Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On Irrational and Transcendental Numbers: Matthijs J. Warrens
On Irrational and Transcendental Numbers: Matthijs J. Warrens
On Irrational and Transcendental Numbers: Matthijs J. Warrens
Warrens
Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 The Riemann zeta function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
3
4
4
2 Irrational numbers
2.1 A theorem for the numbers e and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Auxiliary results for the irrationality of (3) . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 The irrationality of (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
5
7
11
3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Hermite-Lindemann approach
Hermites identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The number e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Algebraic integers and the house of an algebraic number
The number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem . . . . . . . . . . .
14
14
14
16
17
19
4 The
4.1
4.2
4.3
Gelfond-Schneider theorem
23
Some auxiliary results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The case , R, > 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The general case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.1
Introduction
History
1.2
X
1
1
1
1
= s + s + s +
(s) =
s
n
1
2
3
n=1
for a complex number s with Re s > 1. For any positive even integer 2n we
have the expression
B2n (2)2n
,
(2n) = (1)n+1
2(2n)!
where B2n is the 2n-th Bernoulli number (see Abramowitz, Stegun 1970,
chapter 23). The first few Bernoulli numbers are B0 = 1, B1 = 1/2,
B2 = 1/6, B4 = 1/30, B6 = 1/42 and B8 = 1/30. The odd Bernoulli
numbers B3 , B5 , . . . are zero. The expression for (2n) is due to Euler
(Dunham 1990). It is unknown whether there is such a simple expression for
odd positive integers.
Since is a transcendental number, it follows from the above expression for
even numbers that (2n) is transcendental. In 1979 Apery showed that the
number (3) is irrational. It is unknown if (3) is also transcendental.
Furthermore, it is unknown whether (5), (7), (9) and (11) are all
irrational, although Zudilin (2001) showed that at least one of them is
irrational. Moreover, Rivoal (2000) showed that infinitely many of the
numbers (2n + 1), where 2n + 1 is an odd integer, are irrational.
1.3
Outline
2
2.1
Irrational numbers
A theorem for the numbers e and
In this subsection all integers are rational integers. Let c R>0 . Suppose
f (x) is a function that is continuous on [0, c] and positive on (0, c).
Furthermore, suppose there is associated with f an infinite sequence {fi }
i=1
of anti-derivatives that are integer-valued at 0 and c and satisfy f10 = f and
fi0 = fi1 for i 2. Theorem 1 shows that if such a f exists for c, then the
number c is irrational. The proof comes from Parks (1986). It is an
extension of a simple proof by Niven (1947) that is irrational.
Theorem 1. Let c and f (x) be as above. Then c is irrational.
Proof: Suppose c is rational. Then there are m, n Z such that c = m/n.
First, let Pc be the set of polynomials p(x) R[x] such that p(x) and all its
derivatives are integer-valued at 0 and c. The set Pc is closed under addition.
Furthermore, repeated application of the product rule shows that Pc is also
closed under multiplication. Consider
p0 (x) = m 2nx.
Since p0 (0) = m, p0 (c) = m and p0 (x) = 2n are all integers, we have
p0 (x) Pc . Next, let k Z1 and let
pk (x) =
xk (m nx)k
.
k!
Using induction on k we will show that pk (x) Pc . For p1 (x) = x(m nx)
we have p1 (0) = p1 (c) = 0 and p01 (x) = p0 (x). Hence, p1 (x) Pc . Next,
suppose p` (x) Pc and consider
p`+1 (x) =
x`+1 (m nx)`+1
.
(` + 1)!
We have p`+1 (0) = p`+1 (c) = 0. Furthermore, using the chain rule we have
p0`+1 =
x` (m nx)`
(m 2nx) = p` (x)p0 (x).
`!
Since Pc is closed under multiplication, and since p0 (x) and p` (x) are in Pc ,
it follows that p`+1 (x) Pc .
