Skip to main content
Home
plus.maths.org

Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Main navigation

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • For

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

      Popular topics and tags

      Shapes

      • Geometry
      • Vectors and matrices
      • Topology
      • Networks and graph theory
      • Fractals

      Numbers

      • Number theory
      • Arithmetic
      • Prime numbers
      • Fermat's last theorem
      • Cryptography

      Computing and information

      • Quantum computing
      • Complexity
      • Information theory
      • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
      • Algorithm

      Data and probability

      • Statistics
      • Probability and uncertainty
      • Randomness

      Abstract structures

      • Symmetry
      • Algebra and group theory
      • Vectors and matrices

      Physics

      • Fluid dynamics
      • Quantum physics
      • General relativity, gravity and black holes
      • Entropy and thermodynamics
      • String theory and quantum gravity

      Arts, humanities and sport

      • History and philosophy of mathematics
      • Art and Music
      • Language
      • Sport

      Logic, proof and strategy

      • Logic
      • Proof
      • Game theory

      Calculus and analysis

      • Differential equations
      • Calculus

      Towards applications

      • Mathematical modelling
      • Dynamical systems and Chaos

      Applications

      • Medicine and health
      • Epidemiology
      • Biology
      • Economics and finance
      • Engineering and architecture
      • Weather forecasting
      • Climate change

      Understanding of mathematics

      • Public understanding of mathematics
      • Education

      Get your maths quickly

      • Maths in a minute

      Main menu

    • Home
    • Articles
    • Collections
    • Podcasts
    • Maths in a minute
    • Puzzles
    • Videos
    • Topics and tags
    • Audiences

      • cat icon
        Curiosity
      • newspaper icon
        Media
      • graduation icon
        Education
      • briefcase icon
        Policy

      Secondary menu

    • My list
    • About Plus
    • Sponsors
    • Subscribe
    • Contact Us
    • Log in
    • icon

      Mathematical mysteries: Transcendental meditation

      Helen Joyce
      1 September, 2002
      2 comments
      September 2002

      New numbers from old

      Leopold Kronecker

      Leopold Kronecker

      Nineteenth-century German mathematician Leopold Kronecker once said

      "God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man,"

      We make rational numbers from the integers by allowing division by integers other than zero. Rational numbers were all the Greeks allowed (in fact, they didn't allow negative quantities to stand on their own, so really they only worked with positive rationals). This left them confused - and sometimes frightened - when geometric results such as Pythagoras' Theorem seemed to imply that rational numbers weren't enough.

      If you use Pythagoras' Theorem on a right-angled triangle with the two shorter sides of length 1 unit, you quickly realise that the square of the length of the hypotenuse is 2. So what is the length of the hypotenuse? Well, it's 2 - but what fraction is that? The answer is that it isn't one - 2 is an irrational number, that is, one that can't be represented by any fraction of two integers. Modern-day mathematicians call the rational and irrational numbers together the real numbers, and if all you want to do is to talk about lengths, they are all you need. We can think of real numbers as something we get from rationals by taking limits of infinite sequences - for example, a non-terminating decimal is the limit of all of its finite decimal approximations.

      The square root of 2 is irrational

      The first thing you might ask if you saw this definition is - are there any irrational numbers? How do we know that 2, say, is irrational? To prove that 2 is irrational, suppose the contrary, namely that it is rational, so that there are integers p and q such that (p/q)2=2. We can also assume that p and q are mutually prime, that is, that they have no common divisors. Then p2=2q2 so that p2 is divisible by 2. This means there is another integer s such that p2=2s. Now suppose p is odd. Then p=2r+1 for some integer r. Substituting into the formula for p2 and multiplying out we see that p2=(2r+1)2 4r2+4r+1=2s. But this isn't possible, because the right hand side is odd, but the left hand side is even. This contradiction means that p is even, so it can be written as p=2r for some integer r. Substituting into the formula (p/q)2=2, we get that (2r/q)2=2. Dividing across by 2, this means that 2r2=q2, so q2 is even, and q is even (just as we could prove p was). But this is a contradiction, because we assumed p and q had no common factors. This contradiction means that 2 is not rational.

      Algebraic and Transcendental numbers

      Although 2 is irrational, it is the solution of a very simple equation, namely x2=2. Numbers like 2, which are the solutions to polynomial equations with integer coefficients, are called algebraic, and although an algebraic number may be irrational, it can still be thought of as simple in some sense. But there are numbers which are the solution of no such equation, and such numbers are called transcendental. Since rational numbers are clearly algebraic, the real numbers can be divided into two sets - the algebraic numbers and the transcendental numbers. It is remarkably hard, and may even be impossible, to tell whether a certain number is algebraic or transcendental. It is known that the two most famous irrational numbers, π and e, are both transcendental. The fact that π is transcendental means that one of the most famous problems of antiquity - that of squaring the circle - can never be solved.

      Squaring the circle

      The problem of squaring the circle is to find a construction, using only a straight-edge and compass, to give a square of the same area as a given circle. Since doing this would amount to finding a polynomial expression for π, the transcendentality of π means that it isn't possible.

      Ferdinand von Lindemann

      Ferdinand von Lindemann

      The result was proved in 1882 by German mathematician Ferdinand von Lindemann - but amazingly amateur mathematicians have continued to produce fallacious "proofs" that the circle can be squared to this day!

      Some of the most bizarre attempts have involved proposing a different and rational value for π, which would of course be useful if we could do it, but naturally there would be consequences for the rest of mathematics. In 1897, the Indiana State Legislature almost went as far as legislating to set the value of pi equal to 3! The bill was never actually passed, but it came within a hair's breadth of becoming law. Long before π was finally proved to be transcendental most learned societies had stopped considering circle-squaring arguments sent to them - even though proof of its impossibility was lacking, most professional mathematicians thought it would never be done.

      Sums and Products

      Despite the fact that π and e are now both known to be transcendental, it is still not known whether π+e and π×e are. It is known that at least one of them must be, but it is not known which.

      Aleksandr Gelfond

      Aleksandr Gelfond

      Surprisingly, it is quite easy to prove that eπ is transcendental. This follows from a theorem proved by two mathematicians, Aleksandr Gelfond and Theodor Schneider independently in 1934. The Gelfond-Schneider Theorem says that if a and b are algebraic, a is not 0 or 1, and b is not rational, then ab is transcendental. We use probably the most famous result in all of mathematics, Euler's formula eiπ=−1. Taking both sides to the power −i gives (−1)−i=(eiπ)−i=eπ. Since the theorem tells us that the left hand side is transcendental, it follows that the right hand side is too. It also follows that e×π and e+π are not both algebraic, because if they were, then the equation x2+(e+π)x+(e×π)=0 would have roots e and π, making both numbers algebraic. Of course, this proof doesn't tell us which of e×π and e+π is transcendental, or suggest any way to solve the mystery.

      For more about this most mysterious number, have a look at Pi not a piece of cake in the news section of this issue of Plus.


      About the author

      Helen Joyce is editor of Plus.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Comments

      Andrew Irving

      22 September 2014

      Permalink

      This is such a lovely article - really enjoyed reading it.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Leslie.Green

      22 September 2018

      Permalink

      The fact that half of all possible rational numbers have a value less than one is a remarkably beautiful observation.

      http://lesliegreen.byethost3.com/articles/density.pdf

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Read more about...

      circle-squaring
      e
      Pi
      irrational number
      rational number
      algebraic number
      transcendental number
      Mathematical mysteries
      University of Cambridge logo

      Plus Magazine is part of the family of activities in the Millennium Mathematics Project.
      Copyright © 1997 - 2025. University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.

      Terms