If $m_1 , m_2, \cdots m_n$ are natural numbers where at least one of them is not a perfect square, then how do I prove that the sum $$\sqrt{m_1}+\sqrt{m_2}+ \cdots + \sqrt{m_n}$$ is irrational? I'm hoping to prove this using methods from pre-calculus level algebra.
-
Are they all distinct? Otherwise they can be rational. – AvZ Jan 30 '15 at 08:18
-
5@AvZ Sure about that? – 2'5 9'2 Jan 30 '15 at 08:18
-
@user7530 i want an elementry method for solving the problem. – Jan 30 '15 at 08:23
-
The accepted answer uses only elementary number theory, and my answer uses only basic algebra for special cases of few terms. I'm not sure what more you're hoping for: I very much doubt a high-school algebra proof of the general case exists. – user7530 Jan 30 '15 at 08:52
-
@user7530 aha thanks. i will vote for closing the problem. – Jan 30 '15 at 08:54
-
@mathstudent I agree with the others that no general, high-school math level techniques can probably prove this, at least not without insane amounts of work, but if you're interested to see how far you could go with them, my answer shows an induction that holds up until we can no longer use the induction hypothesis. – Adam Hughes Jan 30 '15 at 10:04
-
@user7530 it seems one can push the methods of a few terms a bit farther if you try very hard, but I agree: anything for the general case must either be extremely clever, or very difficult, if it exists at all. – Adam Hughes Jan 30 '15 at 10:09
-
This has a nice answer. – Bumblebee Jan 30 '15 at 10:44
-
1See this answer for a more general result, including literature references. – Bill Dubuque Jan 30 '15 at 16:34
-
Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/440453 – Watson Nov 28 '18 at 13:34
1 Answers
We cannot do this for arbitary $n$, maybe, but going through the procedure, we can see how far we can push the possibilities using only induction, the base case being $n=1$ is classical.
Assume there is an integer, $N$ such that
$$\sqrt{m_1}+\ldots +\sqrt{m_n}=N\qquad (*)$$
then clearly we may assume $m_n>m_i$ for all other $i<n$. We see
$$\sqrt{m_1}+\ldots +\sqrt{m_{n-1}}=N-\sqrt{m_n}\qquad (**)$$
squaring both sides gives
$$m_1+\ldots +m_{n-1}+2\left(\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}\sqrt{m_im_j}\right)=N^2+m_n-2N\sqrt{m_n}$$
rearranging gives
$$N^2+m_n-m_1-\ldots -m_{n-1}=2\left(N\sqrt{m_n}+\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}\sqrt{m_im_j}\right)=2S$$
We see that
$$S-N\sqrt{m_n}=\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}\sqrt{m_im_j}$$
and squaring again and replacing $m_im_j$ by the symbol $m_{ij}$
$$S^2-2SN\sqrt{m_n}+N^2m_n=\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}m_{ij}+2\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}\left(\sum_{k\ne i,j}m_k\right)\sqrt{m_{ij}}$$
From both sides subtract
$$2S(S-N\sqrt{m_n})=S\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^{n-1}\sqrt{m_{ij}}\right)$$
to obtain
$$S^2-2SN\sqrt{m}-2S\left(S-N\sqrt{m_n}\right)+N^2m_n$$
$$=\sum_{1\le i<j\le n}m_{ij}+2\sum_{1\le i<j\le n-1}^{n-1}\left\lbrace\left(\sum_{k\ne i,j}m_k\right)-S\right\rbrace\sqrt{m_{ij}}=S'$$
Reducing this gives
$$N^2m_n-S^2=S'$$
Now, we see clearly from $(**)$ and $(*)$ and that
$$2S=N^2+m_n-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}m_i$$
that $S-\sum_{k\ne i,j}m_k$ for $i,j$ fixed and $i,j<n$ gives a positive value.
Then we conclude by rationality of $S'$ that the $m_{ij}$ are all squares--we are doing induction, and there are fewer than $n$ summands of roots of rationals there, indeed there are ${n-1\choose 2}={(n-1)(n-2)\over 2}$ choices, and since
$$2n-(n-1)(n-2)=5n-n^2-2=-\left(n-{5\over 2}\right)^2+{13\over 4}$$
which is positive exactly when
$$\left|n-{5\over 2}\right|\le {\sqrt{13}\over 2}\approx 1.8$$
We see this is the case for $n=2,3,4$, so that the number of summands in $S'$ which are roots, is less than $n$ for $n=2,3,4$ and by induction it follows that they must all be rational.
The proof breaks down for higher $n$, because then the number of summands is just too large, so we have to resort to either an even harder induction (and man, wasn't this already a lot of work!?) or use non-elementary means (this is the best idea).

- 36,777
-
-
See this answer for a more general result, including literature references. – Bill Dubuque Jan 30 '15 at 16:36
-
@billdubuque thanks, I already know a couple slick ways to prove the general result, I was going for the algebra/pre-calc as much as possible because of the op's request, and since I was curious how far such methods could go. :-) – Adam Hughes Jan 30 '15 at 17:55
-
@mathstudent ah you're right, but I got lucky: it doesn't matter! The formula is true for $n=2,3,4$ which are the key cases, so the rest of the proof works up through $n=4$ as before, and we run into the same problem as before that the number of summands blows up at $n=5$. :-) – Adam Hughes Jan 30 '15 at 18:06