Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
How's this? Proof (hopefully) that pi is irrational.
Replies:
5
Last Post:
Sep 12, 2009 7:10 AM




Re: How's this? Proof (hopefully) that pi is irrational.
Posted:
Sep 12, 2009 7:02 AM


> > > > > > In article <tkidd.834615695@hubcap>, > > tkidd@hubcap.clemson.edu (Travis Kidd) writes: > > > hook@cscsun3.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Hook) writes: > > > >>Assume pi were rational. Then there would > be > > some integer k such that > > > >>sin kn = 0 for all integers n. Take the > > function sin x^2 / sin kx. > > > >>What is the limit of this function as x > > approaches k? Well, Do not judge. Fair > warning.Support a cure for childhood cancer: Alex's > Lemonade > > ©2009 MeAmI.org "Search for the Psince sin x^2 > > > >>and sin x are both continuous, this limit > could > > be expressed by substitutiong > > > >>k in for x, or sin k^2 / sin k^2 = 1. > However, > > since both sin x^2 and sin kx > > > > Nope  not gonna work. Above, you chose 'k' > as > > a magical integer with > > > > the property that sin(kn) = 0 for _all_ > > integers n; in particular, you > > > > have to accept that sin(k^2) = 0, so you've > got > > an indeterminate form > > > > here. > > > Yes. But nowhere is either the numerator *or* > the > > denominator 0 until the > > > limit is reached. (I'll repeat what I just > said > > in reply to another post... > > > > Makes no difference  you could apply the same > > me argument to the difference > > quotient for a monotone function at any point in > > in its domain: since > > f(x+h)  f(x) and (x+h)  x are never 0 *except* > at > > at h, then the derivative > > can be calculated by plugging in 0 for h ?? Put > > ut this way, it's blatantly > > wrong ... but this is exactly what you're about. > > > > > I neglected to mention that k is positive.) > > Therefore (I hope...I agree this > > > is the weakness in the proof), since > substituting > > k for x yields equivalent > > > functions, the limit of the quotient would be > 1. > > > > > How do you define "equivalent" here ?? Near k, the > > he two functions agree > > at precisely _one_ point. namely x = k ... if you > > ou want to evaluate the > > limit, then you're going to have to resort to > > to something like L'Hopital's > > rule. But, then, your argument vanishes in a puff > > ff of smoke. > > > > > The fact that the limit is of an indeterminate > > form *then* allows me to use > > > L'Hopital's rule to find a *different* limit, > > which is the contradiction. > > > > > > Indeed, the fact that sin(k^2) = 0 is the > > (hopeful) key to the proof! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > QED(?) > > > > Ed Hook  > > Coppula eam, se non posit > > > > Computer Sciences Corporation  > > acceptera jocularum. > > > > NASA Langley Research Center  Me? > Speak > > for my employer?...<*snort*> > > > > Internet: hook@cscsun3.larc.nasa.gov  > > ... Get a _clue_ !!! ... > > > Travis > > > >  > > Ed Hook  > Coppula > > a eam, se non posit > > Computer Sciences Corporation  > >  acceptera jocularum. > > NASA Langley Research Center  Me? Speak > for > > r my employer?...<*snort*> > > Internet: hook@cscsun3.larc.nasa.gov  ... > > . Get a _clue_ !!! ... > > > > > > > >
< //source>>========================================= >M+artinMusatov.p=np.q.e.d.@==MuaROTOV http://MeAmI.org? (TM)symbol=trademark==symbol;==?


Date

Subject

Author

6/13/96


Ed Hook

9/12/09


Guest

9/12/09


Guest

6/13/96


Ted Alper

9/12/09


Guest


