The Irrationality of Certain Numbers

Author(s): Peter A. Lindstrom

Source: The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 1970), pp. 30-31
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3027111
Accessed: 00/00/0000 00:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Mathematical Association of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

First-Year Transfer

The Irrationality
of Certain
Numbers
PeterA. Lindstrom*
PeterA. Lindstromis AssistantProfessor
of Mathematicsat Genesee Community
Collegein Batavia,N. Y. He hasalso taught
mathematicsat Union College and at
SUNY at Buffalo,at thelatterof whichhe
is a candidatefor an Ed.D. degree in
Mathematics/Education.

of X/2
A commonproofof theirrationality
is an indirectproof.It is assumedthat X2
is obtained.
is rationaland a contradiction
The basic idea of this proofcan be exof many
tendedto show the irrationality
suchas VI9, ! 231525,and
othernumbers

+ \Y).Thethreetheorems
beloware

(I

to establishtheseresults.
sufficient

Theorem1. If p is any primenumberand

then Xpjis irrational.
n > 1 is anyinteger,
Proof.We assumeotherwiseand obtaina
we assumethat
contradiction.
Specifically,
primepositiveintegers
thereexistrelatively
a andb suchthat

Then,(1)
an

and

bn

and

b-1 . p =a

Therefore,
blan. Since(a,b) = 1, (an,b)= 1.
Togetherthese give b = 1 (the common
divisor,b, of an and b dividestheg.c.d.of
whichis 1).
thesenumbers,
Then(1) becomes
p = an

which contradictsthe fact that p is a

irrational.
prime.Hence XYpis
Takingp = 2, n = 2 givestheirrationalityof \/T.For n = 5, p = 19,thistheorem

establishes
that a~"T9
isirrational.

Theorem2. If m andn > 1 areanypositive

andifm is notthenthpowerofan
integers
thenVY-isirrational.
integer,
Proof.Let
m=
*The author wishes to thank Editor Jack E.
Forbes forhis valuable suggestions.

30

p2a2 .p. kpar

be theuniqueprimepowerfactorization
of
m providedby the Fundamental
Theorem
of Arithmetic.
Then,m is thenthpowerof

an integer
ifandonlyifthereexistintegers

ki,i= 1, 2, ... .r suchthat

ai =ki

n,

for 1?i

+.. .+k n-1 x+k n =0

xn+kxn-1
1
is irrational.

r.

=
(In thiscase / p-k1
... Prkr,an integer.)
Since m is not the nth power of an
integerthereexistsat least one integerj,
with1 < j < r suchthat
a, k. *n

Proof.We need only showthatthisequarational

tion cannot have a nonintegral
numberas a root.Supposee/f,withe andf
is a root.
relatively
primeintegers,
Then,(3)

+ k (e)
+ **+ kn
++k =0
forall integers
k..
I
Underthisconditionon m, we assume and
thereexistrelatively
primepositiveintegers
en + k en-if + ...+ kkef n + kfn =0
c andd suchthat
)

=XPlal **..Pa... Par=

Then,(2)
In = pial . .. la .~. . par = n
and
dn-1 . Pal

p aj

*.parP

Cd

Hence,dicn. This,togetherwith(c,d) = 1
whichimpliesthat(Chd) = 1, givesd = 1.
Therefore,
(2) becomes

m=n
and m is the nthpowerof the integerc.
the assumednatureof m
This contradicts
thetheoestablishes
and thiscontradiction
rem.
It is easy to see thatTheorem1 is a
specialcase of Theorem2 sinceno primep
is the nth power of an integer.Furthermore,sincem = 231525 = 33 * 52 * 73 is
not thethirdpowerofanyinteger
(2 # k 3 forall integers
k), thecuberoot
12311525
is irrational.

or
en= -(ken-

+k

n-).
~~n

n-iefn-2+kkf

Hencejlen. Also,as before,(ef) = 1 means

that(en,f)= 1.
Together,these givef = 1 so e/fis an
as wasto be shown.
integer,
Since mis a rootof
x n _ m=0
and sinceNymis nonintegral
form notthe
nth power of an integer(the hypothesisofTheorem2), it followsfromTheorem
3 thatundertheseconditions-YHis irrational. Thus Theorem2 (and hence also
Theorem1) is a specialcase of Theorem3.
since
Furthermore,
(yS+,/)2=12+2

is not an integer(2\/3?is not an integer),

(VH+ \j7) isnotaninteger.

However,
(VI

+ \/7)is a rootof
x4-

Theorem 3. If ki, i = 1, 2,..., n are

realrootof
theneverynonintegral
integers,

24X2 + 4 =0.

Hence,by Theorem3, (V/ + \/7) is

irrational.

31