6

I would like critiques on correctness, conciseness, and clarity. Thanks!

Proposition: There is no rational number whose square is 12

Proof: Suppose there were such a number, $a = \in \mathbb{Q}$ s.t. $a^2 = 12$.

This implies that $\exists$ $m, n \in \mathbb{Z}$ s.t. $\frac{m^2}{n^2} = 12.$ Assume without loss of generality that $m,~ n$ have no factors in common.

$\Rightarrow m^2 = 12n^2$.

This implies that $m^2$ is even, and therefore that $m$ is even; it can thus be written $2k = m$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$.

Thus $m^2 = 12n^2 $

$\Rightarrow 4k^2 = 12n^2 $

$\Rightarrow \frac{k^2}{3} = n^2$

Because $n^2$ is an integer, it is clear that $3$ divides $k^2$ which imples that $k$ has $3$ or $\frac{k}{n}$ has a factor (because $\frac{k^2}{n^2}= 3$)

Suppose that the former is true, and $3$ is a factor of $k$. Then $k = 3j$ for some integer j, which implies that $(3j)^2 = 3n^2$

$\Rightarrow 9j^2 = 3n^2 $

$\Rightarrow n^2 = 3j^2 $

$\Rightarrow n^2 = \frac{k^2}{n^2}j^2$

$\Rightarrow k = \frac{n^2}{j}$ but this implies that $j$ divides $n^2$, but $j$ divides $m$, and by initial assumption $n$ and $m$ have no factors in common, so this is a contradiction.

Suppose now that $\frac{k}{n}$ is a factor of k. Then $k = \frac{k}{n}j$ for some integer $j$. Then $(\frac{k}{n}j)^2 = 3n^2$ which implies that $3j^2 = 3n^2 \Rightarrow j^2 = n^2 \Rightarrow j = n$. But this means that $n$ divides $m$, which again is a contradiction. Thus any rational representation of the number whose square equals $12$ leads to a contradiction and this number must therefore have no rational representation.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
BenL
  • 981
  • 4
    Looks fine to me. A shorter version: $\sqrt{12}=2\sqrt{3}$ belongs to $\mathbb{Q}$ iff $\sqrt{3}$ belongs to $\mathbb{Q}$, but that is impossible by the unique factorization theorem and the primality of $3$. – Jack D'Aurizio Jan 26 '17 at 18:45
  • 5
    Correct thinking, but you can get away with a lot less work and writing.:) To begin with, write: $$\sqrt{12} = 2 \sqrt{3}.$$

    This means, all you need is to show that $\sqrt{3}$ is irrational.

    – avs Jan 26 '17 at 18:46
  • 1
    Looks good. An alternate approach is to look at the polynomial $x^2-12$ and use the rational root theorem to show that any square root of $12$ would have to be a divisor of $12$. – lulu Jan 26 '17 at 18:47
  • Well, this is in the context of construction of the reals from the rationals, so we technically don't know yet that there is such a number as $\sqrt{12}$. Even in this proof there is a line where I feel like I make an unwarranted assumption about factorizations that aren't legit in the context. – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 18:47
  • $j$ divides $n^2$ doesn't mean $j$ divides $n$ though? – user160738 Jan 26 '17 at 18:49
  • @user160738 That is my concern also. – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 18:50
  • From $k^2=3n^2$ you can say $3$ divides $k$ (and hence must divide $m$) and in that case $n^2=3j^2$. But then $3$ also divide $n^2$, and since $3$ is a prime, then $3$ divides $n$. So $3$ divides both $m,n$, a contradiction. Also, as a general rule of thumb, try to avoid expressions involving fractions when working with integers – user160738 Jan 26 '17 at 18:52
  • 2
    3 divides k^2 which imples that k has 3 or k/n has a factor I don't understand the or part. Since $3 \mid k^2$ it follows that $3 \mid k,$ and there is no or case. – dxiv Jan 26 '17 at 18:52
  • Also, as a general observation, $12=2^2\cdot 3$ so eliminating the factor of $2$ does not really help the proof. Focus instead on $3$: from $m^2=12n^2$ it follows that $3 \mid m^2$ so $3 \mid m,$, then write $m = 3k$ and proceed to show that $3 \mid n,$ which contradicts the coprimeness of $m,n$. – dxiv Jan 26 '17 at 18:57
  • I don't see that $k^2 = 3n^2 \Rightarrow 3|k$ necessarily. I think saying that requires an assumption about $\sqrt{3}$ which we can't make. And in this context $\frac{k}{n} = \sqrt{3}$ – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 18:57
  • 1
    @BenL For any integers $a=bc \implies b \mid a$ and $c \mid a,$. That's by definition, and requires no additional assumptions. You have $k^2 = 3 n^2,$, therefore $3 \mid k^2,$. – dxiv Jan 26 '17 at 18:59
  • Suppose that $3$ does not divide $k$. Now on RHS you have a factor of $3$, so you must have at least one factor of $3$ on LHS. Where would you get it? $3$ is not a factor of $k$ by assumption, so would you say $\sqrt{3}$ is a factor of $k$? that's just silly, so this results in a contradiction. This only works because $3$ is a prime, and any prime would do the same job. – user160738 Jan 26 '17 at 18:59
  • For the record 'That's just silly' isn't something my professors in the past would have accepted. And yes, I actually do say that $\sqrt{3} $could be a factor of $k$. Since we a) don't know the nature of $\sqrt{3}$ and b) don't have any notion of irrational numbers, I don't know that I can simply assume much because it's obvious or that the contrary is silly. – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 19:02
  • There are many errors. The first is that it uses without proof a key inference $,k^2 = 3n^2,\Rightarrow, n\mid k.\ $ The proof is trivial after that is proved. – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 19:48
  • @BillDubuque This really isn't helpful. You say there are 'many' errors, only point out 1, and don't provide any means of resolving it. If you read superficially through the comments above, you'd see that this is an issue I've already brought up. There seem to be differing opinions about whether or not this is an issue, and it is certainly isn't clear what assumptions are acceptable. – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 19:52
  • One error is enough to refute the argument. Start by fixing that (which generally is the crux of the matter in such irrationality proofs), – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 19:53
  • @BillDubuque I actually do not use that assumption. I'm not sure what you're reading. In fact, the second half of the proof is devoted to proving exactly that. I'd prefer you not point out errors (or pretend to contribute at all to my threads) if you aren't going to suggest a means to resolve the issue. – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 19:57
  • What do you mean by "$k/n$ is a factor or $k$" if $k/n$ is not an integer? That part of the proof makes no sense. – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 20:00

