Proof that $e$ is irrational. (Proof verification)












2












$begingroup$


Here, $e = sum_{k=0}^infty 1/k!$. Define $S_n$ as:



begin{align}
S_n = n!e - n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}
end{align}
where $n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}$ is an integer. Write $e = 1/0!+1/1!+...+1/n!+1/(n+1)!+...$
begin{align}
S_n &= n!left(e - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right) = n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right)\
&=n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - frac{1}{0!} - frac{1}{1!} - ... - frac{1}{n!}
right)\
&=n!left( frac{1}{(n+1)!}+frac{1}{(n+2)!}+... right) \
&= frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+2)(n+1)}+... < frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+1)^2}+... = frac{1}{n}
end{align}



So, $0<S_n<1/n$. Now, if $e=p/q$ then we would have an integer between $0$ and $1$ for a large $n$.



$$0 < n!p - qn!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}<frac{q}{n}$$



Is this correct?






proof-verification irrational-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Here, $e = sum_{k=0}^infty 1/k!$. Define $S_n$ as:



    begin{align}
    S_n = n!e - n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}
    end{align}
    where $n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}$ is an integer. Write $e = 1/0!+1/1!+...+1/n!+1/(n+1)!+...$
    begin{align}
    S_n &= n!left(e - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right) = n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
    frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right)\
    &=n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
    frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - frac{1}{0!} - frac{1}{1!} - ... - frac{1}{n!}
    right)\
    &=n!left( frac{1}{(n+1)!}+frac{1}{(n+2)!}+... right) \
    &= frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+2)(n+1)}+... < frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+1)^2}+... = frac{1}{n}
    end{align}



    So, $0<S_n<1/n$. Now, if $e=p/q$ then we would have an integer between $0$ and $1$ for a large $n$.



    $$0 < n!p - qn!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}<frac{q}{n}$$



    Is this correct?






    proof-verification irrational-numbers







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      2



      $begingroup$


      Here, $e = sum_{k=0}^infty 1/k!$. Define $S_n$ as:



      begin{align}
      S_n = n!e - n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}
      end{align}
      where $n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}$ is an integer. Write $e = 1/0!+1/1!+...+1/n!+1/(n+1)!+...$
      begin{align}
      S_n &= n!left(e - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right) = n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
      frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right)\
      &=n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
      frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - frac{1}{0!} - frac{1}{1!} - ... - frac{1}{n!}
      right)\
      &=n!left( frac{1}{(n+1)!}+frac{1}{(n+2)!}+... right) \
      &= frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+2)(n+1)}+... < frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+1)^2}+... = frac{1}{n}
      end{align}



      So, $0<S_n<1/n$. Now, if $e=p/q$ then we would have an integer between $0$ and $1$ for a large $n$.



      $$0 < n!p - qn!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}<frac{q}{n}$$



      Is this correct?






      proof-verification irrational-numbers







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Here, $e = sum_{k=0}^infty 1/k!$. Define $S_n$ as:



      begin{align}
      S_n = n!e - n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}
      end{align}
      where $n!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}$ is an integer. Write $e = 1/0!+1/1!+...+1/n!+1/(n+1)!+...$
      begin{align}
      S_n &= n!left(e - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right) = n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
      frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}right)\
      &=n!left( frac{1}{0!}+
      frac{1}{1!}+...+frac{1}{n!}+frac{1}{(n+1)!} +... - frac{1}{0!} - frac{1}{1!} - ... - frac{1}{n!}
      right)\
      &=n!left( frac{1}{(n+1)!}+frac{1}{(n+2)!}+... right) \
      &= frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+2)(n+1)}+... < frac{1}{(n+1)}+frac{1}{(n+1)^2}+... = frac{1}{n}
      end{align}



      So, $0<S_n<1/n$. Now, if $e=p/q$ then we would have an integer between $0$ and $1$ for a large $n$.



      $$0 < n!p - qn!sum_{k=0}^n frac{1}{k!}<frac{q}{n}$$



      Is this correct?






      proof-verification irrational-numbers




      proof-verification irrational-numbers






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 6 at 7:59









      Eevee Trainer

      7,59721338




      7,59721338










      asked Jan 6 at 7:43









      PintecoPinteco

      731313




      731313






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          It's basically fine. To tie up the details, you should specify exactly how large $n$ needs to be.



          Also, writing "$0<S_n =$ (something that isn't equal to $S_n$) is bad notation. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say there. If you're not sure how to write what you mean in symbols, use some words to clear things up.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Jan 6 at 7:55










          • $begingroup$
            I've fixed that part, thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – Pinteco
            Jan 6 at 7:56



















          1












          $begingroup$

          Your proof seems sufficient enough, as far as I can tell. You did make a slight typo in the final inequality (multiplying through by $q$ would mean you have $qS_n$ there); this was touched on in another answer and you already edited your answer to rectify this.



          If I had to nitpick anything of significance...



          Personally it could use a lot of elaboration to explain various manipulations and results - where they come from and so on. I found myself having to fill in the holes myself; it can make it a bit difficult for someone to see where you're going.



