Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
x

Unlock these great extras with your FREE membership

  • One-on-one advice about results day and Clearing
  • Free access to our personal statement wizard
  • Customise TSR to suit how you want to use it

Use proof by contradiction to prove that log2(3) is irrational.

Announcements Posted on
Find your uni forum to get talking to other applicants, existing students and your future course-mates 27-07-2015
Win top prizes in our mega results day giveaway... 24-07-2015
  1. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ??? Saw this in a C3 Solomon paper. How do I do it?
  2. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What is log2(3)?
  3. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    \log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} \Leftrightarrow 3^q = 2^p...
  4. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drederick Tatum)
    What is log2(3)?
    Sorry, the 2 is the base of the log
  5. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SimonM)
    \log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} \Leftrightarrow 3^q = 2^p...
    Whaaat? Are we supposed to have covered this in C3? I've never come across this type of question before.
  6. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Expand it out in terms of p/q
  7. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pimpman777)
    Whaaat? Are we supposed to have covered this in C3? I've never come across this type of question before.
    I'm surprised it's on C3, but I don't think anything I've written is off syllabus
  8. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh OK, I guess I have some more revision to do on logs lol
  9. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You may as well assume p and q are positive integers (in what simon M has said) since the log(3) > log(2) = 1.
  10. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    An answer, in two stages: stop after first if you think you can see rest:
    Stage 1:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    So as SimonM did above, we do this:
    (Original post by SimonM)
    \log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} \Leftrightarrow 3^q = 2^p...
    What we are doing here is assuming that \log_2 3 is a rational number: i.e. is the rato of two integers p and q. This implies that for some integer p, q, 3^q = 2^p (by rearrangement really).

    Stage 2:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Note that 3 and 2 are mutually prime: i.e. they share no factors (and are in fact both actual prime numbers). But these numbers, 3^q and  2^p, are meant to be equal and must therefore have the same, unique, prime number expansion. However if they don't share any factors... So p and q do not exist: there are no integers p and q for which the equality is true.

    Hence our original assumption led to a contradiction: so \log_2 3 is not rational (so it is irrational).

    Bingo!
  11. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salavant)
    An answer, in two stages: stop after first if you think you can see rest:
    Stage 1:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    So as SimonM did above, we do this:

    What we are doing here is assuming that \log_2 3 is a rational number: i.e. is the rato of two integers p and q. This implies that for some integer p, q, 3^q = 2^p (by rearrangement really).

    Stage 2:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Note that 3 and 2 are mutually prime: i.e. they share no factors (and are in fact both actual prime numbers). But these numbers, 3^q and  2^p, are meant to be equal and must therefore have the same, unique, prime number expansion. However if they don't share any factors... So p and q do not exist: there are no integers p and q for which the equality is true.

    Hence our original assumption led to a contradiction: so \log_2 3 is not rational (so it is irrational).

    Bingo!
    Thanks for that I'm still very baffled on why it came up on the C3 paper though, we've never been through this
  12. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pimpman777)
    Oh OK, I guess I have some more revision to do on logs lol
    The solomon papers where madeon the old syllabus, proof by contradiction isn't on it anymore.
  13. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    The solomon papers where madeon the old syllabus, proof by contradiction isn't on it anymore.
    Oh right that explains it
  14. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i stil do not understand
  15. Offline

    (Original post by misstee91)
    i stil do not understand
    Proof by contradiction is a method of proof whereby you assume the conclusion is false, and then show this assumption leads to something which can't be true (e.g. 1=0 or "2 is odd").

    A number is rational if it is in the form \dfrac{p}{q}, where p,q are integers (q \ne 0).

    Piecing this together, we want to show that \log_2 3 is irrational; i.e. that it can't be written in the form \dfrac{p}{q} for any integers p,q. So, we start our proof by assuming that there exist integers p,q (q nonzero) such that \log_2 3 = \dfrac{p}{q}.

    By the definition of logarithms, this gives 3 = 2^{p/q}, and raising both sides to the power of q gives 3^q=2^p. This can only happen if p=q=0, but we can't have q=0 so this can't be true, so the assumption can't be true, so it must be false; hence the proposition is true.
  16. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    nuodai, would you be able to just explain the last stage of this? I don’t quite see why there are no integers p and q for which 2^p=3^q
    10^4=100^2 but there the bases have common factors. Is that the point?
  17. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plato's Trousers)
    but surely that only proves there is only one solution of 3^x=2^x (ie x=0). But it doesn't imply that there cannot be two different integers (p and q) for which 2^p=3^q does it?

    Sorry, if I'm being thick
    2^p=3^q=n

    If p and q are not zero then n has two different prime factorisations. This is not possible. You might want to check the proof of that statement.

    It's probably on this page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame..._of_arithmetic
  18. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Get me off the £\?%!^@ computer)
    2^p=3^q=n

    If p and q are not zero then n has two different prime factorisations. This is not possible. You might want to check the proof of that statement.

    It's probably on this page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame..._of_arithmetic
    aha! Eureka! Thank you :yes:
  19. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Rather than resort to FTA, in this case it is surely simpler to note that 2^p is even, while 3^q is odd.

    (Which some will say is just a special case of the FTA, but I think what I've said is much more accessible at C1-C4 level).
  20. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Rather than resort to FTA, in this case it is surely simpler to note that 2^p is even, while 3^q is odd.
    Oh yes! Nice one.
Updated: January 24, 2013
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll do better or worse than your predicted grades?
New on TSR

Results are coming...

No sweat. Here's all you need to make sure you're ready

Study resources
x

Think you'll be in clearing or adjustment?

Hear direct from unis that want to talk to you

Get email alerts for university course places that match your subjects and grades. Just let us know what you're studying.

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.