Irrationality of exp(x)

3 comments
In one of the earlier posts we indicated that Johann H. Lambert proved the irrationality of exp(x) or ex for non-zero rational x by means of continued fraction expansion of tanhx. In this post we provide another proof for irrationality of ex which is based on a completely different approach. I first read this proof from Carl Ludwig Siegel's wonderful book Transcendental Numbers and I was amazed by the simplicity and novelty of Siegel's argument.

This proof by Siegel is based on approximation of exp(x) via rational functions (i.e. ratio of polynomials). Such approximants are now famously known as Padé approximants. Here we will not develop the full theory of Padé approximation, but rather concentrate on obtaining one such approximation for ex.

Padé approximation for exp(x)

The basic idea in approximating exp(x) by a rational function is to choose two polynomials p(x),q(x) such that when the quotient p(x)/q(x) is expanded as a Taylor series in powers of x then it should match upto a pre-determined number of terms of the Taylor series for exp(x). Specifically we choose two polynomials A(x),B(x) of degree n such that exp(x)+A(x)B(x)=ax2n+1+ so that the Taylor series for the rational function E(x)=A(x)B(x) matches till first (2n+1) terms of the Taylor series for exp(x). Also the error of this approximation is determined by R(x)=B(x)ex+A(x) and clearly we have R(x)=B(x)ex+A(x)=cx2n+1+ Our main objective is to determine these polynomials A(x),B(x) such that they have integer coefficients and also to obtain effective bounds for the error R(x).

Since each polynomial A(x),B(x) is of degree n their determination involves calculating 2(n+1)=2n+2 coefficients. The criterion that Taylor series for E(x)=A(x)/B(x) should match till first (2n+1) terms of the Taylor series for ex gives us (2n+1) linear equations to calculate these (2n+2) coefficients and hence we are assured of a non-trivial solution. Also there are more coefficients to be found than the number of equations available and hence there will be no unique solution. This is obvious directly also: if A(x),B(x) do our job then any constant multiple of them say rA(x),rB(x) also do the job because the ratio of these polynomials is unchanged. This constant r will be fixed later (in an implicit manner) to suit our needs.

However we don't compute the coefficients of A(x),B(x) by solving linear equations but rather follow Siegel's beautiful approach based on algebra of differential operators. Let us denote the process of calculating derivative by an operator D so that Df(x)=ddxf(x)=f(x) Multiple applications of this operator will be denoted via powers of D so that D2f(x)=D{Df(x)}=Df(x)=f(x) We further define a polynomial in D as an operator like P(D)=a0+a1D++an1Dn1+anDn such that P(D)f(x)=a0f(x)+a1f(x)++an1f(n1)(x)+anf(n)(x) Since powers of D commute with each other it is possible to multiply two such polynomial operators P(D),Q(D) to get a single polynomial operator via the usual rules of multiplying polynomials.

With the basics in differential operator symbolism available, we can now observe that Dexf(x)=exf(x)+exf(x)=ex{f(x)+f(x)}=ex(1+D)f(x) and using the same rule multiple times we get Dnexf(x)=ex(1+D)nf(x) We now apply the operator Dn+1 to equation (1) and noting that A(x) is a polynomial of degree n we get Dn+1R(x)=Dn+1exB(x)+Dn+1A(x)=ex(1+D)n+1B(x)=c0xn+ where c0=(2n+1)(2n)(2n1)(n+1)c. It now follows that (1+D)n+1B(x)=ex{c0xn+}=c0xn because the expression (1+D)n+1B(x) is a polynomial of degree at most n. We now choose c0=1 to make our calculations simple (this will fix the r implicitly and thereby polynomials A(x),B(x) will be determined uniquely). We thus have B(x)=(1+D)n1xn What's that!! We haven't yet defined negative powers of differential operators so the above equation seems meaningless, but the beauty of this operator algebra is that using binomial theorem for general exponent we can express (1+D)n1 into a power series in D and apply it on xn to get B(x). Also we need to have this series only till Dn because higher powers of D applied on xn will lead to 0. Hence B(x) will have integer coefficients.

This highly intuitive but non-rigorous argument is very clever and can be made rigorous by learning more of operator algebra. However we don't follow that route and show directly that B(x) has integer coefficients. Also when we proceed in this manner we need to remember that equation (6) is just another way to express that (1+D)n+1B(x)=xn. In the same manner multiplying equation (1) by ex and applying Dn+1 on the resulting equation we get (1+D)n+1A(x)=xn which we express more fashionably as A(x)=(1+D)n1xn We now proceed to analyze the coefficients of B(x). Let B(x)=B0+B1x++Bnxn and from (1+D)n+1B(x)=xn we get (1+(n+1)D+n(n+1)2D2++(n+1)Dn)(B0+B1x++Bnxn)=xn Clearly the term containing xn on LHS is Bnxn so that Bn=1. Similarly the terms containing xn1 on LHS are Bn1xn1 and (n+1)DBnxn so that Bn1+n(n+1)Bn=0 and hence Bn1=n(n+1). Thus we note that the coefficients Bi can be calculated starting with Bn and then evaluating Bn1,Bn2, and so on. Also the equation to determine Bi (except Bn) is always of the form Bi+b1Bi+1++bniBn=0 where b1,b2,,Bi+1,Bi+2, are integers. It follows that all the Bi are integers. In the same manner we can show that the polynomial A(x) also has integer coefficients.

