I was recently working on a question essentially worded in the following way:
Where does a proof of √4 being irrational fall apart when we try to apply the same principles used for proving that √2 is irrational.
I attempted by making the same (in this case, intuitively correct) assumptions that led to a contradiction in the case of √2:
√4 is a rational number and can be written as mn where n≠0
mn is in lowest reduced terms; i.e. m and n are co-prime due to definition of rational numbers
Then I took the following steps:
m2=4n2
m2=2(2n2)
Thus, m2 is even ⟹ m is even and can be written as 2k.
m2=4k2=4n2
k=n
Thus, k is a factor of both m and n, contradicting the second assumption that I made (m and n are co-prime).
Although I understand intuitively that this is not the case, doesn't this show that √4 is irrational?
Answer
You have proven that n=k and m=2k. In the case that m and n are coprime, set k=1.
No comments:
Post a Comment