Mixing
Confusion on last step of Hardy's proof on the square root of “a rational number with imperfect square...
Here is a copy of Hardy's proof:
For suppose, if possible, that $p^2/q^2 = m/n$, $p$ having no factor in common with $q$, and $m$ no factor in common with $n$. Then $np^2 = mq^2$. Every factor of $q^2$ must divide $np^2$, and as $p$ and $q$ have no common factor, every factor of $q^2$ must divide $n$. Hence $n = λq^2$, where $λ$ is an integer. But this involves $m = λp^2$: and as $m$ and $n$ have no common factor, $λ$ must be unity. Thus $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$, as was to be proved. In particular it follows, by taking $n = 1$, that an integer cannot be the square of a rational number, unless that rational number is itself integral.
I understand the reasoning that gets us to this point, but I don't understand what $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$ tells us about anything at all related to the original goal of the proof, which is in Hardy's words:
In fact we may go further and say that there is no rational number whose square is $m/n$, where $m/n$ is any positive fraction in its lowest terms, unless $m$ and $n$ are both perfect squares.
proof-verification radicals irrational-numbers
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
add a comment |
Here is a copy of Hardy's proof:
For suppose, if possible, that $p^2/q^2 = m/n$, $p$ having no factor in common with $q$, and $m$ no factor in common with $n$. Then $np^2 = mq^2$. Every factor of $q^2$ must divide $np^2$, and as $p$ and $q$ have no common factor, every factor of $q^2$ must divide $n$. Hence $n = λq^2$, where $λ$ is an integer. But this involves $m = λp^2$: and as $m$ and $n$ have no common factor, $λ$ must be unity. Thus $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$, as was to be proved. In particular it follows, by taking $n = 1$, that an integer cannot be the square of a rational number, unless that rational number is itself integral.
I understand the reasoning that gets us to this point, but I don't understand what $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$ tells us about anything at all related to the original goal of the proof, which is in Hardy's words:
In fact we may go further and say that there is no rational number whose square is $m/n$, where $m/n$ is any positive fraction in its lowest terms, unless $m$ and $n$ are both perfect squares.
proof-verification radicals irrational-numbers
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
add a comment |
Here is a copy of Hardy's proof:
For suppose, if possible, that $p^2/q^2 = m/n$, $p$ having no factor in common with $q$, and $m$ no factor in common with $n$. Then $np^2 = mq^2$. Every factor of $q^2$ must divide $np^2$, and as $p$ and $q$ have no common factor, every factor of $q^2$ must divide $n$. Hence $n = λq^2$, where $λ$ is an integer. But this involves $m = λp^2$: and as $m$ and $n$ have no common factor, $λ$ must be unity. Thus $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$, as was to be proved. In particular it follows, by taking $n = 1$, that an integer cannot be the square of a rational number, unless that rational number is itself integral.
I understand the reasoning that gets us to this point, but I don't understand what $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$ tells us about anything at all related to the original goal of the proof, which is in Hardy's words:
In fact we may go further and say that there is no rational number whose square is $m/n$, where $m/n$ is any positive fraction in its lowest terms, unless $m$ and $n$ are both perfect squares.
proof-verification radicals irrational-numbers
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
Here is a copy of Hardy's proof:
For suppose, if possible, that $p^2/q^2 = m/n$, $p$ having no factor in common with $q$, and $m$ no factor in common with $n$. Then $np^2 = mq^2$. Every factor of $q^2$ must divide $np^2$, and as $p$ and $q$ have no common factor, every factor of $q^2$ must divide $n$. Hence $n = λq^2$, where $λ$ is an integer. But this involves $m = λp^2$: and as $m$ and $n$ have no common factor, $λ$ must be unity. Thus $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$, as was to be proved. In particular it follows, by taking $n = 1$, that an integer cannot be the square of a rational number, unless that rational number is itself integral.
