It is well known that the euler number $e$ is irrational. It is also well known that the Taylor expansion of $e$ can be represented as $$e=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k!}$$ Now, when we look at the term $$T(k)=\frac{1}{k!}\quad\forall k\in\mathbb{Z}$$ We realize that $T(k)$ has to be a rational number for all $k$. How can a sum of rational numbers yield an irrational number $e$? I am not a mathematician, hence all and any help is appreciated.
-
3Any number can be written as a (possibly non terminating) decimal. An irrational number is a number. – copper.hat Jul 26 '18 at 20:39
-
1"How can a sum of rational numbers yield an irrational number $e$?" Because you add together infinitely many of these rational numbers, and infinities tend to ruin intuition. In fact, one common way to formally define the real numbers is (vaguely speaking) as any possible limit of sequences of rational numbers. – Arthur Jul 26 '18 at 20:42
-
Every number, rational or irrational, has a decimal expansion. A decimal expansion is an infinite series of rational terms. It's the infinite number of terms in the series that is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the result to be irrational. It is not sufficient e.g because there are rationals with infinite (repeating) decimal expansions. – NickD Jul 26 '18 at 20:42
-
Spivak's calculus book (not the manifolds book) has a great elementary proof. – Michael Burr Jul 26 '18 at 20:46
4 Answers
Every irrational number is an infinite sum of rational numbers
For example $$\sqrt 2 =1+.4+.01+.004+.....$$ The magic word is infinite sum.

- 68,728
-
A finite sum of rational numbers is always rational, but an infinite sum of rational numbers can be rational or irrational. – James Arathoon Jul 26 '18 at 21:26
-
@JamesArathoon Sure, every real number is an infinite sum of rationals and an infinite sum of irrationals. – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani Jul 26 '18 at 21:34
Take the square root of $2$, which is known to be irrational; it's roughly $1.41428\ldots$. I can write that as $$ 1 + \frac{4}{10} + \frac{1}{100} + \frac{4}{1000} + \frac{2}{10000} + \frac{8}{100000} + \ldots $$ When I do so, you can see that each individual term is a rational number.
Now you might be thinking "but I know that when I add two rationals, I get a rational:" $$ \frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad + bc}{bd} $$ ... so why isn't the larger sum still rational?
The answer is that any finite part of it is rational. The first three terms, for instance, give the rational $$ \frac{141}{100}. $$
But that doesn't mean that an infinite sum must be rational as well, and indeed, that's not true.
Let me work by analogy with another notion: any finite sum of numbers is finite. But an infinite sum of numbers is not necessarily finite, as $$ 1 + 1 + 1 + \ldots $$ shows.
So just because you've proven some property works for pairs of things or finite collections, you don't necessarily know that it works for infinite things.
That subtle fact is a large part of what the third portion of most serious calculus courses is all about -- the "sequences and series" part. So to really understand it, you've got some work to do, alas.

- 93,729
-
-
Thanks. I guess all those years of being a teacher have actually taught me something. :) – John Hughes Jul 26 '18 at 21:30
-
The seven years I spent as a professor taught me that most students didn't really care about learning, rather they just wanted a "rubber stamp" in order to get a job. I left academics 22 years ago, but have friends, who are still professors, who have told me that there has been a markedly sharp decline in their student's skills/abilities/attentiveness/motivation etc. Have you seen this phenomenon ("The customer's mentality") at Brown yet? – Mark Viola Jul 26 '18 at 21:39
-
Sure, we all claim to be seeing that, and maybe we really are. Then I look at something like this, and realize that I could be wrong: http://www.lunarbaboon.com/comics/youth.html – John Hughes Jul 26 '18 at 22:59
If the sum was finite, then of course we could add all the rational numbers into a fraction with the result being rational. But since the sum has infinitely many terms, there is a possibility that the sum does not approach something we can represent as the ratio of two integers. In that case, it is irrational.
If I remember correctly, one of the classic proofs of the irrationality of e does not need more than a bit of calculus to follow.
That's quite a normal situation. When you “sum a series”, you don't actually do a sum, but take a limit of finite sums: $$ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}(a_0+a_1+\dots+a_n) $$ Even if each $a_n$ is rational, the limit is not a (finite) sum of rational numbers, so there's no compelling reason for it to be rational.
The Taylor-Lagrange theorem applied to the exponential function says that, for any integer $k$, there exists $c_k\in(0,x)$ such that $$ e=\sum_{n=0}^k\frac{1^n}{n!}+\frac{e^{c_k}}{(k+1)!} $$ because the $n$-th derivative of $e^x$ is $e^x$.
Suppose, to the contrary, that $e=a/b$, for some positive integers $a$ and $b$. Take $k>\max\{b,3\}$; then $$ e=\sum_{n=0}^k\frac{1^n}{n!}+\frac{e^{c_k}}{(k+1)!}< \sum_{n=0}^k\frac{1^n}{n!}+\frac{3}{(k+1)!} $$ because $c_k<1$ and $e<3$. Thus $$ 0<\left(e-\left(1+1+\frac{1}{2!}+\dots+\frac{1}{k!}\right)k!\right)< \frac{3}{(k+1)!}k!=\frac{3}{k+1} $$ However, the term $$ e-\left(1+1+\frac{1}{2!}+\dots+\frac{1}{k!}\right)k! $$ is integer by assumption, as $k!$ is a multiple of $b$. On the other hand $$ \frac{3}{k+1}<\frac{3}{3+1}=\frac{3}{4} $$ which is a contradiction.
Thus $e$ is irrational and it's the very structure of $$ e=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{n!} $$ that makes it so.

- 238,574