§2 The Set ℚ of Rational Numbers
Subtraction forces us from to the integers , and division forces us on to the rational numbers
is a very satisfactory system for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It breaks down when we try to solve equations like . A unit square has a diagonal with , so there “ought” to be a number . We will see that no rational number works, even though rationals like and come very close: their squares are and .
So has gaps. The graph of crosses the -axis, yet it slips between all the rational points on that axis. Numbers like and also fall into these gaps.
Why this matters
This section is not really about algebraic numbers for their own sake. Its job is to show, beyond doubt, that has holes, which is why analysis needs a bigger number system with no holes at all (§4). The tool for this is the Rational Zeros Theorem below. It turns an infinite search (“is there any fraction whose square is ?”) into a short, finite list of candidates to check.
A number is called an algebraic number if it satisfies a polynomial equation
where the coefficients are integers, and .
Used in §16
My notes(saved)
Every rational is algebraic, since it solves . Expressions built from rationals with roots and ordinary arithmetic are algebraic as well.
, , , and are algebraic. The first three solve , and .
If , then , so . Expanding, satisfies
If , then , so and . So satisfies .
The next theorem tells us exactly which rationals could possibly solve such an equation. It lets us prove that algebraic numbers that look irrational usually are. If the statement seems complicated, read Corollary 2.3 and Examples 2–5 first.
Suppose are integers and is a rational number satisfying
where , and . Write where are integers with no common factors and . Then divides and divides .
Used in Corollary 2.3, §4, Exercise 6.5
My notes(saved)
In other words, the only rational candidates for solutions of (1) have the form where divides and divides .
Proof
We are given . Multiplying through by ,
Solving for ,
so divides . Since and have no common factors, divides . (Here we use the basic fact that if divides and has no common factor with , then divides .)
Solving (2) for instead,
so divides . Since and have no common factors, divides .
∎Intuitionwhy the proof works
After clearing denominators in (2), every term except visibly contains a factor of . Since the terms add up to , which divides, the leftover term must be divisible by too, and shares no factor with . The same balancing trick, run with instead of , handles . This is the familiar “even/odd” proof that is irrational, with divisibility by and in place of divisibility by .
Consider the polynomial equation , where are integers and . Any rational solution of this equation must be an integer that divides .
Used in Exercise 2.1, Exercise 2.2, Exercise 2.8, Exercise 4.12
My notes(saved)
Proof
In Theorem 2.2 the denominator must divide the leading coefficient, which is . So is an integer, and it divides .
∎Polynomials whose leading coefficient is are called monic.
Try it: rational root candidates
Section titled “Try it: rational root candidates”Enter integer coefficients from the highest power down. The widget lists every candidate allowed by Theorem 2.2 and evaluates the polynomial at each one exactly, using integer arithmetic.
is not a rational number.
Proof
By Corollary 2.3 the only possible rational solutions of are . None of these four numbers works. Since is a solution, it is not rational.
∎is not a rational number.
Proof
The only possible rational solutions of are , and none of them is a solution.
∎is not a rational number.
Proof
The only possible rational solutions of are , and none of these eight numbers works.
∎is not a rational number.
Proof
By Example 1, solves , whose only possible rational solutions are . At the left side is . At we can avoid the arithmetic: is obviously between and . Alternatively, , since the term in parentheses is one less than a multiple of .
∎is not a rational number.
Proof
By Theorem 2.2 the possible rational roots of are . Checking all 18 is discouraging, so here is a cleverer route. Example 1 showed . If were rational, so would be (Exercise 2.6), and then would have a rational solution. But the only candidates all fail. So is irrational.
∎In practice, estimating the number in question eliminates most candidates at once. The numbers in Examples 2–5 are clearly not integers. In Example 6, , and the nearest candidate is . Be careful, though: not every irrational-looking expression is irrational. See Exercise 2.7.
Common pitfall
- The theorem produces candidates. It never says that any of them is actually a root; you still have to check each one.
- It needs . If the constant term is , factor out a power of first: , and apply the theorem to .
- The fraction must be in lowest terms. The number is a root of , yet does not divide . Writing it as fixes this.
- To prove a number is irrational this way, you first need an integer polynomial that it satisfies. Finding that polynomial, as in Example 1, is often the real work.
The Rational Zeros Theorem finds the rational zeros of integer polynomials. To approximate other zeros, of these or other functions, one uses Newton’s method and the secant method, discussed in §31.
Reading alongside Abbott
Abbott opens with the classical proof that is irrational in Section 1.1: assume in lowest terms and show that and would both be even. Theorem 2.2 is that argument made to work for every integer polynomial at once. In Section 1.3, Abbott uses a set of rationals with no rational least upper bound to motivate completeness. Here that idea appears in §4, right after the Completeness Axiom.
Check your understanding
Section titled “Check your understanding”Take the quiz (3 questions)
By Corollary 2.3, which numbers are the only possible rational solutions of ?
The leading coefficient is , so a rational solution must be an integer dividing . None of the eight candidates squares to , so is irrational.
Suppose in lowest terms solves with integer coefficients and . What does the Rational Zeros Theorem say?
Theorem 2.2: the numerator divides the constant term and the denominator divides the leading coefficient.
Is every algebraic number rational?
Every rational is algebraic, because it solves . But algebraic numbers such as need not be rational (Definition 2.1).
Exercises
Section titled “Exercises”Show , , , and are not rational numbers.
Hint
Apply Corollary 2.3 to . In each case the candidates are the divisors of , and none of them squares to .
Solution
Suppose were rational. It would be a rational solution of , so by Corollary 2.3 it would be an integer dividing . We check that no divisor of (positive or negative) has .
- : divisors have squares .
- : divisors have squares .
- : divisors have squares .
- : divisors have squares .
- : divisors have squares .
None equals , so none of these square roots is rational.
My attempt(saved)
Show , and are not rational numbers.
Hint
The candidates for are ; for they are ; for they are .
Solution
Each number is a root of for the indicated , so a rational one would be an integer dividing (Corollary 2.3).
- : ; candidates have cubes .
- : ; candidates have seventh powers .
- : ; candidates have fourth powers .
So none of them is rational.
My attempt(saved)
Show is not a rational number.
Solution
If then , so solves . The candidates are , giving values and . None is zero.
My attempt(saved)
Show is not a rational number.
Solution
If then , so solves . The candidates are . Since , none of them is .
My attempt(saved)
Show is not a rational number.
Solution
If then , so and solves . The candidates are , but gives .
My attempt(saved)
In connection with Example 6, discuss why is rational if is rational.
Solution
is closed under multiplication and subtraction: if then .
My attempt(saved)
Show the following irrational-looking expressions are actually rational numbers.
Solution
(a) , so the expression is . (b) , so the expression is .
My attempt(saved)
Find all rational solutions of the equation .
Solution
By Corollary 2.3 the only candidates are . At : . At : . So is the only rational solution. Try it in the widget above.