          But this may just be a personal issue. If nothing else, at least everything seems to logically follow. But taking some time to explain everything for the reader will help. (In particular if this is a proof for a class or something: no sense in getting points taken off because you thought it was obvious what was going on.)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063583%2fproof-that-e-is-irrational-proof-verification%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2












            $begingroup$

            It's basically fine. To tie up the details, you should specify exactly how large $n$ needs to be.



            Also, writing "$0<S_n =$ (something that isn't equal to $S_n$) is bad notation. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say there. If you're not sure how to write what you mean in symbols, use some words to clear things up.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Jan 6 at 7:55










            • $begingroup$
              I've fixed that part, thanks.
              $endgroup$
              – Pinteco
              Jan 6 at 7:56
















            2












            $begingroup$

            It's basically fine. To tie up the details, you should specify exactly how large $n$ needs to be.



            Also, writing "$0<S_n =$ (something that isn't equal to $S_n$) is bad notation. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say there. If you're not sure how to write what you mean in symbols, use some words to clear things up.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Jan 6 at 7:55










            • $begingroup$
              I've fixed that part, thanks.
              $endgroup$
              – Pinteco
              Jan 6 at 7:56














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            It's basically fine. To tie up the details, you should specify exactly how large $n$ needs to be.



            Also, writing "$0<S_n =$ (something that isn't equal to $S_n$) is bad notation. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say there. If you're not sure how to write what you mean in symbols, use some words to clear things up.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            It's basically fine. To tie up the details, you should specify exactly how large $n$ needs to be.



            Also, writing "$0<S_n =$ (something that isn't equal to $S_n$) is bad notation. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say there. If you're not sure how to write what you mean in symbols, use some words to clear things up.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jan 6 at 7:53









            jmerryjmerry

            12.8k1628




            12.8k1628












            • $begingroup$
              I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Jan 6 at 7:55










            • $begingroup$
              I've fixed that part, thanks.
              $endgroup$
              – Pinteco
              Jan 6 at 7:56


















            • $begingroup$
              I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Jan 6 at 7:55










            • $begingroup$
              I've fixed that part, thanks.
              $endgroup$
              – Pinteco
              Jan 6 at 7:56
















            $begingroup$
            I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Jan 6 at 7:55




            $begingroup$
            I believe he multiplied through by $q$, to touch on that point made in your second question. I agree with the overall point though.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Jan 6 at 7:55












            $begingroup$
            I've fixed that part, thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – Pinteco
            Jan 6 at 7:56




            $begingroup$
            I've fixed that part, thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – Pinteco
            Jan 6 at 7:56











            1












            $begingroup$

            Your proof seems sufficient enough, as far as I can tell. You did make a slight typo in the final inequality (multiplying through by $q$ would mean you have $qS_n$ there); this was touched on in another answer and you already edited your answer to rectify this.



            If I had to nitpick anything of significance...



            Personally it could use a lot of elaboration to explain various manipulations and results - where they come from and so on. I found myself having to fill in the holes myself; it can make it a bit difficult for someone to see where you're going.



            But this may just be a personal issue. If nothing else, at least everything seems to logically follow. But taking some time to explain everything for the reader will help. (In particular if this is a proof for a class or something: no sense in getting points taken off because you thought it was obvious what was going on.)






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              Your proof seems sufficient enough, as far as I can tell. You did make a slight typo in the final inequality (multiplying through by $q$ would mean you have $qS_n$ there); this was touched on in another answer and you already edited your answer to rectify this.



              If I had to nitpick anything of significance...



              Personally it could use a lot of elaboration to explain various manipulations and results - where they come from and so on. I found myself having to fill in the holes myself; it can make it a bit difficult for someone to see where you're going.



              But this may just be a personal issue. If nothing else, at least everything seems to logically follow. But taking some time to explain everything for the reader will help. (In particular if this is a proof for a class or something: no sense in getting points taken off because you thought it was obvious what was going on.)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                Your proof seems sufficient enough, as far as I can tell. You did make a slight typo in the final inequality (multiplying through by $q$ would mean you have $qS_n$ there); this was touched on in another answer and you already edited your answer to rectify this.



                If I had to nitpick anything of significance...



                Personally it could use a lot of elaboration to explain various manipulations and results - where they come from and so on. I found myself having to fill in the holes myself; it can make it a bit difficult for someone to see where you're going.



                But this may just be a personal issue. If nothing else, at least everything seems to logically follow. But taking some time to explain everything for the reader will help. (In particular if this is a proof for a class or something: no sense in getting points taken off because you thought it was obvious what was going on.)






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Your proof seems sufficient enough, as far as I can tell. You did make a slight typo in the final inequality (multiplying through by $q$ would mean you have $qS_n$ there); this was touched on in another answer and you already edited your answer to rectify this.



                If I had to nitpick anything of significance...



                Personally it could use a lot of elaboration to explain various manipulations and results - where they come from and so on. I found myself having to fill in the holes myself; it can make it a bit difficult for someone to see where you're going.



                But this may just be a personal issue. If nothing else, at least everything seems to logically follow. But taking some time to explain everything for the reader will help. (In particular if this is a proof for a class or something: no sense in getting points taken off because you thought it was obvious what was going on.)







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 6 at 7:57









                Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer

                7,59721338




                7,59721338






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063583%2fproof-that-e-is-irrational-proof-verification%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
                    Read more

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Image
                    0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
                    Read more

                    Mont Emei

                    Image
                    Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
                    Read more