12

I was trying to show that $\sin(x)$ is non-zero for integers $x$ other than zero and I thought that this result might emerge as a corollary if I managed to show that the result in question is true.

I think it's possible to demonstrate this by looking at the power series expansion of $\sin(x)$ and assuming that we don't know anything about the existence of $\pi$.

All of the answers below insist that the proposition '$\exists p,q \in \mathbb{Z}, \sin(p)=\sin(q)$' -where $\sin(x)$ is the power series representation-is undecidable without using the properties of $\pi$. If so this is a truly wonderful conjecture and I would like to be provided with a proof. Until then, I insist that methods for analyzing infinite series from analysis should suffice to show that the proposition is false.


Note: In a previous version of this post the question said "bijective" instead of "injective". Some of the answers below have answered the first version of this post.

  • 4
    I think what you mean is: "is $\mathrm{sin} : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ injective?" – goblin GONE Jun 05 '16 at 08:21
  • You're right. That's exactly what I meant to say. –  Jun 05 '16 at 08:42
  • 1
    The biconditional you have is not true. Take, for example, $a=0, b= \pi$. The question itself, though, seems quite interesting. – MathematicsStudent1122 Jun 06 '16 at 00:00
  • Sorry. I sometimes make silly mistakes like that. Thank you for the correction. –  Jun 06 '16 at 00:03
  • @MathematicsStudent1122 I meant $\forall a,b \in \mathbb{N}$. –  Jun 06 '16 at 00:08
  • 2
    If $\pi$ were rational $\sin$ would be periodic on ${\mathbb Z}$. Therefore you have to know something about $\pi$ in order to prove the claim. – Christian Blatter Jun 06 '16 at 09:24
  • @ChristianBlatter Knowledge of $\pi$ can be used to prove this claim. But, I'm interested to know that the injection of sin(x) from naturals to reals can't be demonstrated otherwise. Can you show this? –  Jun 06 '16 at 10:15
  • 2
    it does not make any sense to "not know about $\pi$", I am afraid. Are you supposed then not to know about the fact that the function $2\sqrt{1-x^2}$ is integrable in $[-1,1]$, then also? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:16
  • If you are going to be talking about the $\sin$ function, presumably you are allowed to consider the integral $\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{\sin x}{x},\mathrm dx$. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:18
  • @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez My question is whether, by considering the difference of power series of sin(x) with different integer arguments, we can conclude that the difference is never zero. I don't think we need integrals, just different methods for analyzing convergence of infinite series. –  Jun 25 '16 at 05:20
  • It is irrelevant if you need integrals. They are there. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:21
  • You cannot not know about $\pi$ if you know about $\sin$, simply because knowing about the latter includes knowing the former. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:21
  • @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Are you saying that my proposition isn't well-defined? –  Jun 25 '16 at 05:22
  • 1
    Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. It makes no sense to "not know $\pi$". That was the very first sentence I wrote, in fact :-| – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:22
  • @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Are you saying that the tools of analysis and any method for analyzing convergence of infinite series wouldn't suffice to analyze such a proposition? If so, I'd like to know your arguments. It's not enough to say 'it makes no sense'. –  Jun 25 '16 at 05:27
  • 1
    Whatever definition you have of the function $\sin$ should allow you to prove that it is a periodic function, and witlh more or less work that the period of the function is not rational — if not, you don't really have a definition of the $\sin$ function. You don't need to know that that period happens to be the number usually known to us as $\pi$. There is a book in Lang in which he at some point says «Let us consider the number $\pi=\text{(some integral)}$». The number he defines happens to be the usual number $\pi$, but he does not need this for his purposes. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:28
  • 3
    For example, starting from tthe definition of $\sin$ as a power series, with a lot of work one can indeed show that it is a periodic function, and if $p$ is its period, to show that $p$ is irrational. The same thing can be done if one defines $\sin$ by inverting the primitive function of $(1-x^2)^{-1/2}$, as Jacobi would do. I suggest you look in a good textbook where trigonometric functions are defined from scratch and their properties obtained from the definition used (iirc, Spivak's book on calculus does this) – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '16 at 05:31

6 Answers6

20

Recall the following facts.

Fact 1. $\sin t=0$ if and only if $t=k\pi$ for some $k\in\Bbb Z$

Fact 2. $\cos t=0$ if and only if $t=k\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}$ for some $k\in\Bbb Z$

Also, recall the identity $$ \sin u-\sin v=2\,\cos\left(\frac{u+v}{2}\right)\sin\left(\frac{u-v}{2}\right) $$

Thus $\sin u=\sin v$ if and only if $u+v=k\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}$ or $u-v=k\pi$ for some $k\in\Bbb Z$. But the values \begin{align*} k\pi+\frac{\pi}{2} && k\pi \end{align*} are necessarily irrational for nonzero $k\in\Bbb Z$. Hence $\sin u\neq\sin v$ for $u,v\in\Bbb Z$ with $u\neq v$.

