Posted by: Dave Richeson | September 28, 2010

The transcendence of e (part 2)

This is the second part in a 3-part blog post in which we prove that {e} is transcendental.

Three-step proof that e is transcendental
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3

Recall that in step 1 we proved the following lemma.

Lemma 1. Suppose {e} is a root of the polynomial {\varphi(x)=c_{0}+c_{1}x+c_{2}x^{2}+\cdots+c_{n}x^{n}}. Let {f} be a polynomial and {F(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}f^{(i)}(x)}. Then there exist {\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in(0,1)} such that {c_{0}F(0)+\cdots+c_{n}F(n)=c_{1}\beta_{1}+\cdots+c_{n}\beta_{n}}, where {\beta_{k}=-ke^{k(1-\alpha_{k})}f(k\alpha_{k})}.

Step 2.

Now we are ready pick a specific polynomial {f} for Lemma 1. Since there are infinitely many primes, we can find a prime number {p} greater than both {n} and {c_{0}}. Let

\displaystyle f(x)=\frac{x^{p-1}(1-x)^{p}(2-x)^{p}\cdots(n-x)^{p}}{(p-1)!}.

Our goal for this step is to show that {c_{0}F(0)+\cdots+c_{n}F(n)} is a nonzero integer. In fact we will show is that it is an integer not divisible by {p}, which implies that it is nonzero.

We will accomplish this by proving that for {m=1,\ldots n}, {F(m)} (and hence {c_{m}F(m)}) is an integer divisible by {p}, but that {c_{0}F(0)} is an integer that is not divisible by {p}.

First we state but do not prove the following lemma. (This is a homework problem in Herstein.)

Lemma 2. If {g} is a polynomial with integer coefficients and {h(x)=g(x)/(p-1)!}, then for {i\ge p}, {h^{(i)}} is a polynomial with integer coefficients, each of which is divisible by {p}.

Applying Lemma 2 to our function {f} we see that when {i\ge p}, {f^{(i)}(x)} is a polynomial with integer coefficients, each of which is divisible by {p}. In particular, when {i\ge p} and {m} is any integer, {f^{(i)}(m)} is an integer that is divisible by {p}.

Now let us restrict our attention to {m\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}. From the definition of {f} we see that {m} is a root of {f} with multiplicity {p}. The following lemma tells us that {f(m)=f^{(1)}(m)=\cdots=f^{(p-1)}(m)=0}. (We leave the proof of this lemma as an exercise for the reader.)

Lemma 3. Suppose {x_{0}} is a root of a polynomial {g} with multiplicity {m}. Then {g^{(k)}(x_{0})=0} for {k=0,\ldots,m-1}.



We know from above that each of the terms {f^{(p)}(m),\cdots,f^{(r)}(m)} is an integer divisible by {p}. Thus {F(m)} is an integer divisible by {p}.

Now let us consider {m=0}. By the definition of {f}, {0} is a root with multiplicity {p-1}. By Lemma 3, {f(0)=f^{(1)}(0)=\cdots=f^{(p-2)}(0)=0}.



From the result above, we know that {f^{(p)}(0),\cdots,f^{(r)}(0)} are all divisible by {p}. What about {f^{(p-1)}(0)}?

If we multiply out the terms in {f}, we obtain

\displaystyle f(x)=\frac{(n!)^{p}}{(p-1)!}x^{p-1}+\{\text{higher order terms in }x\}


\displaystyle f^{(p-1)}(x)=(n!)^{p}+\{\text{higher order terms in }x\},

and hence {f^{(p-1)}(0)=(n!)^{p}}. Since {p>n}, {p} does not divide {f^{(p-1)}(0)}. Therefore {p} does not divide {F(0)}. Moreover, {p>c_{0}}, so {p} does not divide {c_{0}}. We conclude that {p} does not divide {c_{0}F(0)}.

Finally this implies that {c_{0}F(0)+\cdots+c_{n}F(n)} is an integer not divisible by {p}. In particular, it is a nonzero integer.

We are almost finished with the proof. In the next step we will show that {|c_{1}\beta_{1}+\cdots+c_{n}\beta_{n}|<1}, thus it cannot be a nonzero integer and we will obtain our sought-after contradiction.

About these ads


  1. […] The transcendence of e (part 2) […]

  2. […] proof that is transcendental Step 1 Step 2 Step […]

  3. Thanks for posting this, it’s very helpful. I have one question though, I know I’m being stupid but I can’t seem to prove lemma 2. I’d really appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

    • For simplicity, suppose g(x)=x^n. Then \displaystyle h^{(i)}(x)=\frac{n(n-1)\cdots(n-i+1)}{(p-1)!}x^{n-i}. Rewritten, the coefficient is \displaystyle \frac{n!}{(p-1)!(n-i)!}=(i(i-1)\cdots p)\frac{n!}{i!(n-i)}=(i(i-1)\cdots p){{n}\choose{i}}. Seen in this way, it is clearly an integer divisible by p.

  4. Thanks a lot for your help, I really should have been able to work that out myself!

  5. Sorry to bother you again, but I’ve been trying to prove that $e^{m/n}$ is transcendental, where $m>0$ and $n$ are integers (it’s an exercise in Herstein on p.178), but I’ve had no luck. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers

%d bloggers like this: