how to prove $\sup \{ \sin n \mid n\in \mathbb N \} =1$
-
4While I cannot give a reasonable answer to this question, I can quote a far more interesting result, ${\sin n\mid n\in\mathbb N}$ is actually dense in $[-1,1]$. – Asaf Karagila Sep 11 '11 at 11:28
-
I agree with you.I think the method to work out your result is as same as mine. – Leitingok Sep 11 '11 at 11:33
-
2Related: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4764/sine-function-dense-in-1-1 – Bruno Stonek Sep 11 '11 at 13:21
3 Answers
If $\alpha$ is an irrational number, then $\{ \operatorname{fractional part}(n\alpha) : n \in\mathbb{N} \}$ is dense in $(0,1)$.
Let $\alpha = 1/(2\pi)$. Then for every open interval about $1/4$, no matter how small, there is some $n$ such that $\operatorname{fractional part}(n\alpha)$ is in that interval. When $n/(2\pi)$ is close to $1/4$, then $n$ is close to $\pi/2$, so (since the sine function is continuous) $\sin n$ is close to $1$.
How does one prove the assertion in my first paragraph above? I think Dym & McKean's book on Fourier transforms gives a proof using Fourier transforms.
There's also the question of how to prove that $\pi$, and hence $1/(2\pi)$, is irrational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
In epsilon-delta language: Let $\varepsilon>0$. Since sine is continuous, there exists $\delta>0$ such that if $\pi/2-\delta<x<\pi/2+\delta$, then $1 \ge \sin x > 1-\varepsilon$ (the first inequality does not come from continuity, but from known behavior of the sine function). Since $\{ \operatorname{fractional part}(n\alpha) : n \in\mathbb{N} \}$ is dense in $(0,1)$, there exists $n$ such that $n/(2\pi)$ is between $1/4 \pm \delta/(2\pi)$. So $n$ is between $\pi/2\pm\delta$ and so $\sin n > 1-\varepsilon$.
So for every $\varepsilon>0$, the desired sup is $>1-\varepsilon$ but $\le 1$.
-
Nice answer. Where you write $n\alpha$ is in that interval didn't you mean $\operatorname{fractional part}(n\alpha)$ is in that interval? – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 19 '15 at 01:20
-
-
Thank you for your reply. Is there a reason why you wrote $n \alpha$ instead? I find it confusing, especially because you also write $n/(2\pi)$ where I think it should also be the fractional part thereof. But I might be missing something. – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 19 '15 at 04:44
-
Assuming that it is accepted that π is irrational, is there a nice elementary way to show this? – Anshuman Agrawal Mar 16 '23 at 16:05
Edit: Based on the suggestion of one of the comments, and the fact that this answer is bogus, I'd like to point out here in black and white that this answer is terrible. If anyone is searching for an answer to this question, look at the other ones. This one should never have been accepted.
Not a proof exactly, but remember $\forall_{\epsilon>0}$ you can find an element $\frac{p}{q}\in\mathbb{Q}$ such that $|\frac{p}{q}-\frac{\pi}{2}|<\epsilon$
So we can also find an element in $\mathbb{N}$ that is arbitrarily close to $\frac{\pi}{2}\mod 2\pi$. Since sine is continuous, if we find a sequence of natural numbers $a_n$ that approaches $\frac{\pi}{2}\mod 2\pi$ as a limit, then $\sin{a_n}$ approaches 1. Thus $$\sup \{ \sin n |\ n\in \mathbb \{a_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\} \} =1$$ and since $\{a_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\}\subset\mathbb{N}$ then the supremum over all of N is at least as big. Since sine is bounded from above by 1, we are done.
Lots of handwaving, but you should be able to collect the intermediate bits.

- 1,270
-
how to find $n\in \mathbb N$ arbitrarily close to $\frac{π}{2}\mod{2π}?$ – Leitingok Sep 11 '11 at 12:17
-
That's the part that was a little shaky. It's possible but I need to think about a better way to explain it. – Tim Seguine Sep 11 '11 at 12:36
-
-
@Tim: It's not just a little shaky, I'm afraid. It's a crucial gap in the argument. All you can deduce is that $p$ is within $q\epsilon$ of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ mod $2\pi$. And you have not shown any kind of bound on $q$. – TonyK Sep 11 '11 at 12:53
-
@TonyK Yeah, I know. I read back through it and I realized my reasoning was wrong. You can find an integer with the property that is needed, but my reasoning was bull. q is of course unbounded so the bound was useless. – Tim Seguine Sep 11 '11 at 13:10
-
-
You could add an explicit mention of the fact that there is a serious problem with this reasoning, at the beginning of your post. – Did Feb 10 '12 at 06:10
You can use Dirichlet's theorem. Given $\alpha\in \mathbb R$ and a positive integer $N$ there integers $p,q$ with $1\leq q \leq N$ such that $$ |q\alpha-p|< \frac1N. $$ This can be easily proved using pigeonholing. See
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Dirichlet%27s_Approximation_Theorem