Next, since f (x) is continuous on [0, c], it attains a maximum on [0, c]. Let
M denote this maximum. Furthermore, since pk (x) is a polynomial for all k
it is continuous and differentiable on [0, c]. Hence, pk (x) attains a maximum
on [0, c], either in an endpoint or in the interior (0, c) where p0k (x) = 0. The
5
derivative of pk (x) is pk1 (x)p0 (x). Since pk1 (x) is only zero at x = 0 and
x = c, we must have p0 (x) = 0, or x = m/2n, in order to have p0k (x) = 0. At
x = m/2n we have
2 k
m
m
4n
pk
=
.
2n
k!
Replacing both f (x) and pk (x) by their maxima, we obtain
Z
f (x)pk (x)dx
0
m2
4n
k!
k
Z
Mc
dx =
0
m2
4n
k!
k
.
f1 (x)p0k (x)dx.
0
0
x=0
2.2
X
1
1
1
=1+ +
+
3
n
8 27
n=1
k
j
is an integer.
other hand, p[log n/ log p] does divide one such number, namely itself. Thus,
Y
p[log n/ log p] .
dn =
pn
Let (n) be the prime-counting function that gives the number of primes less
than or equal to n. The prime number theorem states that
lim
(n) log n
= 1.
n
Y
X
p[log n/ log p] exp
log n = e(n) log n < e(1+)n .
dn =
pn
pn
Lemma 7. Let r, s Z>0 . If r > s, then
Z 1Z 1
log(xy) r s
x y dxdy
1 xy
0
0
(1)
x y dxdy = 2 (3)
.
1 xy
k3
0
0
k=1
X
1
=
xk = 1 + x + x2 + ,
1x
|x| < 1,
k=0
1Z 1X
0 k=0
xr+k y s+k
k=0
1X
0 k=0
log(xy)xr+k y s+k dx < .
(2)
k=0
(3)
1
=
.
(r + k + 1)2
Using this identity and log(xy) = log x + log y in (3), we obtain that the
expression in (3) and hence (1) is equal to
Z
X
k=0
1 s+k
y
y s+k
log y
r+k+1
(r + k + 1)2
dy.
(4)
k=0
+
=
s+k+1 r+k+1
s+k+1 r+k+1
1
1
=
.
2
(s + k + 1)
(r + k + 1)2
Hence, if r > s, (4) and hence (1) can be written as
1 X
rs
k=0
1
1
(s + k + 1)2 (r + k + 1)2
1 X
=
rs
k=1
1
rs
rs
X
k=1
1
1
(s + k)2 (r + k)2
1
.
(s + k)2
X
k=0
X
X 1
1
1
=
2
=
2
(3)
(r + k + 1)3
(r + k)3
k3
k=1
!
.
k=1
Lemma 8. Let D = {(u, v, w) : u, v, w (0, 1)}. Then the function f given
by
1w
f (u, v, w) = u, v,
1 (1 uv)w
is a bijection from D to D. Furthermore, its Jacobian determinant is
f (u, v, w)
uv
=
.
(u, v, w)
(1 (1 uv)w)2
Proof: Note that f is defined on D. We first show that f (D) D. Let
(u, v, w) D. Since 0 < 1 uv < 1, we have 0 < 1 w < 1 (1 uv)w < 1,
or
1w
0<
< 1,
1 (1 uv)w
and hence f (u, v, w) D, and it follows that f is well-defined.
Next, let f 2 = f f denote the two times iteration of f . We have
2
f (u, v, w) = f u, v,
1w
1 (1 uv)w
1w
1(1uv)w
1w
uv) 1(1uv)w
=
u, v,
1 (1
1 (1 uv)w (1 w)
1 (1 uv)w (1 uv)(1 w)
= (u, v, w) ,
= u, v,
1
0
0
(x, y, z)
z
uv
1
0 =
= det 0
=
.
(u, v, w)
w
(1 (1 uv)w)2
y
x
z
w
10
Lemma 9. In the region D = {(u, v, w) : u, v, w (0, 1)}, the function
f (u, v, w) =
1
u(1 u)v(1 v)w(1 w)
=
u(1 u) v(1 v) w(1 w).
