Proof Of Lindemann-Weierstrass Theorem

This article provides a proof of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem, using a method similar to those
used by Ferdinand von Lindemann and Karl Weierstrass. This material is taken from [1] and expanded for
clarity.
Before attacking the general case, we first use the same methods to prove two earlier theorems, namely
that both e and π are transcendental. These proofs introduce the methods to be used in the more general
theorem. At the end, we present some trivial but important corollaries.
Both e and π were both known to be irrational in the 1700’s (Euler showed the former; Lambert the
latter). But e was not shown to be transcendental until 1873 (by Hermite, see [3] and [4]), and Lindemann
showed π to be transcendental as well in the late 1870’s. He also sketched a proof of the general theorem,
which was fleshed out by Weierstrass and Hilbert among others in the late 1800’s.
The following construct is used in all three proofs. Suppose f (x) is a real polynomial, and let
 t
I(t) = et−x f (x) dx.
0

Integrating by parts, we get

t  t  t

I(t) = (−e t−x
f (x)) + et−x f  (x) dx = et f (0) − f (t) + et−x f  (x) dx.
0 0 0

Continuing, and integrating by parts a total of m = deg f times, we get


m 
m
I(t) = et f (j) (0) − f (j) (t) (1)
j=0 j=0

where f (j) (x) is the j th derivative of f .

 
If f (x) = ai xi , let F (x) = |ai |xi ; i.e., the polynomial whose coefficients are the absolute values
of those for f . Then using trivial bounds on the integrand, we get
 t
|I(t)| ≤ |et−x f (x)| dx ≤ |t| e|t| F (|t|). (2)
0

We now proceed to prove the theorems. The proofs of all three are similar, although the proof for e is the
easiest. The steps of the proofs are as follows:
• Assume the theorem is false, and write down an equation in exponential form that shows that the
number in question is algebraic (for π, we will use eiπ = −1 to write the equation in that form).
• Define a polynomial or set of polynomials f , and an associated number J (or a sequence of numbers)
that is a linear combination of the values of I at the exponents in question. The motivation for the
choice of f used in each theorem is not given in Hermite’s proof. An excellent exposition of how these
definitions are relevant to the problem is given in [2]. In essence, the ratio of the terms of I(t) in the
proof that e is transcendental relates to a Padé approximation to et ; this approximation is better the
larger deg f gets.
• Analyze J to show that it is integral and nonzero, and derive a lower bound on J.
• Use equation (2) to derive a trivial upper bound on J.
• Note that the upper bound is lower than the lower bound, disproving the original assumption.
The “magic” in the proof consists of finding the appropriate choice of f , as well as in defining the
transformation I to begin with. Once that is done, the work in the proof is in showing J integral (which is

1
harder for the more general theorems) and in deriving the lower bound. But the outline of the proof remains
the same across all three theorems.

Theorem 1. e is transcendental.

Proof. Suppose not, so that e is algebraic. Then e satisfies some integer polynomial ai xi = 0 with
a0 = 0. This means that
a0 + a1 e + a2 e2 + · · · + an en = 0.
Let p be a (sufficiently large) prime, define a polynomial of degree m = (n + 1)p − 1 by

f (x) = xp−1 (x − 1)p · · · (x − n)p

and let
= a0 I(0) + a1 I(1) + · · · + an I(n).
We derive two sets of inconsistent bounds on J, thus showing that the original hypothesis is false and e is
transcendental.
First, apply equation (1) to J:


n
J= ak I(k)
k=0
⎛ ⎞

n 
m 
m
= ak ⎝ e k f (j) (0) − f (j) (k)⎠
k=0 j=0 j=0


n 
m 
n 
m
= ak e k f (j) (0) − ak f (j) (k)
k=0 j=0 k=0 j=0


m 
n
=− ak f (j) (k)
j=0 k=0

where m = (n + 1)p − 1 = deg f and the last equality follows because of the assumed linear dependence
of the powers of e. Consider the values of f (j) (k). If j < p − 1, then none of the factors in f vanish by
differentiation, so that f (j) (k) = 0 for all k. If j = p − 1, then only the initial factor xp−1 can vanish in any
term in f (j) (x), and so f (j) (k) = 0 if k > 0. In the case where j = p − 1, k = 0, the only term in the derivative
that contributes a nonzero value is the term where xp−1 is differentiated each time; that term gives

f (p−1) (0) = (p − 1)!(−1)np (n!)p .

