2.5.4 · D4Number Theory (Intermediate)

Exercises — Irrational numbers — √2, π, e — proof that √2 is irrational

2,178 words10 min readBack to topic

Before we start, one picture to keep in your head the whole time — the machine at the heart of every problem below.

Figure — Irrational numbers — √2, π, e — proof that √2 is irrational

Level 1 — Recognition

Goal: can you spot what the proof is saying, without doing new algebra?

Problem 1.1

Which of these numbers is irrational?

Recall Solution 1.1

A number is rational if it can be written as one integer over another.

  • — already a fraction → rational.
  • (a repeating decimal is always rational, see Decimal Expansions) → rational.
  • rational.
  • rational.
  • never terminates, never repeats → irrational.

Answer: only .

Problem 1.2

In the classic proof we begin: "Assume in lowest terms." Which one fact does lowest terms guarantee that the proof later destroys?

Recall Solution 1.2

It guarantees and share no common factor. The proof later shows both are even (a common factor of ), which contradicts exactly this. That collision is the whole point.


Level 2 — Application

Goal: run the machinery on numbers and small variations.

Problem 2.1

Someone claims . Show this fails by squaring, and say which line of the proof this corresponds to.

Recall Solution 2.1

Square both sides: , i.e. . False. This is the numerical echo of Step 3 of the parent proof (): here should equal , and it doesn't. A specific fraction dies instantly; the general proof kills all of them at once.

Problem 2.2

Prove: if is even, then is even. (This is the engine step used twice in the parent proof.)

Recall Solution 2.2

Use Proof by Contradiction. Suppose is odd. Then for some integer . Square it: That is "" — an odd number. So an odd gives an odd . Contrapositive: if is even, cannot be odd, so is even.

Problem 2.3

Fill the gap: after we find and substitute into , we get . Finish to reach the contradiction.

Recall Solution 2.3

Divide both sides by : . So is even, hence (by Problem 2.2) is even. Now and are both even → both divisible by , contradicting lowest terms.


Level 3 — Analysis

Goal: figure out why the proof works, and where it stops working.

Problem 3.1

Show is irrational, adapting the parent proof. State clearly the one fact about you rely on.

Recall Solution 3.1

Assume in lowest terms. Square: , so . Key fact used: is prime, so if then . (An analogue of the even/odd step: a prime dividing a square must divide the base — see Prime Factorization.) Then . Substitute: . So . Both divisible by → common factor → contradicts . So is irrational.

Problem 3.2

The parent proof for produces no contradiction. Explain, using Prime Factorization, the deep reason fails but succeeds.

Recall Solution 3.2

Look at the equation where is the number under the root. Every square number has every prime appearing an even number of times in its factorization (because you doubled each exponent by squaring).

  • For : . The left side has the prime an even number of times; the right side has it an odd number of times ( once, times the even count inside ). Even odd → impossible → contradiction. Good.
  • For : . Now contributes an even count of 's, so both sides can match. works, giving no contradiction.

Rule: is irrational is not a perfect square, because only then does some prime end up on the two sides an odd-versus-even number of times.

Problem 3.3

Is irrational? Prove it.

Recall Solution 3.3

. Since is irrational and is a nonzero rational, is irrational. (If were rational, dividing by would make rational — contradiction.) Or directly: is not a perfect square (the prime appears an odd number of times), so by the rule in 3.2, is irrational.


Level 4 — Synthesis

Goal: combine the proof with other ideas.

Problem 4.1

Scale the unit-square picture: if in lowest terms, a square of side has diagonal , both integers. Use the Pythagorean Theorem to re-derive the contradiction geometrically.

Figure — Irrational numbers — √2, π, e — proof that √2 is irrational
Recall Solution 4.1

For a square of side , the diagonal satisfies (Pythagoras) We assumed the diagonal is the integer , so — exactly the parent equation. Running the parity argument: even even both even common factor , contradicting lowest terms. Geometric meaning: you can never build a square whose side and diagonal are both whole numbers with no shared unit — the diagonal and side are incommensurable. This is precisely what shattered the Greek belief that all lengths are ratios.

Problem 4.2

Prove that is irrational the sum is irrational.

Recall Solution 4.2

Suppose were rational, call it . Then . The difference of two rationals is rational, so would be rational — contradicting what we proved. Hence is irrational. (Same trick shows is irrational for any rationals , .)

Problem 4.3

Is algebraic or transcendental? Give the polynomial that settles it.

Recall Solution 4.3

is a root of , a polynomial with integer coefficients. By definition it is algebraic (see Algebraic vs Transcendental Numbers). So is irrational and algebraic — irrationality and transcendence are different questions. ( and are the stronger case: irrational and transcendental.)


Level 5 — Mastery

Goal: the infinite-descent view and a fully self-standing proof.

Problem 5.1

Rephrase the contradiction as infinite descent: from one even/even pair, produce a strictly smaller pair, and explain why that alone finishes the proof — no "lowest terms" assumption needed.

Figure — Irrational numbers — √2, π, e — proof that √2 is irrational
Recall Solution 5.1

Start with any positive integers (not assuming lowest terms) satisfying . The parity argument gives and . Substituting : And with : — cleaner to say it plainly: the pair also satisfies , and , . So any solution begets a strictly smaller solution. Repeat and you get an infinite strictly-decreasing chain of positive integers which is impossible — positive integers cannot decrease forever (there is no positive integer below that is still a positive integer). Therefore no positive-integer solution to exists, so is not a ratio of integers. This version needs no GCD assumption at all: the descent itself is the contradiction.

Problem 5.2

Give the shortest complete proof using prime factorization / counting factors of 2.

Recall Solution 5.2

Suppose for positive integers . Count how many times the prime divides each side.

  • Any integer contains the prime some number of times, say ; then contains it times — an even number.
  • So has an even number of factors of , and has an even number too.
  • Then has an odd number of factors of (one extra out front).
  • But (even count) (odd count) forces even odd — impossible.

Hence no such exist and is irrational. This is the same "odd exponent" idea from Problem 3.2, stated as a one-line count.

Problem 5.3

— rational or irrational? Prove it, reusing the counting idea.

Recall Solution 5.3

Suppose with positive integers . By definition of logarithm, , so raising both sides to the : The left side is a power of the prime (only 's in its factorization); the right side is a power of the prime (only 's). By unique Prime Factorization, the only way is , but . Contradiction. So is irrational.


Recall One-line summary to test yourself

Why is irrational exactly when is not a perfect square? ::: Because forces some prime of to appear an odd number of times on one side and an even number on the other — impossible unless is itself a perfect square (all exponents even).


Connections

Proof by Contradiction · Greatest Common Divisor (GCD) · Pythagorean Theorem · Rational Numbers · Real Number Line · Decimal Expansions · Prime Factorization · Algebraic vs Transcendental Numbers