- Proof that π is irrational
Although the
mathematical constant known as π (pi) has been studied since ancient times, and so has the concept ofirrational number , it was not until the 18th century that π was proved to be irrational.In the 20th century, proofs were found that require no prerequisite knowledge beyond
integral calculus . One of those, due toIvan Niven , is widely known. A somewhat earlier similar proof is byMary Cartwright . She set it as an examination problem but did not publish it. Cartwright's proof is reproduced in "Jeffreys", in an appendix.Niven's proof
The proof uses the characterization of π as the smallest positive zero of the
sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds byreductio ad absurdum .Preparation: Suppose that π is rational, i.e. π = "a" / "b" for some integers "a" and "b" ≠ 0, which may be taken
without loss of generality to be positive. Given any positive integer "n", we define the polynomial function:
and denote by
:
the alternating sum of "f" and its first "n" even derivatives.
Claim 1: "F"(0) = "F"(π)
Proof: Since
:
the
chain rule andmathematical induction imply:
for all the derivatives, in particular
:
for "j" = 1, 2, ...,"n" and Claim 1 follows from the definition of "F".
Claim 2: "F"(0) is an integer.
Proof:Using the
binomial formula to expand ("a" – "bx")"n" and the index transformation "j" = "k" + "n", we get the representation:
Since the coefficients of "x"0, "x"1, ..., "x""n" − 1 are zero and the degree of the polynomial "f" is at most 2"n", we have "f" ("j")(0) = 0 for "j" < "n" and "j" > 2"n". Furthermore,
:
Since "j" ≥ "n", the fraction of the two
factorial s is an integer. The same holds for thebinomial coefficient , as can be seen from its combinatorical interpretation orPascal's triangle . Hence "f" and every derivative of "f" at 0 is an integer and so is "F"(0).Claim 3::
Proof:Since "f" (2"n" + 2) is the
zero polynomial , we have:
The derivatives of the
sine andcosine function are given by (sin "x")' = cos "x" and (cos "x")' = −sin "x", hence theproduct rule implies:
By the
fundamental theorem of calculus :
Since sin 0 = sin π = 0 and cos 0 = –cos π = 1 (here we use the abovementioned characterization of π as a zero of the sine function), Claim 3 follows from Claim 1.
Conclusion: Since "f"("x") > 0 and sin "x" > 0 for 0 < "x" < π (because π is the "smallest" positive zero of the sine function), Claims 2 and 3 show that "F"(0) is a "positive" integer. Since
:
and 0 ≤ sin "x" ≤ 1 for 0 ≤ "x" ≤ π, we have
:
which is smaller than 1 for large "n", hence "F"(0) < 1 by Claim 3 for these "n". This is impossible for the positive integer "F"(0).
Analysis of Niven's proof
The above proof is a polished version, which is kept as simple as possible concerning the prerequisites, of an analysis of the formula
:
which is obtained by 2"n" + 2 partial integrations. Claim 3 essentially establishes this formula, where the use of "F" hides the iterated partial integrations. The last integral vanishes because "f" (2"n" + 2) is the zero polynomial. Claims 1 and 2 show that the remaining sum is an integer.
Cartwright's proof
Jeffreys, page 268, says:
The following was set as an example in the Mathematics Preliminary Examination at Cambridge in 1945 by Dame
Mary Cartwright , but she has not traced its origin.Consider the integrals
:
Two integrations by parts give the
recurrence relation :
If
:
then this becomes
:
Also
:
Hence for all "n",
:
where "P""n", "Q""n" are
polynomial s in "α" of degree ≤ 2"n", and with integral coefficients depending on "n".Take "α" = (1/2)"π", and suppose if possible that
:
where "a" and "b" are integers. Then
:
The right side is an integer. But 0 < "I""n" < 2 since
:
and
:
Hence for sufficiently large "n"
:
that is, we could find an integer between 0 and 1. That is the contradiction that follows from the assumption that "π" is rational.
References
*
Ivan Niven , "A simple proof that π is irrational", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 53, No. 6, p. 509, (1947) [http://www.ams.org/bull/1947-53-06/S0002-9904-1947-08821-2/S0002-9904-1947-08821-2.pdf Online]
*Harold Jeffreys , "Scientific Inference", 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1973, page 268.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.