I apologize if this has been asked already. I am aware of proofs that m√D is either integer or irrational for m,D∈N, all of which that I recall and understand make use of the unique prime-factorization theorem (perfect example here; this one may not but I'm not familiar with the method). When I was young, I always disliked proofs that made use of unique prime factorization (for some reason) such as the standard proof of the irrationality of √2. However, there are other ways of proving √D irrational, my personal favourite being the following proof (I have no idea where I got this from):
Let D be a non-square integer. Suppose √D is irrational and let q be the smallest integer such that q√D is integer, then for some n∈N we have:
$$n^2$$\therefore\;\;n<\sqrt{D} ∴0<√D−n<1
$$\therefore\;\;0But q√D−qn is an integer and so (q√D−qn)√D=qD−qn√D is also an integer; thus q√D−qn is an integer that contradicts minimality of q. Thus we have a contradiction and hence √D is irrational.
I like this proof since it uses only basic algebra and does not invoke 'heavy' theorems (unless I'm missing something). I have wondered whether there is a proof of irrationality of m√D that is spiritually related to this proof, i.e. one that just uses basic algebra without having to invoke unique prime factorization or other similar results of basic number theory, but I don't see a simple way of extending this proof.
Thus I have the following question: Does anyone know a simple proof of the irrationality of m√D for m∈N and D≠km for any k∈N that does not rely on the unique prime-factorization theorem (or other similarly strong theorems), and preferably just uses basic algebra like the above proof for m=2?
Answer
I don't know if this is what is expected, anyway ...
Consider the equation xm−D=0 (with D∈N not a perfect m−th power and m≥2).
If p/q is a rational root of this equation, with (p,q)∈Z×N⋆ and gcd(p,q)=1,
then (by RRT) q∣1, so that p/q is an integer, which is excluded.
Hence m√D∉Q∖Z.
No comments:
Post a Comment