The Math Forum



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: Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Replies: 35   Last Post: Feb 24, 2004 4:45 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides

Posts: 567
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Posted: Feb 11, 2004 11:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


On 10 Feb 2004, David McAnally wrote:
>rob@trash.whim.org (Rob Johnson) writes:
>

>>In article <090220041137011073%3ud5mnk02@sneakemail.com>,
>>"G. A. Edgar" <3ud5mnk02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>>>In article <200402090139.i191doi28751@proapp.mathforum.org>, earl
>>><ee31484@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> hey do you guys have a copy of the proof of e is transcendental? ..id really
>>>> appreciate if somebody could help me. ive been searching and found nothing.

>>>
>>>Spivack, CALCULUS, 2nd edition, Chapter 21.

>
>>Are you sure that the proof there is for e being transcendental and not
>>just irrational? I know that the proof of the irrationality of e is
>>simple enough for a Calculus book, but that the transcendence is quite a
>>bit more complicated.

>
>In my version of Spivak, the transcendence of e is proven in Chapter 20,
>and the irrationality of pi (or actually, the stronger result, the
>irrationality of pi^2) is proven in Chapter 16. Both chapters are marked
>with an asterisk, presumably denoting that the chapters are intended for
>the more advanced student. I note that Spivak describes these chapters as
>optional. As others have noted, another good book is Irrational Numbers
>by Ivan Niven, in which a proof of the transcendence of e, pi, and many
>others, is provided in the first chapter. Specifically, Niven gives the
>proof of the result that if a_1, ..., a_n are distinct algebraic numbers,
>then exp(a_1), ..., exp(a_n) are linearly independent over the algebraic
>numbers. The transcendence of e is then proven by taking a_1 = 0, a_2 = 1,
>and the transcendence of pi is proven by taking a_1 = 0, a_2 = i pi.


The Greek book that I, hold by M.A. MPRIKAS (The famous
Insoluble
Problems of Antiquity -1970 ),refers to Lambert (1766)
stating that his proofs (for the insoluble part of circle's quadrature simply)were not complete,and that Legendre (1794)
completed the proofs for
proving that Pi and Pi^2 are not rational.But ,still,
his proofs did not show the imposibility of circle's
quadrature simply.
Liouville confronted ,again the same problem in 1840 ,
and his proposition was simplified in 1873 by
G. Cantor.
However ,since the transcendental numbers formulated by
Liouville and G. Cantor,were somehow "TECHNICAL",
Charles Hermite proved that number e ,the basis of the natural logarithms ,is not algebraic
That was important since it was being proved that it was
transcendental ,and related to pi via Euler's relationship

e^[iPi]+1 =0

[ Eyler gave the general formula :
e^[ix]=cosx+isinx in 1748 ,
gave e and its value 2.718 ,and new since 1728
the relationship:
e^[iPi]+1 =0 ]
The proof of the transcendence of e by Ch.Hermite was given
in 1873(published 1874 Comptes Rendus )
Hermites proof was very complicated and lengthy ,
covering 31 pages in hi APANTA (all) VOL III,page 150-181.
A first simplification was given by Weierstrass(Berliner
Berichte ,1885) and then followed others, in 1893 by Hilbert,
Hurwitz and Gordan(Mathematical Annalen,1893).
Lindemann gave in 1882 his proof that number Pi is
transcendental [Math.Annalen,20 (1882),p 213]
a generalization of Hermites proof , which is also
lengthy ang perplexed.
Simplified proof was given by Hilbert
[Math.Annalen(1893)P.216-219].

In his proof makes use of the relationship e^[ipi]+1=0 , or
e^[ipi]=-1

My comments
---------------
Since e^[iPi]=cosPi+isinPi
or , e^[iPi]=-1+i[0]
then there are two solutions here, to the given equatio:

A) e^[ipi]=-1 the real part solution and

B) e^[ipi]=i[0] , or e^[ipi]=0 the imaginary part solutio.

My question :
What is the implication of this second value of e^[ipi]=0 ?

Regards,
Panagiotis Stefanides
http://www.stefanides.gr




















>David McAnally
>
> "Despite anything you may have heard to the contrary,
> the rain in Spain stays almost invariably in the hills."




Date Subject Author
2/8/04
Read Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
earl
2/9/04
Read Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Robert Israel
2/9/04
Read Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
2/9/04
Read Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Tim Smith
2/9/04
Read e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
G. A. Edgar
2/11/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/12/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/12/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/15/04
Read Re: e is transcendental
Daniel W. Johnson
2/16/04
Read Re: e is transcendental
David McAnally
2/16/04
Read Re: e is transcendental
Daniel W. Johnson
2/12/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/13/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/13/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Ioannis
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Dik T. Winter
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/14/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/15/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/15/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/16/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/16/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/17/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/17/04
Read Re: e is transcendental
Daniel W. Johnson
2/17/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/18/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/18/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/18/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/21/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/22/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
2/23/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/24/04
Read Re: e is transcendental (was: classes of transcendental numbers ?
David McAnally
2/9/04
Read Re: classes of transcendental numbers ?
Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.