Estimation of error term R(x)

From equations (5) and (6) we can see that Dn+1R(x)=ex(1+D)n+1B(x)=exxn and hence R(x)=Dn1exxn. Fortunately it is much easier to handle negative powers of D than to handle expressions like (1+D)n1xn encountered earlier. We define the integral operator J as Jf(x)=x0f(t)dt It is easily seen that DJf(x)=f(x) and if we have the extra assumption that f(0)=0 then JDf(x)=f(x) and hence for functions with f(0)=0 both the operators D and J are inverses of each other and we can write DJ=JD=1. Clearly we can define powers of J as repeated application of J and powers of J and D commute with each other. Thus it follows that R(x)=Jn+1exxn Using integration by parts it can be easily shown that powers of J can also be expressed as an integral and we have Jn+1f(x)=1n!x0f(t)(xt)ndt where f(0)=0. Using equations (9),(10) we finally have an expression for the error term R(x) as R(x)=1n!x0ettn(xt)ndt=x2n+1n!10tn(1t)nextdt (using t=xu,u=t) From the above equation it follows that if x0 then R(x)0.

Irrationality of exp(x)

In order to prove that ex is irrational for non-zero rational x it is sufficient to prove that ex is irrational when x is a positive integer say x=m. Let us assume that em=p/q where p,q are positive integers with no common factors. Now from equation (1) we have R(m)=emB(m)+A(m)=pqB(m)+A(m) and hence qR(m)=pB(m)+qA(m) Since polynomials A(x),B(x) have integer coefficients it follows that the RHS of the above equation is an integer and since m0 it follows that R(m)0 therefore qR(m) is a non-zero integer and hence |qR(m)|1. Now we can see from equation (11) that |qR(m)|qm2n+1n!em=pm2n+1n! Clearly we can choose the integer n as large as we please (increasing n increases the accuracy of Padé approximation) and since m2n+1/n!0 as n it is possible to choose a positive integer n (depending on m,p) such that pm2n+1n!<1 so that |qR(m)|<1. This is contrary to the fact that |qR(m)|1 and hence em must be irrational. We have thus shown that

Theorem: If x is a non-zero rational number then ex is irrational.

The above technique of Siegel can also be used to establish the irrationality of π2 (and hence irrationality of π) with very limited amount of additional work. This we do next.

Irrationality of π2

In order to use the material presented so far to get any information about nature of π we must be able to connect π somehow with the exponential function ex. Fortunately Euler did it for us a long time ago and we have the beautiful equation eiπ+1=0 Putting x=iπ in equation (11) we get R(iπ)=(1)niπ2n+1n!10tn(1t)neiπtdt=(1)niπ2n+1n!10tn(1t)n{cosπt+isinπt}dt=(1)niπ2n+1n!10tn(1t)ncosπtdt+(1)n+1π2n+1n!10tn(1t)nsinπtdt=0+(1)n+1π2n+1n!10tn(1t)nsinπtdt (as cosπ(1t)=cosπt)=(1)n+1π2n+1n!10tn(1t)nsinπtdt It follows that R(iπ) is a non-zero real number for all positive integers n. Next we need to analyze the expression of R(iπ) in terms of polynomials A(x),B(x). Before we do that we need one relation between A(x),B(x). Replacing x with (x) in the equation (1+D)n+1B(x)=xn and noting that this changes D into D as well we get (1D)n+1B(x)=(1)nxn or (1)n+1(1+D)n+1B(x)=(1)nxn or (1+D)n+1(B(x))=xn Comparing with the equation (1+D)n+1A(x)=xn we see that B(x)=A(x) and hence A(x)=B(x). Next we have R(x)=A(x)+B(x)exR(x)=A(x)+B(x)ex=B(x)A(x)ex and hence on putting x=iπ we get R(iπ)=A(iπ)B(iπ)R(iπ)=B(iπ)+A(iπ) and we finally have R(iπ)=R(iπ)=A(iπ)+A(iπ) It is easy to observe that the polynomial C(x)=A(x)+A(x) consists of only even powers of x and hence it is effectively a polynomial D(x2) in x2 of degree k=[n/2] with integer coefficients. And R(iπ)=D(π2) which again shows that R(iπ) is a real number.

Let's now suppose that π2=a/b where a,b are positive integers with no common factor. It is then clear that R(iπ)=D(π2) is a rational number with denominator bk and hence bkR(iπ) is an integer and from our expression of R(iπ) as an integral we see that the expression bkR(iπ) is a non-zero integer and hence |bkR(iπ)|1 for all positive integers n. From equation (13) we can see that |bkR(iπ)|bkπ2n+1n!bn/2π2n+1n! and the RHS can be made less than 1 if we choose n sufficiently large. Hence we arrive at a contradiction if n is chosen suitably. This proves that we can't have π2=a/b for any positive integers a,b.

Note: For another proof of irrationality of ex for non-zero rational x see this question on MSE.

Print/PDF Version

3 comments :: Irrationality of exp(x)

Post a Comment

  1. Nice post and amazing proofs!

  2. Do you know of any book on transcendental analysis?

  3. @Sayan Chattopadhyay,
    There are many books available on Transcendental Numbers which you can find by Google Search. The better ones among them are by Baker, Siegel. I don't know if these are what you want.

    Paramanand