I understand the reasoning that gets us to this point, but I don't understand what $m = p^2$, $n = q^2$ tells us about anything at all related to the original goal of the proof, which is in Hardy's words:
In fact we may go further and say that there is no rational number whose square is $m/n$, where $m/n$ is any positive fraction in its lowest terms, unless $m$ and $n$ are both perfect squares.
proof-verification radicals irrational-numbers
proof-verification radicals irrational-numbers
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
edited Nov 20 '18 at 3:33
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
asked Nov 20 '18 at 3:20
Vityou
517
517
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If you understand it so far (up to end of first yellow box of your post) it has then already been shown that if $m/n=p^2/q^2$ then $m=p^2$ and $n=q^2.$ Hardy in the proof assumes that $m/n$ (lowest terms) is the square of a rational. He temporarily calls that rational (before squaring) $p/q.$ He may of course assume $gcd(p,q)=1, gcd(m,n)=1$ which he does near the start.
At the end he has shown that $m=p^2,n=q^2,$ i.e. the numerator and denominator of $m/n$ are both perfect squares, which is what he's trying to prove.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005889%2fconfusion-on-last-step-of-hardys-proof-on-the-square-root-of-a-rational-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you understand it so far (up to end of first yellow box of your post) it has then already been shown that if $m/n=p^2/q^2$ then $m=p^2$ and $n=q^2.$ Hardy in the proof assumes that $m/n$ (lowest terms) is the square of a rational. He temporarily calls that rational (before squaring) $p/q.$ He may of course assume $gcd(p,q)=1, gcd(m,n)=1$ which he does near the start.
At the end he has shown that $m=p^2,n=q^2,$ i.e. the numerator and denominator of $m/n$ are both perfect squares, which is what he's trying to prove.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
add a comment |
If you understand it so far (up to end of first yellow box of your post) it has then already been shown that if $m/n=p^2/q^2$ then $m=p^2$ and $n=q^2.$ Hardy in the proof assumes that $m/n$ (lowest terms) is the square of a rational. He temporarily calls that rational (before squaring) $p/q.$ He may of course assume $gcd(p,q)=1, gcd(m,n)=1$ which he does near the start.
At the end he has shown that $m=p^2,n=q^2,$ i.e. the numerator and denominator of $m/n$ are both perfect squares, which is what he's trying to prove.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
add a comment |
If you understand it so far (up to end of first yellow box of your post) it has then already been shown that if $m/n=p^2/q^2$ then $m=p^2$ and $n=q^2.$ Hardy in the proof assumes that $m/n$ (lowest terms) is the square of a rational. He temporarily calls that rational (before squaring) $p/q.$ He may of course assume $gcd(p,q)=1, gcd(m,n)=1$ which he does near the start.
At the end he has shown that $m=p^2,n=q^2,$ i.e. the numerator and denominator of $m/n$ are both perfect squares, which is what he's trying to prove.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
If you understand it so far (up to end of first yellow box of your post) it has then already been shown that if $m/n=p^2/q^2$ then $m=p^2$ and $n=q^2.$ Hardy in the proof assumes that $m/n$ (lowest terms) is the square of a rational. He temporarily calls that rational (before squaring) $p/q.$ He may of course assume $gcd(p,q)=1, gcd(m,n)=1$ which he does near the start.
At the end he has shown that $m=p^2,n=q^2,$ i.e. the numerator and denominator of $m/n$ are both perfect squares, which is what he's trying to prove.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
answered Nov 20 '18 at 3:37
coffeemath
2,4081413
2,4081413
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
add a comment |
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
Wouldn't this just show that $m$ and $n$ can be perfect squares? Why does this show that they have to?
– Vityou
Nov 20 '18 at 3:41
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
I guess you didn't understand Hardy's proof (the part in the first yellow box) well enough. Right after the "Thus:" in that box, he has derived that $m=p^2,n=q^2$ has to be true, i.e. $m,n$ have to be squares. Please add to your question (rather than in another comment) exactly which step(s) in the first yellow box you have trouble with.
– coffeemath
Nov 20 '18 at 4:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005889%2fconfusion-on-last-step-of-hardys-proof-on-the-square-root-of-a-rational-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