  • I'm assuming that we don't know anything about $\pi$. –  Jun 06 '16 at 00:42
  • 5
    @AidanRocke That's really a silly assumption to make: as Brian shows, it is very important to know about $\pi$ to do anything here. – Pedro Jun 06 '16 at 00:48
  • @PedroTamaroff Can't this result be demonstrated without assuming the existence of $\pi$ and knowledge that $\pi$ is irrational? I think the power series expansion of $\sin(x)$ should provide enough information. –  Jun 06 '16 at 00:56
  • 2
    @AidenRocke: The number $\pi$ is basically defined by its connection with $\sin$, and it's irrationality can be proved using the properties of $\sin$; why do you expect to use anything less? In principle, yes, we should be able to get lots of information out of the power series (and we can!), but your question is not just about $\sin$, it's about the relationship between $\sin$ and the positive integers. I find it entirely unsurprising that $\pi$ is intimately involved. – Will R Jun 06 '16 at 08:51
  • @WillR Your argument isn't convincing. Are you saying that no mathematical tools can be developed for analyzing infinite series that may answer this question without knowledge of $\pi$? –  Jun 06 '16 at 09:52
  • 2
    @AidenRocke: I think you would probably just be rephrasing the same arguments. More to the point, I'm saying $\pi$ and $\sin$ are intimately connected, and a key ingredient in their relationship is the integers (since the integers are used to define periodicity). Perhaps you can come up with some general machinery that will apply to other series as well, but what makes you think they won't involve things like the least positive root of the function in question (which, for $\sin$, is $\pi$)? – Will R Jun 06 '16 at 11:25
  • 2
    @AidenRocke Our knowledge of the irrationality of $\pi$ (which comes in large part thanks to the nice algebraic properties of $\sin$) far outweighs our ability to analyze very simple infinite series. We don't know whether $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^5$ is irrational, and it wasn't until 40 years ago that we discovered how to prove $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^3$ is irrational. Meanwhile series like $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2$ and $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^4$ were known much earlier... precisely because they simplify to expressions involving $\pi$. – Erick Wong Jun 25 '16 at 03:22
  • @ErickWong That's very different from saying that $\pi$ is necessary. A lack of desired knowledge isn't evidence that such knowledge is unattainable. –  Jun 25 '16 at 05:15
  • 2
    It's clear from geometry that $\sin$ has period $2\pi$. Then $\sin$ not being on injective on $\Bbb N$ would (more or less) immediately yield the rationality of $\pi$. Thus, injectivity is pretty much equivalent to $\pi$'s irrationality. – anon Jun 25 '16 at 05:48
6

You have $\sin m=\sin n$ if and only if $m=n+2k\pi$ or $m=\pi-n+2k\pi$ (for some integer $k$.

In the first case, if $k\ne0$, you get $\pi=(m-n)/(2k)$ is rational. In the second case, $\pi=(m+n)/(2k+1)$.

Since $\pi$ is irrational, the only possibility is $k=0$ and $m=n$.


You can't prove injectivity without the knowledge that $\pi$ is irrational. Indeed, if $\pi=p/q$ with $p$ and $q$ positive integers, then $\sin(p)=\sin(p+2q\pi)=\sin(3p)$, so the function would not be injective.


Proofs of the irrationality of $\pi$ based on the power series expansion can be seen at Proof that $π$ is irrational

egreg
  • 238,574
4

Suppose that we define the function $\def\RR{\mathbb R}f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ putting $$f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$$ for each $x\in\mathbb R$, after checking that the power series converges for all real $x$. It is easy to compute derivatives of functions defined by power series, and therefore it is trivial to show that $$f''(x)=-f(x) \tag{1}$$ for all $x\in\RR$. We have $$\frac{d}{dx}(f(x)^2+f'(x)^2) = 2f'(x)(f''(x)+f(x))=0$$ for all $x\in\RR$, so $f(x)^2+f'(x)^2$ is a constant function. Evaluating it at $0$, we see at once that $$f(x)^2+f'(x)^2=1 \tag{2}$$ for all $x\in\RR$.

Equation (1) tells us that $f$ and $f'$ are solutions to the linear differentia equation $$u''+u=0.$$ Their Wronskian is $$\begin{vmatrix}f&f'\\f'&f''\end{vmatrix}=-(f^2+f'^2)$$ is nowhere zero, according to (2), so that $f$ and $f'$ aare linearly independent. Since the differential equation is of order $2$, we see that $\{f,f'\}$ is a basis of its solutions.

