HARD MADE EASY
Lets consider a simple case which shows how our understanding of Rational Numbers is based (mainly) on our knowledge of the integers.
(Generalized) Question 1: If
and
are rational numbers that are not squares of other rational numbers, show that
is not rational.
This seems hard to approach, because there seem to be a lot of unknowns, and we could be unfamiliar with what rational numbers are. Let’s try the following:
Question 2: If
and
are integers that are not squares of other integers, show that
is not an integer.
Now, this is more friendly, but still a little tricky. In the spirit of this post, let’s make it even easier.
Question 3: If
is an integer that is not the square of another integer, show that
is not an integer.
Now this is almost silly, and seems to be just a play on words. The proper way to prove this statement that doesn’t make my head run around in circles, is to show the contrapositive – To show that
, it is equivalent to show the contrapositive which is
.
Proof: If
is an integer
, then
, which is the square of the integer
.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c914e/c914e1a1b6afcd8f1e17e7973cd25ae1060c174e" alt="_\square _\square"
Now, what is the generalized version?
(Generalized) Question 4: If
is a rational number that is not the square of another rational number, show that
is not a rational number.
Proof: Test Yourself 1.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf501/bf501e4bfffd859dc0a5c65fced7865f482f45ce" alt="_\square _\square"
Corollary: If
is an integer such that
is rational, then
must be the square of an integer.
Proof: From Question 4, we know that y must be the square of a rational
with
. Hence
, and the only way for this to be an integer is
, so
. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c914e/c914e1a1b6afcd8f1e17e7973cd25ae1060c174e" alt="_\square _\square"
Now, back to question 2.
Proof: Suppose
is an integer. Consider
. Squaring both sides, we obtain that
, so this means that
is rational. By the corollary above,
must be an square. Similarly,
must be an square. Hence we are done.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf501/bf501e4bfffd859dc0a5c65fced7865f482f45ce" alt="_\square _\square"
And finally, back to question 1.
Proof: Proof by contradiction. Suppose
such that
, where
are all integers. Then,
. This contradicts question 2! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf501/bf501e4bfffd859dc0a5c65fced7865f482f45ce" alt="_\square _\square"
Corollary: If
and
are rational numbers such that
is rational, then
and
are both rational.
The slightly surprising result, is that in simplifying Question 1 to Question 2, we ended up using Question 2 to prove Question 1. In fact, as is often the case with rational numbers, it is sufficient to consider the integer case, and then clear out denominators by multiplying throughout.
Get A Try & Test Yourself
1. Complete the proof of Question 4.
2. Prove that if
,
and
are rational numbers such that
is rational, then
,
and
are all rational. How many terms can you show this for?
3. How many ordered triples of integers
are there such that
?
4. (**) Prove that if
are rational numbers such that
is rational, then
and
are all rational. Note: This is extremely hard, and not approachable by the methods discussed in this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment