What causes irrational numbers such as pi to never form patterns?

null

sort by: active | newest | oldest
geodez says: May 19, 2009. 8:38 PM
here it is:

Let's suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a, b are whole numbers, b not zero. We additionally make it so that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, since that can obviously be done with any fraction.

It follows that 2 = a2/b2, or a2 = 2 * b2. So the square of a is an even number since it is two times something. From this we can know that a itself is also an even number. Why? Because it can't be odd; if a itself was odd, then a * a would be odd too. Odd number times odd number is always odd. Check if you don't believe that!

Okay, if a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. We don't need to know exactly what k is; it won't matter. Soon is coming the contradiction:

If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a2/b2, this is what we get:

2 = (2k)2/b2
2 = 4k2/b2
2*b2 = 4k2
b2 = 2k2.

This means b2 is even, from which follows again that b itself is an even number!!!
WHY is that a contradiction? Because we started the whole process saying that a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that a and b would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.
kelseymh says: Apr 27, 2009. 12:35 PM
That is a trivial consequence of the definition of irrational. A rational number is one which is expressed in the form of a ratio of integers (a fraction). The numerator and denominator may be arbitrarity large, such as

12345678901234567890 / 9999998888888777777766666665555553

but they are both still integers. All rational numbers, when expressed in the form of a "decimal" (in any base, not just base ten) will either terminate with a finite number of digits (followed by zeros :-), or will form a repeating pattern.

The converse is also true. Any decimal expression which forms a terminating or repeating pattern can be expressed as a fraction

All numbers which cannot be expressed as fractions, and which therefore must have an infinite series of non-repeating decimal digits, is called irrational.
knex_mepalm in reply to kelseymhOct 15, 2009. 9:18 PM
so 1/3 is irrational? but 1/2 isn't thats what you mean right?
Torpe in reply to knex_mepalmSep 15, 2010. 3:10 PM
No, 1/3 is rational because it repeats a pattern.
kelseymh in reply to knex_mepalmOct 16, 2009. 8:33 AM
No, 1/3 is rational -- trivially, as you just wrote it as a ratio (that's where the word "rational" comes from) of two whole numbers (1 and 3).  Did you actually read what I wrote before replying to it?

Pi is not rational precisely because you cannot find any two integers with which you can write a ratio equal to pi.
darkpid in reply to kelseymhJun 22, 2010. 3:46 PM
22/7 ?
kelseymh in reply to darkpidJun 22, 2010. 4:25 PM
They aren't equal. That's an approximation.
knex_mepalm in reply to kelseymhOct 16, 2009. 10:32 PM
Im not that good at maths
NobodyInParticular in reply to kelseymhApr 27, 2009. 1:49 PM
Oblivitus didn't specify whether the 'pattern' had to be repeating, so I went with answering 'Why is pi normal?' rather than 'Why is pi irrational?'. I may have been reading too much into it, though.
kelseymh in reply to NobodyInParticularApr 27, 2009. 1:57 PM
I guess I assumed that someone asking the more technical question must know that definition of "normal," and would likely have used the technical term rather than a vague lay-person's description. Hence my more simpleminded explanation. The issue of normality is fairly subtle and theoretical.
SnapFitPieces(: says: Mar 4, 2010. 11:22 AM
the cherry filling
Oblivitus (author) in reply to SnapFitPieces(:Mar 4, 2010. 6:13 PM
:)
DELETED_Haon says: Feb 26, 2010. 6:56 PM
math makes my head hurt
NachoMahma says: Apr 27, 2009. 10:36 AM
. It just does. heehee

Oompa-Loompa in reply to NachoMahmaJul 3, 2009. 8:08 PM
I would have voted that best answer had I seen it earlier.
geodez says: May 19, 2009. 11:11 AM
Pi is transcendental, which means that
it is not a root of any polynomial equation with rational
coefficients. (Note that every rational number P/Q, with P and Q
integers, is a root of QX-P = 0)
TigerNod in reply to geodezJun 20, 2009. 7:53 AM
*is confused
geodez in reply to TigerNodJun 20, 2009. 8:07 AM
about?
TigerNod in reply to geodezJun 22, 2009. 11:45 AM
Math. It is really complicated for me. I think this is not so hard for you however...
geodez in reply to TigerNodJun 22, 2009. 3:52 PM
it is actually kind of boring.
Oblivitus (author) in reply to geodezMay 19, 2009. 1:41 PM
Can you explain what you just said a little more plainly?, or maybe elaborate on that equation?
geodez in reply to OblivitusMay 19, 2009. 3:06 PM
this is going to take a while. i will use the square root of 2 as an example.
Let's suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a, b are whole numbers, b not zero. We additionally make it so that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, since that can obviously be done with any fraction.

It follows that 2 = a2/b2, or a2 = 2 * b2. So the square of a is an even number since it is two times something. From this we can know that a itself is also an even number. Why? Because it can't be odd; if a itself was odd, then a * a would be odd too. Odd number times odd number is always odd. Check if you don't believe that!

Okay, if a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. We don't need to know exactly what k is; it won't matter. Soon is coming the contradiction:

If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a2/b2, this is what we get:

2 = (2k)2/b2
2 = 4k2/b2
2*b2 = 4k2
b2 = 2k2.

This means b2 is even, from which follows again that b itself is an even number!!!
WHY is that a contradiction? Because we started the whole process saying that a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that a and b would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.
Oblivitus (author) in reply to geodezMay 20, 2009. 7:01 PM
Nice, that explanation won something.
geodez in reply to OblivitusMay 21, 2009. 7:15 AM
thank you.
Oblivitus (author) in reply to geodezMay 19, 2009. 6:04 PM
THANK YOU! Now please post that as a new comment so that I can select it as a best answer.
NobodyInParticular says: Apr 27, 2009. 12:44 PM
It has been proved that pi is irrational (it cannot be written as a fraction of two whole numbers) and that it is trancendental (it cannot be written as a polynomial with rational coefficients). For highschool-level math classes, this is generally sufficient to assume that the digits are 'as good as random'. If you are interested in the proofs, a little calculus is needed.

However, whether the digits appear with equal frequency is a very tricky question that has yet to be solved definitively.

Still, given how many digits of pi have been calculated so far, I think it is fairly safe to say that we will not be finding any simple pattern to pi.
NobodyInParticular in reply to NobodyInParticularApr 27, 2009. 1:45 PM
Just to clarify, it is possible to actually any desired digit of pi, it is the statistics of the answers that have have yet to be proven.
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!