2
2 1 w uvw
Forpt [0, 1], the maximum of t(1 t) occurs at t = 1/3 and the maximum
of t(1 t) occurs at t = 1/2. Hence, we have
s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
= .
f (u, v, w)
2
3
3
2
2
27
3
3
f (u, v, w)
2.3
1 dn
(xn (1 x)n ) .
n! dxn
log(xy)
Pn (x)Pn (y)dxdy.
1 xy
It follows from Lemma 5 that Pn (x) Z[x]. Since Pn (x) is of degree n, the
quantity Pn (x)Pn (y) is a sum of terms of the form aij xi y j where
11
i, j {0, 1, . . . , n}, and aij Z. Since aii is a square for each i, we have
aii > 0 for each i. Note that the double integral can be written as a sum of
double integrals of the form in Lemma 7. It follows from Lemma 7 that the
double integral is a sum of rational numbers whose denominators divide d3n
plus a positive integer multiple of (3). Hence, there exists integers An and
Bn > 0 such that the double integral equals (An + Bn (3))/d3n .
Next, we find a second expression for the double integral. Since
1
Z 1
log(xy)
log(1 (1 xy)z)
1
=
dz,
=
1 xy
1 xy
1
(1
xy)z
0
z=0
Pn (x)Pn (y)
dxdydz.
1 (1 xy)z
(5)
For k {0, 1, . . . , n 1} the multiple derivative (dk )/(dxk ) (xn (1 x)n ) can
be expressed as a sum of terms each having both x and 1 x as a factor.
Switching order of integration and integrating by parts repeatedly, the triple
integral (5) becomes
Z Z Z
dn
n
n
1 1 1 1
dxn (x (1 x) )
Pn (y)
dxdydz
n! 0 0 0
1 (1 xy)z
n1
Z Z Z
1 1 1 1
1
d
n
n
=
Pn (y)
d
(x (1 x) ) dydz
n! 0 0 0
1 (1 xy)z
dxn1
Z Z Z
dn1
n
n
1 1 1 1
n1 (x (1 x) )
Pn (y)yz dx
=
dxdydz
n! 0 0 0
(1 (1 xy)z)2
Z Z Z
xn (1 x)n
1 1 1 1
Pn (y)n!(yz)n
= =
dxdydz
n! 0 0 0
(1 (1 xy)z)n+1
Z 1Z 1Z 1 n n n
x y z (1 x)n Pn (y)
=
dxdydz.
(6)
(1 (1 xy)z)n+1
0
0
0
Applying the transformation of Lemma 8 we have u = x, v = y,
zn =
(1 w)n
(1 (1 uv)w)n
and
n+1
(1 (1 xy)z)
=
1w
1 (1 uv)
1 (1 uv)w
n+1
=
(uv)n+1
.
(1 (1 uv)w)n+1
dudvdw
n
n+1
(1 (1 uv)w) (uv)
(1 (1 uv)w)2
0
0
0
Z 1Z 1Z 1
Pn (v)
dudvdw.
=
(1 u)n (1 w)n
1 (1 uv)w
0
0
0
12
With the same arguments we used to show that the triple integral in (5) is
equal to the integral in (6), but now with respect to v instead of x, we finally
obtain the identity
Z 1Z 1
log(xy)
Pn (x)Pn (y)dxdy
1 xy
0
0
Z 1Z 1Z 1
dudvdw
.
=
un (1 u)n v n (1 v)n wn (1 w)n
(1 (1 uv)w)n+1
0
0
0
Applying Lemma 9 and Lemma 7 (with r = s = 0) we obtain
n Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
Z 1Z 1
log(xy)
1
dudvdw
0<
Pn (x)Pn (y)dxdy
1
xy
27
1
(1 uv)w
0
0
0
0
0
n Z 1 Z 1
1
log(uv)
=
dudv
27
1 uv
0
0
n
1
.
= 2(3)
27
For a positive integer n and integers An and Bn we have
n
|An + Bn (3)|
1
0<
< 2(3)
.
3
dn
27
Assume now that (3) = a/b for some integers a, b with b > 0. By Lemma 6,
we have, for sufficiently large n,
n
1
0 < |bAn + aBn | 2(3)
d3n b
27
n
n
1
(2.8)3
< 2(3)
(2.8)3n b = 2(3)
b < 2(3)(0.9)n b.
