|
Although the mathematical constant known as π (pi) has been studied since ancient times, and so has the concept of irrational 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 to Ivan Niven, is widely known. A somewhat earlier similar proof is by Mary Cartwright. She set it as an examination problem but did not publish it. Cartwright's proof is reproduced in Jeffreys, in an appendix.
[edit] Niven's proofThe proof uses the characterization of π as the smallest positive zero of the sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds by reductio 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 and mathematical 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 x0, x1, ..., xn − 1 are zero and the degree of the polynomial f is at most 2n, we have f (j)(0) = 0 for j < n and j > 2n. Furthermore, Since j ≥ n, the fraction of the two factorials is an integer. The same holds for the binomial coefficient, as can be seen from its combinatorical interpretation or Pascal's triangle. Hence f and every derivative of f at 0 is an integer and so is F(0). Claim 3: Proof: Since f (2n + 2) is the zero polynomial, we have The derivatives of the sine and cosine function are given by (sin x)' = cos x and (cos x)' = −sin x, hence the product 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). [edit] Analysis of Niven's proofThe 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 2n + 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 (2n + 2) is the zero polynomial. Claims 1 and 2 show that the remaining sum is an integer. [edit] Cartwright's proofJeffreys, page 268, says:
Consider the integrals Two integrations by parts give the recurrence relation If then this becomes
Also Hence for all n,
where Pn, Qn are polynomials in α of degree ≤ 2n, 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 < In < 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. [edit] References
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo |