I was surprised that the numbers $\pi$, $\ln{(2)}$, $\zeta{(2)}$, and $\zeta{(3)}$ can be shown to be irrational in what seems to be "three-lined proofs" (as identified here on Overflow: Establishing zeta(3) as a definite integral and its computation.).

The idea goes that we suppose, for $j \in \mathbb{N}$, we have a family of non-zero integrals such that $$\int_0^1 x^j f(x)\ dx = P_j \xi+ Q_j $$ where $P_j, Q_j \in \mathbb{Q}$, $f(x)$ is arbitrary, and $\xi$ is some number. If $\xi$ is rational, then $\int_0^1 x^j f(x)\ dx = A_j/B_j $ yields a rational expression. Multipying $a_{nj} \in \mathbb{Z}$ to both sides, and taking the sum from $j = 0$ to $n$, we have $$\sum_{j=0}^n a_{nj} \int_0^1 x^j f(x)\ dx = \sum_{j=0}^n a_{nj} \frac{A_j}{B_j} = \frac{E_n}{F_n} $$ where $E_n, F_n \in \mathbb{Z}$.

Beuker treated the $a_{nj}$ coefficients as the coefficients of the shifted Legendre polynomials in his proof for the irrationality of $\zeta{(3)}$, where

$$ P_n{(x)} = \frac{1}{n!} \frac{d^n}{dx^n} (x^n (1-x)^n) = \sum_{j=0}^n a_{nj} \, x^j$$

This leads to

$$\int_0^1 \bigg( \sum_{j=0}^n a_{nj} \, x^j \bigg) f(x)\ dx = \int_0^1 P_n{(x)}\,f(x) \ dx = \frac{E_n}{F_n}$$

If we can show, as $n$ gets larger,

$$ \left| F_n \int_0^1 \frac{1}{n!} (x^n (1-x)^n)\, \frac{d^n}{dx^n}f(x) \ dx \right| = |E_n|\to 0 $$

we get a contradiction, since at "some point", $|E_n|$ is an integer between $0$ and $1$. Thus, $\xi$ must be irrational. Of course, the hard part is finding a suitable function $f(x)$.

Since $f(x)$ has been found for the proofs of the above numbers, has it been shown the number $e$ can be proved irrational using the above method (implying has such an $f(x)$ been found)?


One has $$\int_0^1 x^k e^x dx = A_ke+B_k \to 0$$ as $k\to \infty$, $A_k,B_k\in \mathbb{Z}$, by integration-by-parts and induction. If $e=a/b$, then $(A_k a+B_kb)/b \to 0$, so $A_ke+B_k=0$ for $k$ large, a contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh wow! I didn't see that one coming! Do you know of any existing literature on finding $f(x)$ to show a given $\xi$ is irrational? $\endgroup$ – Maiyu Apr 14 '15 at 4:30
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, $\int_0^1 (1-x)^k e^x dx = k!(e - \sum_{0 \le i \le k} 1/i!)$, so if you use $(1-x)^k$ instead of $x^k$ you get the usual approximation to $e$ through Taylor series. $\endgroup$ – Henry Cohn Apr 14 '15 at 4:49
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Henry Cohn: Yes, it's just a repackaging of the standard Fourier proof in a form reminiscent of the question. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Apr 14 '15 at 4:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As it turns out, Beuker's already observed the irrationality of $e^a$, where $a \in \mathbb Q$, albeit the idea, as @Ian Agol mentions, dates back to Fourier. For those interested, you can find the link here. $\endgroup$ – Maiyu Apr 14 '15 at 16:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.