3 Answers3

6

Proof.   Assume $\sqrt{12} \in \mathbb{Q}$ is rational, then it can be written as $\sqrt{12}=\cfrac{m}{n}$ with $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$ coprime.

Squaring the equality gives $m^2 = 12 n^2 = 3 \cdot 4 \cdot n^2\,$. Therefore $3 \mid m^2 = m \cdot m$ and, since $3$ is a prime, it follows by Euclid's Lemma that $3 \mid m\,$.

Then $m = 3k$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and substituting back gives $9 k^2 = 12 n^2 \iff 3 k^2 = 4 n^2\,$. Therefore $3 \mid 4 n^2$ and, since $3 \not \mid 4$ it follows that $3 \mid n^2$ then, again by Euclid's Lemma, $3 \mid n\,$.

But $3 \mid m$ and $3 \mid n$ contradicts the assumption that $m,n$ are coprime, so the premise that $\sqrt{12} \in \mathbb{Q}$ must be false, therefore $\sqrt{12}$ is irrational.


Critique of the posted proof.

Proof: Suppose there were such a number, $a = \in \mathbb{Q}$ s.t. $a^2 = 12$.

This implies that $\exists$ $m, n \in \mathbb{Z}$ s.t. $\frac{m^2}{n^2} = 12.$ Assume without loss of generality that $m,~ n$ have no factors in common.

$\Rightarrow m^2 = 12n^2$.

So far so good.

This implies that $m^2$ is even, and therefore that $m$ is even;

The fact that $2 \mid m^2 \implies 2 \mid m$ may sound obvious, but still needs some justification. You could argue by contradiction, or use Euclid's Lemma.

it can thus be written $2k = m$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$.

Thus $m^2 = 12n^2 $

$\Rightarrow 4k^2 = 12n^2 $

Correct. As an observation, $k^2 = 3 n^2$ just eliminated the perfect square factor of $4$ and reduced the problem to proving that $\sqrt{3}$ is irrational.

$\Rightarrow \frac{k^2}{3} = n^2$

Because $n^2$ is an integer, it is clear that $3$ divides $k^2$ which imples that $k$ has $3$

You should generally avoid fractions where they are not necessary. The previous line gave $k^2 = 3 n^2\,$, which directly implies that $3 \mid k^2\,$.

or $\frac{k}{n}$ has a factor (because $\frac{k^2}{n^2}= 3$)

This makes no sense, and it is in fact not needed to complete the proof.

Suppose that the former is true, and $3$ is a factor of $k$. Then $k = 3j$ for some integer j, which implies that $(3j)^2 = 3n^2$

$\Rightarrow 9j^2 = 3n^2 $

$\Rightarrow n^2 = 3j^2 $

The proof is complete right here at this point, if you just note that the last equality implies that $3 \mid n^2\,$, and therefore $3 \mid n$ which contradicts the assumption that $m,n$ are coprime.

