Pi is irrational

https://arbital.com/p/pi_is_irrational

by Patrick Stevens Jul 3 2016 updated Jul 21 2016

The number pi is famously not rational, in spite of joking attempts at legislation to fix its value at 3 or 22/7.


The number [49r π] is not rational.

Proof

For any fixed real number q, and any Natural number n, let An=qnn!π0[x(πx)]nsin(x)dx where n! is the Factorial of n, is the [-definite_integral], and sin is the [-sin_function].

Preparatory work

Exercise: An=(4n2)qAn1(qπ)2An2. %%hidden(Show solution): We use [-integration_by_parts].

[todo: show this] %%

Now, A0=π0sin(x)dx=2 so A0 is an integer.

Also A1=qπ0x(πx)sin(x)dx which by a simple calculation is 4q. %%hidden(Show calculation): Expand the integrand and then integrate by parts repeatedly: A1q=π0x(πx)sin(x)dx=ππ0xsin(x)dxπ0x2sin(x)dx

The first integral term is [xcos(x)]π0+π0cos(x)dx=π

The second integral term is [x2cos(x)]π0+π02xcos(x)dx which is π2+2([xsin(x)]π0π0sin(x)dx) which is π24

Therefore A1q=π2(π24)=4 %%

Therefore, if q and qπ are integers, then so is An inductively, because (4n2)qAn1 is an integer and (qπ)2An2 is an integer.

But also An0 as n, because π0[x(πx)]nsin(x)dx is in modulus at most π×max and hence

For larger than , this expression is getting smaller with , and moreover it gets smaller faster and faster as increases; so its limit is . %%hidden(Formal treatment): We claim that as , for any .

Indeed, we have which, for , is less than . Therefore the ratio between successive terms is less than for sufficiently large , and so the sequence must shrink at least geometrically to . %%

Conclusion

Suppose (for contradiction) that is rational; then it is for some integers .

Now is an integer (indeed, it is ), and is certainly an integer, so by what we showed above, is an integer for all .

But as , so there is some for which for all ; hence for all sufficiently large , is . We already know that and , neither of which is ; so let be the first integer such that for all , and we can already note that .

Then whence or or .

Certainly because is the denominator of a fraction; and by whatever definition of we care to use. But also is not because then would be an integer such that for all , and that contradicts the definition of as the least such integer.

We have obtained the required contradiction; so it must be the case that is irrational.