Is there a distinguishable characteristic between the summation / continuous fraction method in algebraic and transcendental numbers?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I try to illustrate the formation and derivation of algebraic numbers and transcendental numbers. I found that both categories of numbers can be made by continuous summation or division/fraction method. Are there some distinguishable features between algebraic and non-algebraic numbers, if you make them via summation or continued fraction method?
I thought I found an easy way to explain the difference between rational and irrational numbers by a continued fraction, which is a sort of precision made with a limit of infinity. But now this method doesn't seem to explain how the next categories of numbers, namely the imaginary, the transcendental and the complex numbers differ from each other. At least transcendental numbers can be expressed by a summation too.
I guess the same question can be asked if summation / continued fraction method can reveal if the number is algebraic?
Can we pinpoint the transcendentality of the number from the continued fraction or the summation notation in mathematics?
sequences-and-series number-theory continued-fractions transcendental-numbers
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I try to illustrate the formation and derivation of algebraic numbers and transcendental numbers. I found that both categories of numbers can be made by continuous summation or division/fraction method. Are there some distinguishable features between algebraic and non-algebraic numbers, if you make them via summation or continued fraction method?
I thought I found an easy way to explain the difference between rational and irrational numbers by a continued fraction, which is a sort of precision made with a limit of infinity. But now this method doesn't seem to explain how the next categories of numbers, namely the imaginary, the transcendental and the complex numbers differ from each other. At least transcendental numbers can be expressed by a summation too.
I guess the same question can be asked if summation / continued fraction method can reveal if the number is algebraic?
Can we pinpoint the transcendentality of the number from the continued fraction or the summation notation in mathematics?
sequences-and-series number-theory continued-fractions transcendental-numbers
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
1
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I try to illustrate the formation and derivation of algebraic numbers and transcendental numbers. I found that both categories of numbers can be made by continuous summation or division/fraction method. Are there some distinguishable features between algebraic and non-algebraic numbers, if you make them via summation or continued fraction method?
I thought I found an easy way to explain the difference between rational and irrational numbers by a continued fraction, which is a sort of precision made with a limit of infinity. But now this method doesn't seem to explain how the next categories of numbers, namely the imaginary, the transcendental and the complex numbers differ from each other. At least transcendental numbers can be expressed by a summation too.
I guess the same question can be asked if summation / continued fraction method can reveal if the number is algebraic?
Can we pinpoint the transcendentality of the number from the continued fraction or the summation notation in mathematics?
sequences-and-series number-theory continued-fractions transcendental-numbers
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
I try to illustrate the formation and derivation of algebraic numbers and transcendental numbers. I found that both categories of numbers can be made by continuous summation or division/fraction method. Are there some distinguishable features between algebraic and non-algebraic numbers, if you make them via summation or continued fraction method?
I thought I found an easy way to explain the difference between rational and irrational numbers by a continued fraction, which is a sort of precision made with a limit of infinity. But now this method doesn't seem to explain how the next categories of numbers, namely the imaginary, the transcendental and the complex numbers differ from each other. At least transcendental numbers can be expressed by a summation too.
I guess the same question can be asked if summation / continued fraction method can reveal if the number is algebraic?
Can we pinpoint the transcendentality of the number from the continued fraction or the summation notation in mathematics?
sequences-and-series number-theory continued-fractions transcendental-numbers
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
edited Aug 16 at 12:39
Renato Faraone
2,24311626
2,24311626
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
asked Aug 16 at 4:38
MarkokraM
3591313
3591313
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
1
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25
 |Â
show 3 more comments
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
1
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
1
1
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25
 |Â
show 3 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2884405%2fis-there-a-distinguishable-characteristic-between-the-summation-continuous-fra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
In general, the continued fraction does not help to check whether a given number is algebraic irrational or transcendental. In practice, it is even worse. If the continued fraction does not terminate, in general there is no proof that the given number is actually irrational. This is probably the case with the Euler-Mascheroni-constant.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:40
Moreover, not for every transcendental number we will find an infinite closed-form sum converging to the given number. Even worse, there are transcendental numbers that are not even computable.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 11:44
That is somewhat sad. Is there any alternative way to illustrate difference than "integer coefficient polynomial root" thing?
– MarkokraM
Aug 16 at 12:06
Usually , even irrationality proofs are extremely difficult. Of course, this becomes not better for transcendentality-proofs. But some numbers can be proven to be transcendental. Google "Liouville-numbers" , "Gelfond-Schneider-theorem" and "Baker's theorem" to get a feeling of the progress that was made. Despite this progress, we still do not much when it comes to irrationality-questions. This would change dramatically if "Schnauel's conjecture" would be proven. Currently, we do not even know, whether , for example , $e+pi$ is irrational.
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:19
1
We also do not know whether $ecdot pi$ is irrational, but it might be of interest that it is easy to prove that at least one of the numbers $e+pi$ and $ecdot pi$ is transcendental (probably both are).
– Peter
Aug 16 at 12:25