Now fix $y\in\RR$ and consider the functions $g(x)=f(x+y)$ and $h(x)=f'(x)f(y)-f(x)f'(y)$. Using (1) we find at once that they are both solutions to out differential equation, and clearly $g(0)=h(0)$ and $g'(0)=h'(0)$, so the uniqueness theoreem of solutions to initial value problems tells us that $g$ and $h$ are the same function, that is, that $$f(x+y)=f'(x)f(y)-f(x)f'(y) \tag{3}$$ for all $x$ and, s ince $y$ was arbitrary, for all $y$. Compuing the derivative with respect to $y$ in this equation an using (1), we find that also $$f'(x+y)=f'(x)f'(y)+f'(x)f'(y) \tag{4}$$ for all $x$ and all $y$.

I claim that

there exists a $p>0$ such that $f'(p)=0$.

Once we have checked this, we may compute, using (3) and (4) that \begin{align} f(x+2p) &= f'(x+p)f(p)-f(x+p)\underbrace{f'(p)}_{=0}\\ &=(f'(x)\underbrace{f'(p)}_{=0}+f(x)f(p))f(p) \\ &= f(x)f(p)^2. \end{align} In view of (2) and out choice of $p$, we have $f(p)\in\{\pm1\}$, and therefore $f(p)^2=1$ and we have proved that $$f(x+2p)=f(x)$$ for all $x\in\RR$, that is, that $f$ is a periodic function and that $2p$ is one of its periods.

Let us prove our claim. To do so, suppose it is false, so that $f'(x)\neq0$ for all $x\in(0,+\infty)$. Since $f'(0)=1$ and $f'$ is continuous on $[0,+\infty)$, we see that in fact $f'(x)>0$ for all $x\in[0,\infty)$ and, therefore, that $f$ is strictly increasing on $[0,\infty)$. In view of (2), we have $f(x)\leq1$ for all $x\in[0,infty)$ so we know that the limit $\alpha=\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x)$ exists and is an element of $[0,1]$. As $f'(x)^2=1-f(x)^2$, $f'(x)^2$ converges to $1-\alpha^2$ as $x\to\infty$ and, since $f'(x)$ is positive on $[0,+\infty)$, we see that $\lim_{x\to\infty}f'(x)$ is the positive square root $\beta=\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}$.

Pick any $y\in\RR$. For all $x\in\RR$ we have that $$f(x+y)=f'(x)f(y)-f(x)f'(y).$$ Taking limits on both sides of this equality as $x\to\infty$ we find that $$\alpha=\beta f(y)-\alpha f'(y).$$ This holds for all $y$, so we may differentiate it with resprect to $y$, and we see that $$0=\beta f'(y)-\alpha f''(y)=\beta f'(y)+\alpha f(y).$$ This is absurd, as $f$ and $f'$ are linearly independent functions.

Let now $P$ be the set of positive real numbers $p$ such that $2p$ is a period of $f$. We have shown that $P$ is not empty. Let $\pi=\inf P$. If $\pi=0$, there exists a sequence $(p_i)_{i\geq1}$ of elements of $P$ converging to $0$, and then $$1=f'(0)=\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{f(2p_i)-f(0)}{2p_i}=0.$$ Therefore $\pi$ is a positive number. Now we may use, for example, the argument of Bourbaki to show that $\pi$ is irrational. That works because our arguments above easily show that $f(x)>0$ if $x\in(0,\pi)$, which is one of the things needed, and we can do the required integration by parts using (1).


All this shows in fact that

if $f:\RR\to\RR$ is a twice differentiable function such that $f''=-f$ on $\RR$, $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=1$, then $f$ is periodic and its period is irrational.

What you want, follows form this.

2

$ \mathbb{N} $ is countable and $ \mathbb{R} $ is uncountable, so there can never be a bijection

0

It is not bijective because it is not surjective. There is not $x\in\mathbb N$ such that $\sin(x)=2$.

However, it is true that $\sin(x)=0$ for only one value of $x\in\mathbb N$. This is because

$$\forall x\in \mathbb R:\sin x = 0\iff x=k\pi$$

for some $k\in\mathbb N$, and $k\pi\in\mathbb N\iff k=0$. Indeed, you can see this because if there exists some $\mathbb N\ni k\neq0$ such that $k\pi\in\mathbb N$, then $k\pi=m$ for some $m\in\mathbb N$, and this means that $$\pi=\frac mk$$

for two integers $m,k$.

In other words, this means that $\pi$ is rational, something we know is not true.

5xum
  • 123,496
  • 6
  • 128
  • 204
0

Bijective implies surjective and injective. $\sin: \Bbb{N} \to \Bbb{R}$ is not surjective since $\sin(x) = 1 \implies x = \pi/2 + 2\pi n \notin \Bbb{N}$.