27
27
Since bAn + aBn is an integer, we obtain a contradiction for sufficiently large
n. Hence, (3) is irrational.
13
3.1
Hermites identity
(7)
I(u; f ) = e
m
X
(j)
j=0
(0)
m
X
f (j) (u).
(8)
j=0
3.2
The number e
Let p be a prime number with p > max {n, |a0 |} and define
f (x) = xp1 (x 1)p (x n)p .
14
(10)
Using this f with deg f = m = (n + 1)p 1 and I(u; f ) in (7), we define the
quantity
J=
n
X
k=0
We first derive an algebraic lower bound for |J|. Since (9) holds, the
contribution to the first summand on the right-hand side of (8) to J is 0, and
we have
n X
m
X
J =
ak f (j) (k).
k=0 j=0
m
X
a0 f
(j)
(k) +
j=p1
m X
n
X
ak f (j) (k).
(11)
j=p k=1
p
p
dt ek max |f (t)| kek nn+1
t[0,k]
n
X
k=0
|ak ||I(k; f )|
n
X
p
c1 cp2 ,
k=0
for some constants c1 and c2 that are independent of p. Since we also have
|J| (p 1)!, we obtain a contradiction for sufficiently large p. The
contradiction proves the theorem.
15
3.3
Tn
1
.
1 n1
|T n 1 n |
1
|1 n |
=
n
.
n1
n1
n
1
T 1
T 1 n1
16
From here on we make a distinction between rational integers, which are
simply elements of Z, and algebraic integers.
3.4
The number
(1 + e` ) =
1
X
1 =0
`=1
1
X
e1 1 ++d d
d =0
The exponents inside the multiple sum include some which are non-zero, for
example, 1 = 1 and 2 = = d = 0, and also some which are zero, for
example, 1 = = d = 0. Call the exponents 1 , 2 , . . . , 2d and let the first
n be the non-zero ones. We have n < 2d , and
2d n + e1 + e2 + + en = 0.
(12)
1
Y
1 =0
1
Y
(x (1 1 + + d d ))
d =0
r
x2d n
17
h(x) Z[x]
n
X
k=1
We first derive an algebraic lower bound for |J|. Using (8) and (12) we can
write J as
m
m X
n
X
X
J = 2d n
f (j) (0)
f (j) (k ).
(13)
j=p1
j=p k=1
It turns out that the inner sum over k is a rational integer. Indeed, first note
that since b` for ` {1, 2, . . . , d} is an algebraic integer, bk for
k {1, 2, . . . , n} is also an algebraic integer. Furthermore, since g(x) Z[x]
we have that f (x) Z[x]. Hence, since the sum over k is a symmetric
polynomial in b1 , . . . , bn with coefficients in Z and thus a symmetric
polynomial with rational integer coefficients in the 2d numbers
b(1 1 + + d d ), it follows from the theory of elementary symmetric
functions that the sum over k is a rational integer.
Since f (j) (k ) = 0 for j < p, it follows from Lemma 5 that the double sum in
(13) is a rational integer divisible by p!. Furthermore, we have f (j) (0) = 0 for
j < p 1 and f (j) (0) is divisible by p! for j p due to Lemma 5. It follows
from the theory of elementary symmetric functions that
f (p1) (0) = bnp (p 1)!(1)np (1 2 n )p ,
is divisible by (p 1)!. However, if p is sufficiently large f (p1) (0) is not
divisible by p!. Hence, if p > 2d n it follows that |J| (p 1)!.
Similar to the proof of Theorem 12 we can derive that |J| c1 cp2 where c1
and c2 are constants that are independent of p. We get a contradiction,
which completes the proof.