Finally, if j ≥ p, then the terms in f (j) (k) that are nonzero are those terms in which (x − k)p has been
differentiated away; in these cases, the terms have a leading coefficient that is thus a multiple of p!. Now
assume p > n; then f (p−1) (0) is a multiple of (p − 1)! but not of p!. Putting together the above computations,
we get
J = N p! + a0 M (p − 1)! = (p − 1)!(N p + a0 M )
where M, N are integers and p  | M . Assume also p > a0 ; then N p + a0 M must be nonzero and thus
|J| ≥ (p − 1)!.
On the other hand, obviously F (k) ≤ (2n)m and thus

a n en
|J| ≤ |a1 |eF (1) + · · · |an |nen F (n) ≤ a n en (2n)(n+1)p−1 = ((2n)n+1 )p ≤ cp
2n
2
where a = max(|a1 |, . . . , |an |) and c is some constant that does not depend on p.
But for p large enough, (p − 1)! > cp no matter what c is, so these two bounds on J are contradictory. 

Theorem 2. π is transcendental.
Proof. Again suppose not. Then iπ is also algebraic. Suppose the minimal polynomial, f , of iπ has
degree d, say
d
f (x) = ai xi
i=0

with a0 = 0, and let θ1 = iπ, θ2 , . . . , θd be the conjugates of iπ (the other roots of f ). Then since eiπ = −1,
we have
(1 + eθ1 )(1 + eθ2 ) · · · (1 + eθd ) = 0
Note that since θi is algebraic for each i, then ad θi is an algebraic integer.
Each term in this product can be written as a power of e, where the exponent is of the form

β1 ,...,d = 1 θ1 + 2 θ2 + · · · + d θd

and each i is either 0 or 1. Denote by α1 , . . . , αn those exponents that are nonzero. Note that at least one
exponent is zero, and thus n < 2d . We then have

(2d − n) + eα1 + · · · eαn (3)

We will show that if we define f by

f (x) = anp
d x
p−1
(x − α1 )p · · · (x − αn )p

with p a (sufficiently large) prime, then

J = I(α1 ) + · · · + I(αn )

satisfies the same incompatible bounds as in the previous theorem.

Let m = deg f = (n + 1)p − 1. As before, we see that


n
J= I(αk )
k=1
⎛ ⎞

n 
m 
m
= ⎝eαk f (j) (0) − f (j) (αk )⎠
k=1 j=0 j=0


n 
m 
n 
m
= eαk f (j) (0) − f (j) (αk )
k=1 j=0 k=1 j=0


m 
m 
n
= (n − 2d ) f (j) (0) − f (j) (αk )
j=0 j=0 k=1

where the last equality follows from equation (3).

The remainder of the proof is quite similar to the above proof for e, except that we must first show
that the sum over k above is an integer; this was clear in the previous theorem.
Consider the inner sum over k. It is clear that this is a symmetric polynomial with integer coefficients in
ad α1 , . . . , ad αn . The ad αi are algebraic integers since the ad θi are. By the fundamental theorem of symmetric