[ rest of post snipped ]

dxiv
  • 76,497
  • My main concern is proving that $3 | n^2 \Rightarrow 3|n$. I'm familiar with Euclid's Lemma, but I'm not clear whether it's legit in the context of a real analysis course. Thanks though, this was very helpful! – BenL Jan 26 '17 at 20:01
  • 1
    @BenL Euclid's Lemma is of course true, regardless of context. Here, $n$ is an integer, and $n^2=n\cdot n$ is a product of two integers (which happen to be equal). $3$ is a prime which divides that product, so it must divide (at least) one of the factors. Ergo, $3 \mid n,$. – dxiv Jan 26 '17 at 20:03
  • @BenL You don't need Euclid's Lemma for that. mod $3!:\ n\not\equiv 0,\Rightarrow,n\equiv \pm1,\Rightarrow, n^2\equiv 1,\Rightarrow,3\nmid n^2.\ $ But you do need Euclid (or equivalent) if you want to prove that for all primes $p$ since then you cannot brute force check all possible residues as above. – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 20:03
2

"This implies that ∃ m,n∈Z s.t. m2n2=12. Assume without loss of generality that m, n have no factors in common."

I, personally, would not argue "without loss of generality" . $q \in \mathbb Q$ is defined as $q = \frac mn$ for some relatively prime integers. So we declare them to have no factors in common by fiat-- not merely by lack of loss of generality. (It's not that big of an issue.)

"This implies that $m^2$ is even, and therefore that m is even"

I'd accept this but dxiv very much has a point, that it should require some justification. I personally would simply put it in more definitive language. I'd say: "Therefore $2|m^2$ and, as $2$ is prime, $2|m$". This could require a little justification in that all numbers have a unique prime factorization so that for prime $p$ we know if $p|ab$ then $p|a$ or $p|b$ so if $p|m^2$ then $p|m$ or $p|m$.

"Because $n^2$ is an integer, it is clear that 3 divides $k^2$ which implies that k has 3 or $\frac kn$ has a factor ".

As $\frac {k^2}3$ is a integer, it implies $3|k^2$. Period. That always happens. That any thing else may happen doesn't matter. It may have $k/n$ as a factor or it may have $7$ as a factor. Or it may not. Those don't matter.

Also, if $\frac kn$ is an integer at all, then it is trivial that $\frac kn$ is a factor $k$ whether or not $k^2/3$ is an integer or not. And if $\frac kn$ is not an integer then the statement $\frac kn$ is a factor of $k$ is meaningless.

And if $k/n$ is an integer, then $n|m = 2k$ and as $n,m$ have no factor in common then $n = 1$. (Which would mean $\sqrt{12} = 2\sqrt{3}$ is an integer which is easy to verify is not the case).

"if the former ($3|k$) then .... "

All that is just fine and the rest is unneeded.

But the rest is a bit of a mess.

"Suppose now that $k/n$ is a factor of $k$" Again, this is trivial if $n|k$ and is meaningless if $n \not \mid k$.

And we can rule out $n|k$ as that would imply $\sqrt{12} = m/n = 2k/n$ is an integer. Which

But beware. This is true of all numbers and nothing relevant is likely to arise. And it doesn't:

" Then $(\frac knj)^2=3n^2$ which implies that $3j^2=3n^2$"

Actually, no, it implies $3j^2 = 3n^4$. And thus we get $j = n^2$ (we can assume $j$ is positive this time as we can assume $k$ and $n$ are positive).

"But this means that n divides m, which again is a contradiction."

Actually it's not a contradiction if $n = 1$.

But this isn't a contradiction that needed to be reached. $k/n$ is a factor of $k$ only makes sense if $n|k$ which would imply $n|m = 2k$.

fleablood
  • 124,253
0

See this proof that if $n$ is not a perfect square then $\sqrt{n}$ is irrational:

Follow-up Question: Proof of Irrationality of $\sqrt{3}$

The proof starts by saying that if $n$ is not a perfect square then there is a $k$ such that $k^2 < n < (k+1)^2$. The proof breaks down if $k^2 = n$.

Note that this proof does not use divisibility.

marty cohen
  • 107,799
  • It is misleading to say the proof does not use divisibility. It essentially uses the division algorithm to achieve descent on denominators. I explain this further in this May 20, 2009 sci.math post, where I highlight the beautiful view of irrationality proofs in terms of Dedekind's conductor ideal. – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 21:18
  • 1
    This has nothing to do with the question asked, so it should be a comment, not an answer. – Bill Dubuque Jan 26 '17 at 21:26