18
3.5
(14)
We can assume that the i are rational integers. If this is not the case, we
consider the product of all the expressions formed by substituting for one or
more of the j one of its conjugates. Suppose j has degree mj , let its mj
conjugates be denoted by j (ij ) for ij {1, 2, . . . , mj }, and put
M=
n
Y
mj .
j=1
mn
Y
in =1
j1 ,...,jn
where the latter sum is taken over all tuples of non-negative integers
(j1 , . . . , jn ) with j1 + + jn = M and (j1 , . . . , jn ) is a polynomial
expression in b1 (1), . . . , n (mn ) which has rational integer coefficients and
which is invariant under any permutation of (i (1), . . . , i (mi )) for
i {1, 2, . . . , n}. Hence, all (j1 , . . . , jn ) Q. Let 1 , . . . , t be the distinct
numbers among the j1 1 + + jn n . Then the product becomes
1 e1 + + t et ,
where each i is the sum of some of the terms (j1 , . . . , jn ). Hence,
1 , . . . , t Q. To complete, we multiply the rational numbers by a common
denominator.
We now show that at least one of the new coefficients j is non-zero. To this
end, we define on C a lexicographic ordering such that if Re < Re
or Re = Re and Im < Im . If 1 , . . . r , 1 , . . . r are complex numbers
with 1 1 ,. . ., r r , then it holds that 1 + + r 1 + + r . We
assume without loss of generality that 1 n and 1 t .
Hence, we have t = M n and j1 1 + + jn n < t for
(j1 , . . . , jn ) 6= (0, . . . , M ), and thus t = (n (1) n (mn ))m1 mn 6= 0.
19
n
X
im =1
(15)
where 1 , . . . , n are distinct and the i are rational integers, and that there
are integers 0 = n0 < n1 < < nr such that nt +1 , . . . , nt+1 is a complete
set of conjugates for each t, and
nt +1 = nt +2 = = nt+1 .
Since the 1 , . . . , n and 1 , . . . , n are algebraic, we can choose a non-zero
rational integer b such that b1 , . . . , bn and b1 , . . . , bn are algebraic
integers. Let p be a prime number and define for i {1, 2, . . . , n} the
functions
[(x 1 ) (x n )]p
fi (x) = bnp
(x i )
20
with deg fi = m = np 1. Using these fi (x) and I(u; f ) in (7) we define for
i {1, 2, . . . , n} the quantities
Ji =
n
X
k Ii (k ; fi ) = 1 Ii (1 ; fi ) + + n Ii (n ; fi )
k=1
We first derive an algebraic lower bound for |J1 Jn |. Using (8) and (15)
we obtain
m X
n
X
(j)
Ji =
k fi (k ).
j=0 k=1
(j)
fi
(i ) = bnp (p 1)!
n
Y
(i k )p .
k=1,k6=j
(p1)
Hence, fi
(i ) is an algebraic integer divisible by (p 1)! but not by p! if
p is sufficiently large. It then follows that Ji is an algebraic integer that is
divisible by (p 1)!.
Next, we show that Ji 6= 0. For sufficiently large p, the number Ji can be
written as
Ji =
m X
r1
X
h
i
(j)
(j)
nt+1 fi (nt +1 ) + + fi (nt+1 ) .
j=0 t=0
n
X
|k ||Ii (k ; fi )|.
k=1
ei ei
,
2i
and
cos =
ei + ei
.
2
22
4.1
has at most n 1 +
Pn
j=1 dj
real zeros.
n1
X
a0j (t) + wj aj (t) ewj t + a0n (t).
j=1
Since the wj are pairwise distinct, and since wj 6= 0 for j {1, 2, . . . , n 1},
a0j (t) + wj aj (t) has exactly degree dj for j {1, 2, . . . , n 1}. Furthermore,
since we may suppose that wn = 0, the derivative a0n (t) has degree dn 1. It
0
follows from
Pnthe induction hypothesis that f (t) has at most
(n 2) + j=1 dj real zeros.
23
Finally, let N denote the number of real zeros of f (t), and let
b1 < b2 < . . . < bN denote these zeros. Since f (t) is continuous on the
intervals [bi , bi+1 ] and differentiable on (bi , bi+1 ) for i {1, 2, . . . , N 1}, it
follows from RollesPtheorem that f 0 (t) has at P
least N 1 real zeros. Hence,
N 1 (n 2) + nj=1 dj , or N (n 1) + nj=1 dj .
