Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3): Part 2

Be the first to leave a comment!
In the last post we proved that ζ(2) is irrational. Now we shall prove in a similar manner that ζ(3) is irrational. Note that this proof is based on Beukers' paper "A Note on the Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3)."

Irrationality of ζ(3)

Like the case of ζ(2) we first establish certain formulas concerning some double integrals which are related to ζ(3). The derivation of these formulas is based on the integral formulas established in last post.

Preliminary Results

Let r,s be non-negative integers with r>s. Then we have
1010logxy1xyxryrdxdy=2n=11(n+r)31010logxy1xyxrysdxdy=1rs{1(s+1)2+1(s+2)2++1r2} Using equation (2) from the last post we get 1010xr+αyr+α1xydxdy=n=11(n+r+α)2 Differentiating the above relation with respect to α we get 1010xr+αyr+αlogxy1xydxdy=n=12(n+r+α)3
Now putting α=0 the first result is established. This means that 1010logxy1xydxdy=2ζ(3) and if r is a positive integer then 1010logxy1xyxryrdxdy=2{ζ(3)(113+123++1r3)}
Next from equation (3) of last post we have 1010xr+αys+α1xydxdy=1rs{1s+α+1+1s+α+2++1r+α} Differentiating the above relation with respect to α we get 1010xr+αys+αlogxy1xydxdy=1rs{1(s+α+1)2+1(s+α+2)2++1(r+α)2} Putting α=0 in the above equation we obtain equation (2).

From the above results it is now clear that if P(x),Q(x) are polynomials of degree n with integer coefficients then 1010logxy1xyP(x)Q(y)dxdy=aζ(3)+bd3n where a,b are some integers dependent on polynomials P(x),Q(x) and dn denotes the LCM of numbers 1,2,,n (aslo for completeness we can assume d0=1).

Strategy of the Proof

Now we choose a specific polynomial Pn(x) defined by Pn(x)=1n!dndxn{xn(1x)n} Since Pn(x) is a polynomial of degree n with integer coefficients it follows that the integral defined by In=1010logxy1xyPn(x)Pn(y)dxdy can be expressed in the form In=anζ(3)+bnd3n where an,bn are integers dependent on n.

We will establish that
  1. In0 for all positive integers n.
  2. d3nIn0 as n.
This will imply that the expression anζ(3)+bn0 as n and is never zero for any value of n. If ζ(3) were rational, say p/q, then we would have |anζ(3)+bn|1/q and hence anζ(3)+bn would not tend to zero. This contradiction proves that ζ(3) is irrational.

Estimation of In

Now we come to the proof of the two claims mentioned above which are vital to obtain a contradiction needed to prove the irrationality of ζ(3).

First we need to observe that 10dz1az=[1alog(1az)]z=1z=0=log(1a)a hence on putting a=1xy we get logxy1xy=10dz1(1xy)z Using the above equation we can write the integral In as a triple integral In=101010Pn(x)Pn(y)1(1xy)zdxdydz Using integration by parts n times with respect to x we get In=101010(xyz)n(1x)nPn(y){1(1xy)z}n+1dxdydz Following Beukers, we apply the substitution w=1z1(1xy)z so that z=1w1(1xy)w,1z=xyw1(1xy)w Hence dz=xy{1(1xy)w}2dw and zn{1(1xy)z}n+1=(1w)n{1(1xy)w}nwn+1(1z)n+1=(1w)n(1(1xy)w)(xy)n+1 Also note that as z moves from 0 to 1, w moves from 1 to 0.

After substituting these expressions we get In=101010(1x)n(1w)nPn(y)1(1xy)wdxdydw Using integration by parts n times with respect to y we get In=101010xn(1x)nyn(1y)nwn(1w)n{1(1xy)w}n+1dxdydw and from this expression it is clear that In>0 as the integrand is positive for all x,y,w(0,1).

We next need to find an estimate for the function f(x,y,w) defined by f(x,y,w)=x(1x)y(1y)w(1w)1(1xy)w for x,y,w(0,1). Finding the maximum value using first and second partial derivatives seems a bit complicated hence it is better to go for a simpler approach based on inequalities.

The denominator of f(x,y,w) is 1w+xyw and clearly we have 1w+xyw2(1w)xyw and hence we have f(x,y,w)12x(1x)y(1y)w(1w) If we put x=t2 then x(1x)=t(1t2)=tt3 which is maximum when t=1/3 and the maximum value is 2/(33). Similar is the case for y(1y). The maximum value of w(1w) is clearly (w+1w)/2=1/2. Hence we have f(x,y,w)1223323312=127 Therefore by equation (4) we get In=101010{f(x,y,w)}n1(1xy)wdxdydw(127)n10101011(1xy)wdxdydw=(127)n1010logxy1xydxdy=2ζ(3)(127)n From the last post we know that if K>e is a fixed number then dn<Kn for all sufficiently large values of n. Hence it follows that d3nIn<2ζ(3)(K327)n for all sufficiently large values of n. If we choose K such that e<K<3 then we can see that the right hand side of equation (5) above tends to zero as n. Therefore d3nIn0 as n. We have thus completed the proof of irrationality of ζ(3).

Print/PDF Version

0 comments :: Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3): Part 2

Post a Comment