English | Español

Try our Free Online Math Solver!

Online Math Solver












Please use this form if you would like
to have this math solver on your website,
free of charge.


Sqrt(2) is Irrational

The standard proof that is irrational, which appears both in Rudin and on
Wikipedia, is (or can be written as) a reductio ad absurdum (RAA): if is rational
then it cannot be expressed as a reduced form ( with all common factors divided out);
since any actual rational number can be expressed in reduced form, it must be
that is not rational. More succinctly: if is rational then it both has and does not
have a reduced form representation.

Below, I give a version of the standard proof. My version is somewhat longer
than the usual versions because I take care to spell out the RAA logic . I also
give a second proof, a contraposition, that takes the central idea, thatcannot
be expressed in reduced form, and presents it in a way that does not require first
assuming that is rational. Both proofs are correct. Which proof you prefer is
a matter of taste. I prefer the second, less standard version; the argument
seems more straightforward to me, despite the fact that it relies on a construction
that may at first seem abstract.

Theorem 1. is not rational.

Proof. I give two proofs , the first is a form of reductio ad absurdum, the second a
1. First Proof. Suppose that

Thencan be expressed as a ratio of natural numbers. Consider any such
representation: a, b
N such that = a/b. Therefore a2 = 2b2. In particular,
 a2 is even. It is a theorem of number theory that this implies that a must
also be even, hence there is a
N such that Hence , which
implies . The same argument, now applied to b, gives a
N such
that b = 2, hence 2 or

Since = a/2 and = b/2, this implies that a=b is not in reduced form. Since
a/b was an arbitrary ratio representation of, this implies that there is no
ratio representation of in reduced form.

On the other hand, it is a theorem of number theory that any ratio of natural
numbers can be put into reduced form.

Therefore, the hypothesis that implies that both can and cannot
be represented as a reduced form ratio of natural numbers. The conclusion
thatfollows by RAA.

2. Consider any set with the following properties .
(a) There is an a, b
S such that
(b) If p, q
S and p2 = 2q then there is a S such that p = 2.

This definition is not vacuous. For example, take S = R+.

Consider any a, b
S such that = a/b. Then a, b 0. Since 2b2 = a2, the
construction of S implies that there is an a1
S such that a = 2a1. Hence
, or b2 = 2a2. Again by construction of S, there is a b1
S such
that b = 2b1, hence or

Continuing in this way yields sequences {at },  { bt } such that for all t, at /  bt  =
 and for t large enough, at, bt < 1. Since at, bt
0, this implies at, bt N.
Thus S

Since S was arbitrary, this shows that N does not satisfy the two criteria
above: it fails either the first or the second (or both). It is a basic result in
number theory that N satisfies the second condition (this was already invoked
in the previous proof ). Therefore it follows that N violates the first, which is
equivalent to saying that

Remark 1. Essentially the same argument shows that for any natural number n,
either n is the square of another natural number or
is irrational.

Prev Next