3
polynomials, it follows that the inner sum is in fact a polynomial in the elementary symmetric functions on
the ad αi . Since the αi are the nonzero elements of the β... , we see that the sum is also a polynomial in the
elementary symmetric functions of the ad β... , and thus is a symmetric polynomial with integer coefficients in
the ad θi . Again applying the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials, we see that the sum over k
must be a polynomial in the elementary symmetric functions of the ad θi . But these elementary symmetric
functions are simply the coefficients of the minimal polynomial of ad iπ, which are integers. Thus the inner
sum is an integer.
By arguments identical to those in the previous theorem, we have that f (j) (αk ) = 0 when j < p and
thus that f (j) (αk ) is an integral multiple of p!; that f (j) (0) is an integral multiple of p! when j = p − 1;
and that f (p−1) (0) = (p − 1)!(−ad )np (α1 . . . αn )p is an integral multiple of (p − 1)! but is not divisible by
p if p is chosen to exceed ad α1 . . . αn . Thus if also p > n − 2d , we have that J is nonzero and divisible
by (p − 1)! and thus |J| ≥ (p − 1)!. But again, similar to the proof in the previous theorem, we have that
|J| ≤ |α1 |e|α1 | F......s + |α1 |e|αn | F (|αn |) ≤ cp and again these estimates are contradictory. 
The Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem generalizes both these two statements and their proofs.

Theorem 3. If α1 , . . . , αn are algebraic and distinct, and if β1 , . . . , βn are algebraic and non-zero, then
β1 eα1 + · · · βn eαn = 0 Note that the facts that e and π are transcendental follow trivially from this theorem.

For example, if e were algebraic, then e is the root of a polynomial βi xi where βi ∈ Q, in contradiction to
the theorem.
Proof. The proof follows the same general lines as above, but there are additional complexities in-
troduced by the arbitrary αi . In the proof of the transcendality of π, we were able to use facts about the
relationship of the exponents in the proof; no such relationship is available to us in this more general setting.
Again start by supposing
β1 eα1 + · · · βn eαn = 0 (4)

where the αi , βi are as given. Claim we can assume, without loss of generality, that βi ∈ Z. For if not, take
all the expressions formed by substituting for one or more of the βi one of its conjugates, and multiply those
by the equation above. The result is a new expression of the same form (with different αi ), but where the
coefficients are rational numbers. Clear denominators, proving the claim.
Next, claim we can assume that the αi are a complete set of conjugates, and that if αi , αj are con-
jugates, then βi = βj . To see this, choose an irreducible integral polynomial having α1 , . . . , αn as roots; let
αn+1 , . . . , αN be the remaining roots, and define βn+1 = . . . βN = 0. Then clearly we have

(β1 eασ(1) + · · · βN eασ(N ) ) = 0

σ∈SN

(Note the similarity with the proof for π). There are N ! factors in this product, so expanding the product,
it is a sum of terms of the form
eh1 α1 +···hN αN

with integral coefficients, and h1 + · · · + hN = N !. Clearly the set of all such exponents forms a complete
set of conjugates. By symmetry considerations, we see that the coefficients of two conjugate terms are equal.
Also, the product is not identically zero. To see this, consider the term in the product formed by multiplying
together, from each factor, the nonzero terms with the largest exponents in the lexicographic order on C.
Since the αi are unique (because the polynomial is irreducible), there is only one term with this largest
exponent, and it has a nonzero coefficient by construction.
Finally, order the terms so that the conjugates of a particular αi appear together. That is, for the
remainder of the proof we may assume that

β1 eα1 + · · · + βn eαn = 0

4
with the βi ∈ Z, and that there are integers 0 = n0 < n1 < · · · < nr = n chosen so that, foreach 0 ≤ t < n
we have
αnt +1 , αnt +2 , . . . , αnt+1

form a complete set of conjugates

βnt +1 = βnt +2 = · · · βnt+1

Now, since αi , βi are algebraic, we can choose l such that lαi , lβi are algebraic integers. Let

((x − α1 ) · · · (x − αn ))p
fi (x) = lnp , 1≤i≤n
(x − αi )

where again p is a (large) prime. We will develop contradictory estimates for |J1 . . . Jn |, where

Ji = β1 Ii (α1 ) + · · · + βn Ii (αn ), 1 ≤ i ≤ n

and Ii is the integral associated with fi , as above (see equation (1)).