Lemma 20. Let r, R R with 1 r R. Let f1 (z), f2 (z), . . . , fm (z) be
analytic in D(R) and continuous on D(R). Let y1 , y2 , . . . , ym C with
|yi | r for i {1, 2, . . . , m}. Then the determinant
f1 (y1 ) fm (y1 )
..
..
= det ...
.
.
f1 (ym )
fm (ym )
m(m1)/2
m
Y
R
m!
M (R, fj ).
r
j=1
fm (y1 z)
..
.
.
f1 (y1 z)
..
..
h(z) = det(fj (yi z)) = det
.
.
f1 (ym z)
fm (ym z)
Since the yi satisfy |yi | r, the functions fj (yi z) are analytic in D(R/r) and
continuous on D(R/r). Since it is a sum of products of the fj (yi z), the
determinant h(z) itself is analytic in D(R/r) and continuous on D(R/r).
Next, let K = m(m 1)/2. Since the fj (yi z) are analytic functions on
D(R/r) they can be expanded into power series on D(R/r). It follows that
fj (yi z) =
K1
X
k=0
where bk (j) C for each k and gij (z) is analytic in D(R/r) and continuous
on D(R/r). Since the determinant is linear in each of its columns, we can
view h(z) as z K times an analytic function on D(R/r) plus terms involving
the factor
n1
y1 y1nm
n
.. ,
..
z n1 +n2 ++nm det yi j = z n1 +n2 ++nm det ...
.
.
n1
ym
nm
ym
m(m 1)
= K.
2
m
Y
M (R, fj ).
j=1
r K
R
M (R/r, h(z))
r K
R
m!
m
Y
M (R, fj ),
j=1
4.2
hold. This can be done by taking, for example, S large, L0 = bS log Sc,
L1 = bS/ log Sc and K = log log S. If we combine the first two inequalities
we obtain
KL (L0 log S + L1 S) 2L2 .
(16)
Next, consider some arrangement
(2S1)2
(17)
(18)
Taking the log on both sides of (19), and using inequality (18), we obtain
L
X
log M (R, fj )
j=1
2
(20)
L2
.
2
L2
,
2
(21)
1N
T N L(L0 +2L1 S)
N L0 L
N L1 LS
(1 + )N L1 LS 1 +
.
Since N log L! N L log L, we obtain, after taking the log on both sides, the
inequality
log || N L(L0 + 2L1 S) log T N L log L N L0 L log S
N L0 L log 1 + N L1 LS log (1 + ) N L1 LS log 1 + .
Since N , T , log 1 + , log (1 + ) and log 1 + are constants that
only depend on and , there is an absolute constant c2 R independent of
S for which
log || c2 L (L0 + log L + L0 log S + L1 S) .
If we choose S sufficiently large we obtain the inequality
log || c3 L(L0 log S + L1 S),
(22)
L2
.
3
L2
,
3
(23)
which specifies a lower bound for log ||. We now get a contradiction
between the upper bound in (21) and the lower bound in (23). Since was
an arbitrary submatrix, this shows indeed that all L L submatrices of M
have determinant zero.
Since = det(fj (yi )) = 0 for any sub-determinant , it follows that the
columns of the matrix (fj (yi )) are linearly dependent over R. Hence, there
exists b1 , b2 , . . . , bL R, not all 0, such that
L
X
bj fj (yi ) = 0,
for i 1, 2, . . . , (2S 1)2 .
(24)
j=1
u(j) v(j)yi
Since fj (yi ) = yi
L
X
u(j) v(j)yi
bj yi
= 0,
for i 1, 2, . . . , (2S 1)2 .
(25)
j=1
If we consider identity (25) for all pairs (u, v) with u {0, 1, . . . , L0 } and
v {0, 1, . . . , L1 }, we obtain
!
L1
L0
X
X
u
b(L0 +1)v+u+1 yi vyi = 0, for i 1, 2, . . . , (2S 1)2 .
(26)
v=0
u=0
28
Choosing
av (t) =
L0
X
b(L0 +1)v+u+1 tu ,
wv = v log ,
u=0
u=0
v=0
P 1
wv t . Note that this sum
Each of the L values of yi is a zero of L
v=0 av (t)e
consists of L1 + 1 polynomials, each of degree L0 . We now at last use our
assumption , R, > 0, and apply Lemma 19. By that lemma, there are
at most
L0 (L1 + 1) + (L1 + 1) 1 = L 1
distinct zeros. Since L 1 < L (2S 1)2 , two of the yi must be the same,
and we have
s1 (i) + s2 (i) = s1 (i0 ) + s2 (i0 )
However, since the pairs (s1 (i), s2 (i)) and (s1 (i0 ), s2 (i0 )) are distinct, it
follows that
s1 (i0 ) s1 (i)
=
Q.
s2 (i) s2 (i0 )
4.3
and put
E =n+
n
X
dk ,
and
k=1
29
m = max |wk |.
k
(27)
1
M ((st + s + t)R, f )
log
.
log s
M (tR, f )
Proof: Let w D(tR) such that |f (w)| = M (tR, f ). It then follows that
D(R) D((1 + t)R, w)
(28)
(29)
and
By Jensens formula (Greene, Krantz 2006, p. 279) we have
sR
Z
0
We also have
Z sR
0
N (r, w, f )
1
dr =
log f w + sRei d log |f (w)|.
r
2
N (r, w, f )
dr
r
sR
N (R, w, f )
dr = N (R, w, f ) log s.
r
log
.
log s
M (tR, f )
Lemma 23 is used in the proof of Proposition 22. The following result from
Balkema and Tijdeman (1973, Theorem 2) is also used in the proof of
Proposition 22.
30
and put
E =n+
n
X
dk ,
and
k=1
m = max |wk |.
k
E 1 Rm(+1)
e
M (R, f ).
1
1+
.
1
st + s
t
s
t
Combining the previous two inequalities we obtain
st + s + t E1 (st+s+2t)Rm
1
e
M (tR, f ).
M ((st + s + t)R, f ) 1 +
s
t
Combining this inequality with Lemma 23 we obtain the desired inequality.
In the complex case, the Gelfond-Schneider theorem holds for every branch
of the complex logarithm. By replacing Lemma 19 with Proposition 22 in
the proof of Theorem 21 we obtain the following result.
Theorem 25. Let , Q and 6= 0, 1, and
/ Q. For any branch of
log z we have that = e log is transcendental.
Proof: Following the same set up and arguments as in the proof of Theorem
21, we find
that each of the (2S 1)2 values of yi is a zero of
PL1at the end
w
z
f (z) = v=0 av (z)e v . Let E, R and m be as defined in Proposition 22,
and let 0 be the center of the disc D(R). Taking s = 5 and t = 15 in
inequality (27), and using that
log 31
< 2.2
log 5
and
31
32
< 3.9,
5 log 5
we obtain
N (R, f ) 3(E 1) + 4Rm.
(30)
max
v{0,...,L1 }
|wv | =
max
v{0,...,L1 }
|v log | = L1 | log |.
Using the values of E and m and the upper bound for R in inequality (30)
we obtain that the number of zeros of f satisfy
N (f ) 3(L 1) + 4SL1 1 + | log |.
Using here the specific definitions L0 = bS log Sc and L1 = bS/ log Sc, we
obtain for sufficiently large S that
4S 2
S
2
+
1 + | log |
N (f ) 3 S + S log S +
log S
log S
< 4S 2 4S + 1 = (2S 1)2 .
Hence, at least two of the yi must be the same, which completes the proof.
References
Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1970) Handbook of Mathematical Functions
(with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables). Dover Publications,
New York.
Apery R (1979) Irrationalite de (2) et (3). Asterisque, 61, 11-13.
Baker A (1975) Transcendental Number Theory. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Balkema AA, Tijdeman R (1973) Some estimates in the theory of
exponential sums. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae, 24, 115-133.
Beukers F (1979) A note on the irrationality of (2) and (3). Bulletin of
the London Mathematical Society, 11, 268-272.
32
33