational. [12] More generally, e q is irrational for any non-zero rational q. [13]
The same formula applies to octonions, with a zero real part and a norm equal to 1. These formulas are a direct generalization of Euler's identity, since i {\displaystyle i} and − i {\displaystyle -i} are the only complex numbers with a zero real part and a norm (absolute value) equal to 1.
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 ...
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy.There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or ...
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.
For example, the square root of 2 is an irrational number, but it is not a transcendental number as it is a root of the polynomial equation x 2 − 2 = 0. The golden ratio (denoted or ) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x 2 − x − 1 = 0.
In a zero-sum situation, one side wins only because the other loses. Therefore, if you have zero-sum bias, you see most (all?) situations as a competition. And in case that definition isn’t ...
Here is a proof by contradiction that log 2 3 is irrational (log 2 3 ≈ 1.58 > 0). Assume log 2 3 is rational. For some positive integers m and n , we have