Using equations (1) and (4), we see that


n
Ji = βk Ii (αk )
k=1
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞

n 
np−1
(j)

n 
np−1
(j)
= ⎝βk eαk fi (0)⎠ − ⎝ βk fi (αk )⎠
k=1 j=0 k=1 j=0
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞

np−1
(j)

n 
n 
np−1
(j)
=⎝ fi (0)⎠ βk eαk − ⎝ βk fi (αk )⎠
j=0 k=1 k=1 j=0

 
np−1 n 
(j)
=− βk fi (αk ) .
j=0 k=1

(j)
Arguing similarly to the foregoing proofs, we see that fi (αk ) is an algebraic integer divisible by p!
unless j = p − 1 and k = i. In this particular case, we have that

n
fip−1 (αi ) = lnp (p − 1)! (αi − αk )p
k=1
k=i

and so again, if p is large enough, this is divisible by (p − 1)! but not by p!. Thus Ji is a nonzero algebraic
integer divisible by (p − 1)! but not by p!. As before, we can prove that Ji = 0.
Ji can be written as follows:

 
np−1 r−1   
(j) (j) (j)
Ji = − βnt+1 fi (αnt +1 ) + fi (αnt +2 ) + · · · + fi αnt+1
j=0 t=0

Note that by construction, fi (x) can be written as a polynomial whose coefficients are polynomials in αi , and
the integral coefficients of those polynomials are integers independent of i. Thus, noting that the αi form a
complete set of conjugates and using the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials as in the previous
proof, we see that the product of the Ji is in fact a rational number. But it is an algebraic integer, hence an

5
integer. Thus J1 · . . . · Jn ∈ Z, and it is divisible by ((p − 1)!)n . Thus |J1 · · · Jn | ≥ (p − 1)!. But the same
estimate as in the previous proofs shows that for each i,


n 
n
|Ji | ≤ |βk | |Ii (αk )| ≤ |βk αk | e|αk | Fi (|αk |)
k=1 k=1

which as before is ≤ cp for some sufficiently large c. These estimates are again in contradiction, proving the
theorem. 
Note that Theorems 1 and 2 are trivial corollaries of Theorem 3, as one would expect. (To prove that
π is transcendental, note that if it were algebraic, then eiπ = −1 would be transcendental).
Here are some other more or less trivial corollaries.

Corollary 4. If α = 0 is algebraic, then eiα is transcendental.

Proof. If it were algebraic, say eiα = β, then we have

eiα − βe0 = 0

in contradiction to the above theorem since α = 0. 

Corollary 5. If α = 0 is algebraic, then cos α and sin α are both transcendental.

Proof. Recall that cos α + i sin α = eiα , which is transcendental. If either cos α or sin α were algebraic,
then the other would be as well (and thus their sum would be) since cos2 α + sin2 α = 1. Therefore, both
cos α and sin α are transcendental. 

Corollary 6. If α > 0 is algebraic with α = 1, then ln α is transcendental.

Proof. If β = ln α, then eβ = α. By Corollary 4, since α is algebraic, β cannot be. 

References
[1] A. Baker, Transcendental Number Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[2] H. Cohn, A Short Proof of the Simple Continued Fraction Expansion of e, American Mathematical
Monthly, Jan. 2006, pp. 57-62.
[3] C. Hermite, Sur la fonction exponentielle, Compte Rendu Acad. Sci. 77 (1873) 18-24, 74-79, 226-233,
and 285-293; also in uvres, v. 3, Gauthier-Villiers, Paris, 1912 pp. 150-181.
[4] U. G. Mitchell, M. Strain, Osiris, Vol. 1, Jan. 1936, pp. 476-496.