Timeline for Why is it hard to prove that the Euler Mascheroni constant is irrational?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2023 at 12:08 | comment | added | The Amplitwist | Reposting a link mentioned in a previous comment so that it appears in the "Linked" questions list: Irrationality proof technique: no factorial in the denominator | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 6:05 | history | protected | Lucia | ||
| May 9, 2013 at 1:07 | vote | accept | user16557 | ||
| May 5, 2013 at 5:13 | comment | added | David Corwin | +1 because the question produced a great answer. I think it might have been a perfectly good question if it asked what is the philosophy behind proving transcendence, why have we been able to prove what we proved, and why the limits we have exist, etc. | |
| May 4, 2013 at 20:21 | comment | added | Benjamin Dickman | I can, at the least, say that the irrationality of $e$ is not so tough to prove given its Maclaurin Expansion. See, e.g., mathoverflow.net/questions/103129/… | |
| May 3, 2013 at 18:21 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 88 | |
| May 2, 2013 at 3:31 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | I feel like this question points in the wrong direction. As far as I understand (I'm not an expert), there's nothing special about $\gamma$ that makes it particularly hard. Instead, just about all irrationality questions are hard by default, and it's $e$ and $\pi$ that are special in being unusually tractable. | |
| May 2, 2013 at 3:15 | answer | added | Douglas Zare | timeline score: 56 | |
| May 2, 2013 at 2:39 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | As funny as it may be to pretend something else was meant, asking what the philosophical justification is does not ask why philosophers aren't proving theorems for us. | |
| May 2, 2013 at 2:26 | comment | added | KConrad | Because philosophers are not likely to provide a key idea? | |
| May 2, 2013 at 2:20 | history | asked | user16557 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |