Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Logarex system Darmstadt slide rule with 7 and 6 on A and B scales, and square roots of 6 and of 7 on C and D scales, which can be read as slightly less than 2.45 and somewhat more than 2.64, respectively. The square root of 7 is the positive real number that, when multiplied by itself, gives the prime number 7.
A more general proof shows that the mth root of an integer N is irrational, unless N is the mth power of an integer n. [7] That is, it is impossible to express the mth root of an integer N as the ratio a ⁄ b of two integers a and b, that share no common prime factor, except in cases in which b = 1.
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 φ {\displaystyle \varphi } or ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } ) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x 2 − ...
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]
The base of the left side is irrational and the right side is rational, so one must prove that the exponent on the left side, , is irrational. This is so because, by the formula relating logarithms with different bases,
In the 1760s, Johann Heinrich Lambert was the first to prove that the number π is irrational, meaning it cannot be expressed as a fraction /, where and are both integers. In the 19th century, Charles Hermite found a proof that requires no prerequisite knowledge beyond basic calculus .
In proof by mathematical induction, a single "base case" is proved, and an "induction rule" is proved that establishes that any arbitrary case implies the next case. Since in principle the induction rule can be applied repeatedly (starting from the proved base case), it follows that all (usually infinitely many) cases are provable. [ 15 ]
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 ...